Bar Wins Smoking Ban Case

• Prescott

  Ok so, do you think it's fair for the government to demand that private property owners cannot create an environment that would expose their employees to asbestos?

  Have their been studies that prove a causal relationship between exposure to asbestos and it's effect on the health of those exposed? If so, then the comparison is not valid.
  
  From my post above.
  
  Conclusion:
  The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (SHS) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
  
  

  oh and dont forget to add minimum wage to the list of what the govt tells private business owners what they can and cant do.

  I am not sure that the intent of your statement is proven by the minimum wage law.
  
  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
  
  Tipped employees are those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. The employer may consider tips as part of wages, but the employer must pay at least $2.13 an hour in direct wages.
  
  The irony is that if a business lost revenue due to the smoking ban then it is logical to assume that they employees lost TIPS.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes wrote: Ok so, do you think it's fair for the government to demand that private property owners cannot create an environment that would expose their employees to asbestos?

  Assuming the employee knows about the exposure going in, no. The government has no compelling reason to make such a demand.
  

  Do you think it's wrong that the government creates a law like the 40 hour work week

  No, nor a minimum wage. The contract between employee and employer requires no such interference from government.
  

  or demands that a person can not determine who works on his private property based on race, sex, color or national origin.

  I am in favor of such laws.
  

  All of these affect the bundle of personal property rights in some way for things that are relatively accepted as social goods and beneficial to the working class.

  Yes they do. And most of them are unnecessary at best and heinously intrusive at worst.
  
  Excrpt in the most extreme instances, we should err on the side of property rights.
• Glory Days

  

  Prescott wrote:
  I am not sure that the intent of your statement is proven by the minimum wage law.
  
  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
  
  Tipped employees are those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. The employer may consider tips as part of wages, but the employer must pay at least $2.13 an hour in direct wages.

  the business owner is still be told what he has to pay his/her employees. shouldnt the free market decide that? if the pay isnt good enough, the company will be forced to increase wages or fail.
• Prescott

  if the pay isnt good enough, the company will be forced to increase wages or fail.

  Actually, I agree with this. I am not a proponent of minimum wage laws.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Yes they do. And most of them are unnecessary at best and heinously intrusive at worst.
  
  Excrpt in the most extreme instances, we should err on the side of property rights.

  Ok, how do you feel about a landlord who doesn't supply heat, or perhaps the plumbing is shoddy, or the building is maintained below standards of habitability currently set by the state (but what would be far above minimal standards of living in say a third world country)...do you also not think it is justified for the people collectively through the power of the state strip away these landlord's freedom to use their personal property in the way they wish by demanding certain standards of habitability for their tenants?
  
  It seems to me if a bartendar doesn't have any bargaining position to claim a right to breath clear air (regardless of whether shs causes cancer) and must suffer through it for 40 hours per week in the name of preserving inviolable property rights endowed to us by our creator, a tenant is in no greater position and it would be just as much a violation to impose restrictions on the landlord in the name of the subtle comforts of the tenant.
  
  To me, it would not fall under "the most heinous" for landlords to neglect to provide a stove, hot water, doors with locks, non-broken windows, heating above 40 degrees, etc. all of those things can be tolerated by a reasonable person just like cigarette smoke.
• Prescott

  t seems to me if a bartendar doesn't have any bargaining position to claim a right to breath clear air

  Didn't the bartender know the working conditions when he took the job? If so, it is a ME problem. He made the choice, the choice was not made for him.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BoatShoes wrote: To me it's a workers rights issue...I don't have to go to bars to drink...but let's say someone without a college degree and who has only an employment history of working as a bartender...technically they don't "have" to work at a bar by force...but they have limited bargaining power in the employment field and they shouldn't have to be subjected to cigarette smoke at their place of employment methinks.

  Please do not act like this potential bartender can only do one thing because he/she doesn't have a college degree.
  It's not like that person would be "unlearnable".
  
  Even with this scenario, he could go bartend at a restaurant such as Applebee's (no smoking yet serves drinks)
  
  I understand that there are potential scenarios providing both pro's and cons. That brings me back, again, to the question of how far are we willing to go to push one stance while ignoring the other?
• BoatShoes

  the point is that economic realities limit the choices economic man can make in the free market and it doesn't seem fair to make workers have to choose places with poor working conditions because she needs a job just like it doesn't seem fair to have people de facto forced to choose places that are uninhabitable to live because they need a roof over their head.
  
  Right now employment is greater than 10% and socialistic unemployment benefits are being cut off...there are not very many choices with in which the economic actor is "free to choose between"
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes wrote:
  Ok, how do you feel about a landlord who doesn't supply heat, or perhaps the plumbing is shoddy, or the building is maintained below standards of habitability currently set by the state (but what would be far above minimal standards of living in say a third world country)

  Where possible, I believe in the concept of "forewarned is forearmed". If I rent an apartment knowing that the unit does not have a heating system (say in California - it might get chilly but I won't freeze), there's no reason for the government to get between a willing seller and buyer.
  
  Otherwise, as most people aren't expert in the various mechanical/structural systems in a dwelling, it makes perfect sense for the government to set and enforce rules regarding these systems being in working order.
  

  It seems to me if a bartendar doesn't have any bargaining position to claim a right to breath clear air (regardless of whether shs causes cancer) and must suffer through it for 40 hours per week in the name of preserving inviolable property rights endowed to us by our creator,

  Again, no one has a right to work for any particular business. There are literally millions of businesses in the country, perhaps instead of imposing rules on mine, the bartender could find a non-smoking establishment, or failing that, start his own. The word "must" as used in the quote above is categorically wrong.
• FairwoodKing

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote: The air belongs to everyone, not just smokers. Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.
  

  Everything in my place of business belongs to me, including the air. If you don't like the quality of my air (or anything else), you have the right to choose not to patronize my business. That ends the list of your rights as it pertains to my property.

  No, the air in your establishment does not belong to you. It belongs to everyone on this planet.
  
  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with a jerk like you.
• FairwoodKing

  The good news for me is that I don't have to put up with this here in Seattle. My rights as a non-smoker are protected. Even then I sometimes have to smell second-hand smoke, but those times are seldom and brief.
  
  As I have stated before, the smoking bans in the State of Washington are working. This is not a smoker-friendly state, so if you are a smoker, I suggest you don't move here. The taxes on cigarettes are very high and you're not allowed to smoke in or near any public building. The laws are enforced. And the best part is that the voters here are happy with these laws. There is no movement to change anything.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days wrote:
  there are also laws in place to prevent that drunk from killing you. DUI, bartenders having to cut you off etc.

  Then why are there drunk driving fatalities all the time? Weak argument bro.
  

  FairwoodKing wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote: The air belongs to everyone, not just smokers. Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.
  

  Everything in my place of business belongs to me, including the air. If you don't like the quality of my air (or anything else), you have the right to choose not to patronize my business. That ends the list of your rights as it pertains to my property.

  No, the air in your establishment does not belong to you. It belongs to everyone on this planet.
  
  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with a jerk like you.

  Then the air in your home doesn't belong to you, it belongs to all of us. So can I come in to your home if I'd like?
  
  Sorry, but even if the air belongs to all, you are not forced to go in and breathe that air.
• Prescott

  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant

  I disagree. I think the comments are from a person who believes in the free market system and a person who believes in personal responsibility.
  
  

  As I have stated before, the smoking bans in the State of Washington are working. This is not a smoker-friendly state, so if you are a smoker, I suggest you don't move here. The taxes on cigarettes are very high and you're not allowed to smoke in or near any public building. The laws are enforced. And the best part is that the voters here are happy with these laws. There is no movement to change anything.

  
  I think that is great and as a non-smoker I might choose to visit Washington someday. I don't agree with bans, but I don't like SHS.
  
  Who enforces the non-smoking laws in Washington? Do the police issue tickets ?? I am just curious.
  
  In Ohio, the state does not have the money to enforce the ban in an equitable manor. Many counties have turned the enforcement over to the state because of a lack of funding. This means that in some areas the ban is enforced, while in others it is not.
  
  BTW, the Washington ban isn't working out for everybody.
  
  ....The sagging economy took a big bite out of El Gaucho owner Paul MacKay's restaurants.
  
  "I would say 2009 was the worst year of my life of everything going south," he said......
  
  ...MacKay closed two of his upscale eateries and laid off more than 50 employees. That's on top of losses suffered since the statewide indoor smoking ban forced him to shut his cigar lounges. ....
  
  ......Seattle, we lost a million and a half million in Tacoma," he said.
  
  Top shelf liquor sales swirled out the window with the smoke.........
  
  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/85270522.html
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:
  there are also laws in place to prevent that drunk from killing you. DUI, bartenders having to cut you off etc.

  Then why are there drunk driving fatalities all the time? Weak argument bro.

  no, it doesnt completely stop them. but steps have been taken to try and prevent it from happening.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Again, no one has a right to work for any particular business. There are literally millions of businesses in the country, perhaps instead of imposing rules on mine, the bartender could find a non-smoking establishment, or failing that, start his own. The word "must" as used in the quote above is categorically wrong.

  Ok.
  
  Let's suppose we have John Q. Public who has only a high school education and cannot afford college and does not see the value in taking on debt for a bachelor's degree as he fears a jobless recovery will render his degree not worth the debt burden. He does not live in an area that offers public transportation but does not have an automobile. He lives within walking distance of a local plaza that has some retail establishments and a couple bars and restaurants. His best opportunity to earn the most amount of money would be at a decently popular bar called Shakey's and he can earn tips. His other choice of employment is either at a Dollar General or a Kmart...both of which are offering the 7.25$ minimum wage. Because times are tough, none of the places are offering full time work.
  
  John Q. wears his nicest suit that was donated to him by his local church and applies for all three jobs and manages to get offered all three. Shakey, the man who owns "Shakey's" tells John Q. "You know, I allow smoking in my bar so the air will be pretty cloudy and smell like cig smoke during your shifts"
  
  John Q, now has to decide where to work, not on economic factors alone but balance the utility of having to breathe in smoke all day in exchange for a nominally higher salary as opposed to working as a retail clerk. granted, people accept the good with the bad all the time...but often times for particularly higher wages. Football players for instance risk serious injury but the juice is worth the squeeze.
  
  John Q. Public, as many, many Americans are, is in a particularly constrained economic world. He is free to choose but not between many real, pragmatic, and flourishing choices.
  
  If we all were under a veil of ignorance, at a table, contracting together, negotiating and we weren't sure whether we would be john q. public and find ourselves in a position with little economic choice...don't you think we would be willing to contract away the right to have people smoke in our bars if we could know that we wouldn't have to balance that utility of having to breath in smoke for 50$ extra backs on our pay check?
  
  In order to have a society, to have civilization, we all sacrifice some of our power and liberty to the sovereign and if property rights are bundles of sticks, and it's better for workers to not have to make the choice to accept breathing in tobacco smoke when choosing a place of employment.
  
  This whole idea of...start his own bar or move away from family and current obligations to find this bar somewhere else...just is so far away from the real confines and constraints around real life everyday choices that it is crazy.
  
  But there'll be no convincing you. The world you want is written about in the Lord of the Flies; where life is nasty, brutish and short.
• I Wear Pants

  There shouldn't be smoking in anyone's workplace unless you work in a hookah bar or in your den. Even then you probably shouldn't smoke in your den because if you ever want to sell it you're lowering the value. And your den will smell like shit.
• Prescott

  John Q. Public could apply for a small business loan, open a smoke free bar, and live in a smoke free world.
  
  Mr. Shakey chose to open a bar that allows smoking and chooses to live with the consequences.Maybe, Mr.Shakey isn't hiring because a smoking ban went into effect and he has lost revenue.
  
  Life is all about choices.
• I Wear Pants

  People will always think the policies put in place to protect people overstep their bounds just like other people will think that they don't go far enough.
• Glory Days

  

  Prescott wrote: Mr. Shakey chose to open a bar that allows smoking and chooses to live with the consequences.Maybe, Mr.Shakey isn't hiring because a smoking ban went into effect and he has lost revenue.

  just imagine all the places that would have went out of business or had to make layoffs if the people spoke with their wallets instead of at the polls.
• FairwoodKing

  dwccrew wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:
  there are also laws in place to prevent that drunk from killing you. DUI, bartenders having to cut you off etc.

  Then why are there drunk driving fatalities all the time? Weak argument bro.
  

  FairwoodKing wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote: The air belongs to everyone, not just smokers. Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.
  

  Everything in my place of business belongs to me, including the air. If you don't like the quality of my air (or anything else), you have the right to choose not to patronize my business. That ends the list of your rights as it pertains to my property.

  No, the air in your establishment does not belong to you. It belongs to everyone on this planet.
  
  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with a jerk like you.

  Then the air in your home doesn't belong to you, it belongs to all of us. So can I come in to your home if I'd like?
  
  Sorry, but even if the air belongs to all, you are not forced to go in and breathe that air.

  What kind of an asshole comment is it that I am not forced to breathe air? What in hell do you think I am going to breathe?
  
  If you came to my home, you would be able to breathe fresh clean air. It would be the best thing that ever happened to you!
• queencitybuckeye

  FairwoodKing wrote:
  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with a jerk like you.

  You can tell who I am in real life from a positing on an internet message board? Actually, you can't, which is too bad as reading people that easily would be a highly useful and marketable skill in real life.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes wrote:
  Let's suppose we have John Q. Public who has only a high school education and cannot afford college and does not see the value in taking on debt for a bachelor's degree as he fears a jobless recovery will render his degree not worth the debt burden.

  IOW, he made a choice to listen to the chicken-littles of the world, and chose not to pursue an education.
  

  He does not live in an area that offers public transportation but does not have an automobile. He lives within walking distance of a local plaza that has some retail establishments and a couple bars and restaurants. His best opportunity to earn the most amount of money would be at a decently popular bar called Shakey's and he can earn tips. His other choice of employment is either at a Dollar General or a Kmart...both of which are offering the 7.25$ minimum wage. Because times are tough, none of the places are offering full time work.
  
  John Q. wears his nicest suit that was donated to him by his local church and applies for all three jobs and manages to get offered all three. Shakey, the man who owns "Shakey's" tells John Q. "You know, I allow smoking in my bar so the air will be pretty cloudy and smell like cig smoke during your shifts"
  

  John Q., despite making the choice earlier not to continue his education at this time, is a pretty bright guy (other than listening to people more determined to make excuses than make their way). He realizes, for example, that nothing is forever, and that breathing second-hand smoke for a short period of time is extremely unlikely to cause long-term health problems. He takes the job at "Shakey's".
  
  From day one, the owner of "Shakey's" notices that John isn't your typical employee. He shows up on time, he's never idle, he is wonderful with the customers, and he takes an interest in the business side of the operation, reading all of the trade magazines that the owner receives.
  
  One day, the owner says to John, "John, I've decided to open an additional unit, and I'd like you to be the assistant manager". John accepts.
  
  Page forward a few years. After continuing to shine at Shakey's, John accepts a similar position at "Flakey's", a competitive brand. Working for "Flakey's" has two advantages. One, they have chosen as company policy for their units to be smoke-free, and two, it's a larger company with greater opportunity.
  
  Page forward to present. John, who along the way corrected the mistake of listening to the "you can't" types, has obtained his business degree and is working on his MBA while continuing his work as area manager at "Flakey's".
  

  John Q. Public, as many, many Americans are, is in a particularly constrained economic world. He is free to choose but not between many real, pragmatic, and flourishing choices.

  In a word, nonsense. In three, bull fucking shit.
  

  This whole idea of...start his own bar or move away from family and current obligations to find this bar somewhere else...just is so far away from the real confines and constraints around real life everyday choices that it is crazy.

  Actually it happens multiple times every day. Or perhaps I am just imagining the part of life where I grow up in Sticksville, Ohio in a house smaller than a double-wide, and end up in North Carolina, of all places, making a decent living and providing a score or so of pretty good jobs in the economy. In spite of the arrogance tag applied to me by another poster in this thread, I do not possess the ego required to believe myself all that special. If I can make my way in the world, I'm pretty sure most everyone can.
  

  The world you want is written about in the Lord of the Flies; where life is nasty, brutish and short.

  My world seems to me to be quite a bit brighter than yours. Yours appears to be a place where one has no control over their life, and and success appears impossible. If it isn't impossible, those determined to make it so continue to tell people that it is, hoping that a lie told enough times becomes the truth.
• Prescott

  just imagine all the places that would have went out of business or had to make layoffs if the people spoke with their wallets instead of at the polls.

  When people vote with their wallets, the market adjusts. If people chose to drink at home because of SHS, the smart bar owners would go non-smoking in order to keep their customers.The bar owners who didn't adjust would go out of business because the business owner didn't make a smart decision. That is as it should be.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Looking back at the past year and a half, I seem to remember the issues morphing from one argument to the other.
  For instance:
  
  first: I hate going to a bar and smelling cigarette smoke! And when you leave and go home, you can smell smoke on your clothes and in your hair. It's gross and I'm sick of it!!!!!!!!!
  
  now: second hand smoke is killing me and everybody else who goes to a bar! We're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  Oh, and it stinks too!
  
  :huh: :s
• FairwoodKing

  Prescott wrote:

  Your comments are making you look like the type of person you really are: selfish and arrogant

  I disagree. I think the comments are from a person who believes in the free market system and a person who believes in personal responsibility.
  
  But people aren't responsible. That's why there are laws against drunk driving and why there are now laws against smoking in public. People who smoke in public are selfish and ignorant. I know for a fact that second-hand smoke hurts my health. That's why I'm glad there are laws to protect me from these addicts.
  

  As I have stated before, the smoking bans in the State of Washington are working. This is not a smoker-friendly state, so if you are a smoker, I suggest you don't move here. The taxes on cigarettes are very high and you're not allowed to smoke in or near any public building. The laws are enforced. And the best part is that the voters here are happy with these laws. There is no movement to change anything.

  
  I think that is great and as a non-smoker I might choose to visit Washington someday. I don't agree with bans, but I don't like SHS.
  
  Who enforces the non-smoking laws in Washington? Do the police issue tickets ?? I am just curious.
  
  Yes, the police issue tickets. But I don't think the police have to issue very many because the laws are taken seriously.
  
  In Ohio, the state does not have the money to enforce the ban in an equitable manor. Many counties have turned the enforcement over to the state because of a lack of funding. This means that in some areas the ban is enforced, while in others it is not.
  
  BTW, the Washington ban isn't working out for everybody.
  
  ....The sagging economy took a big bite out of El Gaucho owner Paul MacKay's restaurants.
  
  A lot of restaurants are closing in states that don't have smoking bans. It's because of the economy.
  
  "I would say 2009 was the worst year of my life of everything going south," he said......
  
  ...MacKay closed two of his upscale eateries and laid off more than 50 employees. That's on top of losses suffered since the statewide indoor smoking ban forced him to shut his cigar lounges. ....
  
  ......Seattle, we lost a million and a half million in Tacoma," he said.
  
  Top shelf liquor sales swirled out the window with the smoke.........
  
  Are you saying that liquor sales are down? That's more good news!
  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/85270522.html