Up in smoke: Boston considers ban of smoking bars

[The Straight Story]

Up in smoke: Boston considers ban of smoking bars

Associated Press - December 6, 2008 12:54 PM ET

BOSTON (AP) - Smoke 'em while you got 'em in Boston's smoking bars.

The city's public health commission is considering shutting down the city's cigar bars and hookah bars in what would be 1 of the most restrictive bans in the nation.

The commission is scheduled to vote on a proposal Thursday that would also ban tobacco sales at Boston's pharmacies and universities in 60 days.

The smoking bars would have to close within five years.

The bars were exempt from the city workplace smoking ban that went into effect in 2004. But health officials say tougher rules are needed because smoking is so dangerous.

http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=9469333

[DJ13]

1. Velcome To Amerika!

You vil do as vee say.

[Greyhound]

4. The scariest thing is that so many are just fine with this level of intrusion.

Do they not understand the concept of precedent?

[CreekDog]

damn straight i'm fine with it

you can smoke somewhere else.

employees have a right to work without the increased risk of lung cancer and respiratory disease created by smoking, which is optional, does the 2nd hand breather no good whatsoever.

and everytime one of these threads come up i chime in the same way.

you don't have a constitutional right to smoke in a bar and expose others to your cigarette smoke. the state has a duty to protect employees from hazardous working conditions.

and i don't want to hear any crap about all risks, this is a big risk and it is a needless one. we are not talking about preventing transportation, preventing things we can't control like hurricanes and earthquakes, we are talking about limiting places where you can smoke.

you can still smoke because you can do it elsewhere and you should do it alone because it's not doing anybody a damned bit of good, including yourself.

[Greyhound]

15. No, we're never talking about those things, until we are. Thanks for making my point. n/t

[CreekDog]

26. that was pretty cryptic

:eyes:

[hughee99]

18. Would you be okay with it

if all employees at a CIGAR bar were required to wear level "A" hazmat suits with the SCBA (breathing apparatus)? Presumably, employees knew going in that there would be smoking in their workplace and had the option to not take that job and instead work at one of the hundreds of other non-smoking bars in Massachusetts. Soon, they'll be out of a job and won't have a choice at all.

And what does second hand smoke have to do with where tobacco is sold (pharmacies and universities)?

[CreekDog]

27. if the state bans smoking in workplaces, then smoking bars are also workplaces

...unless they are staffed by robots.

regarding the ban on sales in pharmacies and universities, well, we restrict sales of liquor too. there is a societal interest in making tobacco less available even though we don't ban it outright.

smoking's on the way out. it won't go away completely, but fewer and fewer people are smoking and that's a good thing. smoking restrictions in workplaces, public places and tightening of tobacco marketing have all helped bring this about, in addition to education.

i'm perfectly fine with all this.

and you can still smoke, you can still buy smokes, you just can't do it in as many places as you used to. all perfectly reasonable.

[hughee99]

30. My question was that if second hand smoke for workers

was not a concern (see hazmat suit, or as you bring up, robots), would it still be objectionable in workplaces (specifically Cigar and Hookah bars)?

[apocalypsehow]

19. Uh, your reading skills could use some help. These were CIGAR bars, not regular bars.

Reading comprehension, it's what for dinner! :thumbsup:

[CreekDog]

28. yup, but they have employees too

i doubt worker's compensation differentiates --it's just not how those rules/laws are written.

and if you look at my posting history, you'll see that i consistently support greater restrictions on smoking and tobacco, although not outright prohibition.

my reasoning is that nobody should be exposed to second hand smoke in a public place. actually, nobody should be exposed to second hand smoke period. it is harmful and unlike other activities where we are potentially harmed, there is no benefit received by the person exposed to second hand smoke.

and further restrictions have resulted in fewer and fewer smokers. many people i know have either completely quit smoking or reduced their smoking substantially. they have all said that smoking bans in workplaces were key to getting them to quit or cut back. when i worked at a hospital smoking was not allowed inside so some coworkers would go outside on breaks to smoke (they were smoking less than when it was allowed inside). then the hospital banned smoking on the property, period. my two coworkers who smoked quit --they didn't complain, they quit. heck they wanted to quit. most smokers if not 99% of smokers i've known all want to quit. fine with me, help them quit.

commence firing.

[apocalypsehow]

31. Now you're going to act like you read the article before you started posting nonsense. Fine.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

32. I did not post nonsense

Neither did I read the article. :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

35. That incoherent reply speaks for, *ahem*, itself. n/t.

[Lyric]

43. And their employees are going to be UNEMPLOYED soon

because a cigar bar cannot exist in a city that has banned smoking in all bars.

Go ask one of those employees if they'd rather lose their jobs than deal with smoke at work. I suspect that you aren't going to get an answer that's supportive of your viewpoint.

They chose to work there, and now they won't have a job at ALL. In case you hadn't noticed, jobs are becoming awfully scarce lately, and unemployment rates have skyrocketed. It's not like there's another job just waiting around the corner for everyone. If people are willing to take the risk in order to remain employed, they should have the right to do that. They're adults--not children. Adults do not need nannies to tell us what we are and are not permitted to do with our own bodies.

[DrCory]

22. Did you at least hear the shell whistling over your head? N/T

[CreekDog]

25. more than one actually

:hi:

[orleans]

34. do you not know what cigar bars and hookah bars are?

that's what they are there for--their purpose IS for smoking, cigars and hookah bowls filled with flavored tobacco--they are not regular "bars" so don't get so fucking self-righteous ("damn straight--you can smoke somewhere else!" crap),

around here the hookah bars are not even allowed to sell food. you have to go next door and get food and bring it back. they serve drinks, but i don't think they serve alcohol. their purpose is selling smoke. you ban the smoke and the place closes. i am not familiar with cigar bars but i suspect they are very similar in design.

yes! let's put more people out of business in this great fucking economy!

:sarcasm:

btw--just for clarification: i have NOT gone to either a hookah bar or a cigar bar, nor do i partake of hookahs or cigars. but my daughter has gone to a hookah bar a few times--they are quite a novelty to her, and she has had a couple bowls with her friends. (she doesn't smoke other than in a hookah bar that she has gone to probably no more than twice in the past year).

maybe "every time one of these threads come up" you ought not "chime in the same way" and instead take a moment to consider what the fuck someone is actually talking about.

[NaturalHigh]

42. Well, when these cigar bars are closed down for lack of business...

(and I'm assuming there won't be much business in "cigar bars" once cigar smoking is banned) I guess all the unemployed former workers can take solace in the fact that at least they won't be exposed to second-hand smoke any more.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. How soon before tobacco is illegal

and there is a "War on Cigarettes" to help populate the prisons?

[SoCalDem]

5. yes.. lets.. because we all know how successful prohibition was

:rofl:

as more states do this, their tax revenues just fall..and more people entertain at home..:)

I go to Vegas evey year..and have been going since 1991.. When the smoking-cops started their campaign, casinos got on board and cordoned off large sections of their casinos for non-smokers... In the beginning, I guess it was ok for them, but as the years have gone by, those areas have shrunk and shrunk, and the signs are a lot fewer now.. I guess they prefer butts in the seats, even if it means there are also butts in the nearby ashtrays:)

[meegbear]

3. As a cigar smoker in Boston, I have to say ...

FUCK YOU BOSTON! They already banned smoking in other bars. And tacking it onto banning sales at pharmacies and universities means it'll pass.

No matter, since they're planning to raise the tolls to get into the city from where I am to $7, I won't be heading in much.

[jmowreader]

6. This is patently ridiculous

I can see banning smoking in drinking bars, or MAYBE allowing the barkeepers to have one room for smoking and one for non-smoking patrons. Yes, it smacks of "separate but equal," but it might work here.

But banning smoking at a cigar bar? Uhh...how's that supposed to work? Tell the barkeepers, "either go into a new line of work or close your doors"? It's evident by the sign on the door that says "CIGAR BAR" that people smoke cigars in there.

[lib2DaBone]

7. Yes..let's have a black market in cigarettes......

When the price hits $100 a pack we can have drive by shootings. We can station S.W.A.T. teams outside office buildings in the morning and bust people as they stand there with a cup of coffee and a smoke.

If we really want to fill up the prisons with cheap labor we can ban coffee and caffeine. Make them all "controlled substances". It's to protect 'the children', you know. Gateway drugs.

[JuniperLea]

8. As an ex-smoker who never thought she'd say this...

I live in Los Angeles; we've had smoke-free restaurants and bars for nearly a decade. The first half of said decade I was pissed as hell at what I felt were my rights being taken away. In the second half, I've been very happy to be able to enjoy smoke-free public environments.

Smokers do have the right to smoke, but they really don't have the right to exclude the segment of the population who cannot tolerate the smell, have serious smoke-related health concerns, or just plain don't want to breath your putrid second-hand cancer dust, from enjoying public places.

My b/f and I quit together. He recently experienced a smoking casino in another state... I guess I really can't repeat the report here.

I smoked for over 30 years, and I can honestly say I'm embarrassed by how I must have smelled during that time. I gag now (trying not to be rude and obvious) when I get on the elevators in my office building and a smoker is there, coming back from a break. It makes me physically ill to smell cigarette and cigar smoke now... like I said, I never thought I'd say such things. Perspective IS everything.

Edited because I forgot the most important part! Jeez!

I think special bars for smokers is a good thing... keep y'all corralled together and away from me! LOL!!

The smoking ban has NOT caused a drop in revenue in LA... just saying. I don't want to subject my lungs to this bullshit for the love of money anyway.

[DJ13]

10. You DO understand they are talking about smoking bars, right?

I mean, if you dont smoke great.

But if you dont smoke you wouldnt frequent a smoking bar anyway, would you?

[JuniperLea]

13. Did you read the whole post?

I think not.

[DJ13]

16. You're right, I missed the last part. Im sorry!

[JuniperLea]

24. No worries...

I don't know why, but I felt the need to share my perspective... then I almost forgot the last bit!

[Mari333]

9. pass the popcorn, salt it good.

:popcorn:

[no_hypocrisy]

11. One more thing for Alan Shore and Denny Crane to get worked up about,

while puffing on their own smoking patio.

[hughee99]

12. Pretty soon, the Boston telecast of Boston Legal will be required

to edit out the smoking scenes, and they'll institute a fine for anyone who describes someone as "smokin' hot".

[Blue-Jay]

14. Let's just start hitting smokers with baseball bats.

They have it coming, am I right?

[gollygee]

17. That's pretty harsh

I can understand not wanting people to smoke in restaurants and even drinking bars because the employees shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I'm thinking that everyone who works in a smoking bar would be aware upon taking the job that there would be smoke there. It's kind of like the pharmacist not wanting to sell birth control - if you take a job in a smoking bar, you can hardly complain about people smoking there. And as far as not selling ciggies at pharmacies and universities, well maybe pharmacies I can see, but it's legal to smoke at 18 and most college students are over that age. That seems ridiculous.

And I am a non-smoker.

[noamnety]

39. The premise behind OSHA

is that employers can't skirt safety laws by simply informing the workers that conditions at their workplace don't meet OSHA standards, even if the employees are willing to risk their health in return for a job.

That's an entirely different matter from pharmacists refusing to do their job. One has to do with endangering the health of the employees themselves through toxic work conditions; the other has to do with an employee refusing to do a portion of their job because of personal beliefs.

[DonEBrook]

20. More Nanny-statism. What a country.

:grr:

[CreekDog]

29. what are other examples of "nanny-ism" that you don't approve of?

besides the smoking related ones.

[DonEBrook]

40. All of them. I resent the way our once relatively self-sufficient country has been reduced

to a bunch of whining baby shitheads.

[Jack Sprat]

38. This is why I'm against all gun control legislation.

If people cannot smoke in public, they need to have the option of shooting up the place.

[RedCappedBandit]

21. No smoking in a hookah bar?

well wtf else would a person do there?

[Cetacea]

23. I guess they won't be getting any bizz from the prez.

If only cities and the government were that restrictive with automobiles...

[youthere]

33. This is so stupid...

Here in Iowa they passed a smoking ban and the only exemption is for casino's and designated "smoking" hotel rooms. It's just outrageous. If a person purchases a business (like a bar) they ought to be able to decide what they will allow within that business (so long as it's legal). It's the business owner that assumes the "risk" even if that means loss of business because smoking is allowed. A prime example is a restaurant in the next town over. My husband and I loved the food there, but we rarely ate there because they allowed smoking inside, and you often waded through a "cloud" of smoke when you came in the door. Neither of us smoke and we didn't like coming out with our clothes stinking of cigarettes. Now, the owner knew there were people that didn't eat there because of it, and he accepted that. It shouldn't be up to the government to tell him he MUST ban smoking, because he already decided he was willing to accept the loss of business. My husband and I chose other places to eat at because we knew we didn't like the smoke there.
If someone opens a business that specifically caters to smokers, they KNOW darn well non-smokers aren't going to patronize them...and if non-smokers DO come in, they've got no business complaining. Why the HECK would a non-smoker want to be in a cigar bar anyway?
This has just gotten silly.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. Christopher Reeve's wife died of lung cancer and did not smoke.

She was a singer and actress who said that she sang in many smoky bars.

10 to 15% of newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer are in people who have never smoked.

[GarbagemanLB]

45. Was she forced to take jobs at smoky bars?

[Jack Sprat]

37. They might as well close down.

Just like the restaurants and cafes, nobody want to go there anymore. Without smokes, who feels like eating or drinking?

[Lyric]

44. They WILL close down. They're smoking bars--not drinking bars.

Hookah bars and cigar bars exist SOLELY to cater to people who enjoy interesting varieties of tobacco. Banning smoking at a smoking bar is like banning food sales at a restaurant. Their source of business revenue, along with their ENTIRE customer base, would be prohibited by law.

Yeah, that's just what we need right now. More unemployment and businesses shutting down. *sigh*

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. Well, that's not right. What about personal freedom? I'm not a fan of sitting in

a smoky room but I fail to see why other people who do like it shouldn't be allowed to.