Hmm. On the one hand, you sound like a good Libertarian or Democrat in that you think people should be able to do what they wish, others and consequences be damned. Wait, but then you decide you’re NOT a Democrat by dissing the only remaining show of democracy available (ballot props).<br><br>Or, you just sound like someone defending a new hobby to the bone.<br><br>BTW, what does a brutha have to do to get his comments actually published on this site?

Holy moley - did that just publish instantly? Cool. What happened to my comment on the "namecalling" post, though?

Umm, the comment is right there dude.<br><br>Umm, we don’t live in a Democracy. We elect representatives to make our laws.<br><br>Umm, I don’t have a new habit, although when we have my friend’s bachelor party, there are going to be a lot of people annoyed if they can’t smoke a cigar in a bar while playing pool (none of whom are regular smokers).<br><br>And you must not have hit the post button on that other comment. Or else it was spam.

Oh, and I do have some libertarian leanings.<br><br>Perhaps I need to clarify a little bit too. It’s already illegal to smoke in restaurants and stores and such places here. It seems that the only thing this will accomplish is extending that to bars and similar locations. I think that’s going too far.

RE: previous comment - it said after i hit "create post" that it was pending approval.<br><br>If, as you say, "we" elect our representatives, then Al Gore WOULD have won in 2000. I’m talking the only REAL democracy we have - the actual right to vote on the actual laws that govern us. You’re loving the republic, which was meant to be balanced out by democracy. Hence, I call for MORE propositions like the one in South Dakota that could’ve effectively ended abortion there had it passed.<br><br>In regard to your chosen issue, what you’re saying is that people who work in bars and such should just resign themselves to having mass amounts of poison pumped through their lungs every day? After all, they can change jobs if they want. Heck, why shouldn’t you be required to have a cyanide cloud surrounding YOUR desk all day every day? After all, you can change jobs if you want.<br><br>I almost laughed at the part about how forcing smokers outside will affect even more people. You have to know that’s ludicrous. Hmm, would a concentrated amount of poison kill faster or a diluted amount that’s so thin you might not even smell it? Sure, I get annoyed coming out the door of a no-smoking joint into a cloud of smoke. Strangely, though, the stench doesn’t stick to my clothes and by the time I’ve given a dirty look to the smoker(s), I can’t even smell it anymore. But, you’re right, it would be MUCH better to sit in a thick cloud of it for two hours. Seriously?<br><br>Dude, maybe just stick to beer for a while. The hard stuff is causing drain bamage.

Amidst all your typical "bash the person" rhetoric, you do have some points.<br><br>I guess I’m just not convinced that smoking is as dangerous as some people want us to think it is. Maybe if I spent more time in smoke-filled places, I’d feel differently about it too, although it doesn’t appear to be the people who are working in these places who are pushing for the laws. It seems to be other people who are trying to help them when they may or may not want to be helped in that way.<br><br>In regards to ballot propositions, they go very much against what our system of government is trying to accomplish, and make every little law much more subject to every whim and mob mentality of the people. Thankfully they’re still limited to actual normal election days.<br><br>The electoral system is an entirely different matter. And I can’t say that I think we would be that much worse off if Al Gore had won.

Ok, quickly - I’m on a time budget.<br><br>I am not bashing the person. Ok, maybe a little. And you just bash right back. Fun.<br><br>"Not convinced that smoking is as dangerous..." I would say you’re out of your mind, but that would be perceived as bashing. Let’s put it this way - everyone I’ve ever known who smokes regularly has serious health problems. My wife lost a grandfather and will soon lose a grandmother due only to smoking. Not to mention the countless conclusive studies and death toll statistics...<br><br>Do you think that ANY laws that prevent people from doing something are the ideas of the people that do the prevented thing? My guess is that a large number of people that work in bars DO smoke or don’t mind the second-hand smoke that’s eating away at the vestiges of good health they still have. First, the law protects their customers, not just them. Secondly, since when do we use that kind of logic? "I don’t think that reckless drivers want a law against it - it’s the OTHER people." "I don’t think unborn babies really care, so why should we make laws to protect them?" The fact is that the whole reason we HAVE a government is to protect the people, whether militarily, socially, or yes, morally.

That’s one of the most ridiculous comparisons I’ve ever heard. I’m not talking about smokers not wanting the law, that’s a given. I’m talking about people who work in smoky environments not being the ones who are complaining. That isn’t even close to reckless drivers. It’s also not even close to the unborn babies argument.<br><br>In fact, it’s not like the smoke in these places somehow crept up on these people. They knew before they even applied for the job that the environment would be full of smoke. If that was a problem for them, then they should not have applied for the job. It’s not like they started working there and then all of a sudden they allowed smoking.<br><br>You’re probably right about the dangers of large quantities of tobacco smoke being inhaled on a regular basis, which would include dangers for people working in secondhand smoke, and this law might help some people. But these are people who could also help themselves.<br><br>I guess it’s not the dangers of smoking that I doubt, so much as what this law will actually accomplish.<br><br>1.  It won’t cause any of the people who fill the bar with smoke in the first place to stop smoking.<br><br>2.  The number of people stuck working in these environments against their will is probably not as high as proponents of this law try to make you think, especially since smoking is already outlawed in restaurants and other public buildings.<br><br>3.  A number of these people who are to be protected by this bill are smokers anyway (as you admit), and therefore this bill will make little or no difference to them.<br><br>It’s a slippery slope to head down the path of government interference as a solution for everything, especially for things that have another solution.<br><br>Thank you for pointing out the fallacies in my reasoning.

Issue with point 2:<br><br>You’ve said a couple times "especially since smoking is already outlawed in restaurants..." So, presumably, a cocktail waitress would be able to easily get a job at a restaurant as a waitress. She doesn’t HAVE to stay at the smoky bar.<br><br>Ok, so what about before smoking was outlawed in restaurants? Your debate hangs heavy on the assumption that it’s easy for servers to find other jobs. It follows that your debate then hangs heavy on the fact that smoking is already banned in restaurants. However, it seems that you would’ve been against the restaurant smoking ban, also. Why should people who wait tables have to be jerked around because people like you think they should have to choose between their career and health? Again, how ‘bout we pump poison in your face all day long at work and then tell you if you don’t like it, get out? Yes, they didn’t have to take the job, but if serving tables is what you do best, up until a couple years ago, you had no choice but to expose yourself to smoke. Yet, based on your other arguments, you would’ve been against banning it even in restaurants.<br><br>My solution: legalize marijuana for its legitimate medicinal properties and ban smoking (everywhere) for its undeniable poisoning properties.

If the banning smoking in restaurants and other public buildings was an issue now, I’m not sure what I’d think about it.<br><br>A couple of years ago, I would have supported it wholeheartedly. I’m not sure how long that law has been there, because I wasn’t here yet when it was enacted.<br><br>There is a difference, though, between that ban and this. That one made exceptions for bars, that are the traditional havens of people who want to eat/drink/smoke/play pool, etc. This would take that one remaining option away.<br><br>There are many other options for people who want to still be servers (as they call them these days) in Arizona, which means it’s not the choice you’re saying it is.<br><br>-------<br>For the record, I’m not a habitual smoker. Also for the record, I smoke the occasional cigar for a special event, but these have always been outside to this point anyway.

"There are many other options for people who want to still be servers (as they call them these days) in Arizona, which means it’s not the choice you’re saying it is."<br><br>It IS a choice in that they have to choose to change jobs, usually resulting in a pay cut. Cocktail servers and bartenders make far more in tips than the Cracker Barrel brown-aprons with stars on their chest. Again, let’s pump poison into your $50K work area and then tell you "hmm, i think McDonalds is hiring if you don’t like this."

I’m not talking Cracker Barrel. I’m talking restaurants that sell similar things to bars, and therefore have more similar tips. There are many of those restaurants around here.

You know, you’re probably right about one thing, though. The ban on smoking in restaurants probably hasn’t been going long enough that a career-minded server would have been able to choose one of those instead of a smoky bar (although there are many not-so-career minded servers who would have).<br><br>In that vein, I see more value to a law like this. My reluctance to come to this conclusion is based on my aversion the general tendency of government to take more and more rights and responsibilities upon itself than it has a right to, not (as you suppose) because I want to smoke wherever I want and damn anyone who gets in the way.<br><br>I also think that research indicates that people who are only occasionally exposed to tobacco smoke don’t have the same problems as those who are either 1) habitual smokers or 2) constantly exposed to secondhand smoke. So my decision that this law might be a good idea is based on people who work in smoky environments who might not have had an opportunity for another choice.

Hey guys,<br><br>Interesting discussion—I just thought I would throw in my two cents’ worth (I may have just overvalued my thoughts).<br><br>I’ve gone back and forth on the debate. My main problem with the idea of banning smoking in all public places is that I’m leery of governmental control, but on the other hand, I think it is the government’s responsibility to provide legal protection for the public, while ensuring free access to all public services—so I think I could actually agree with the proposed law. But this is a solution that I’ve thought of. Tell me what you think.<br><br>What if the government banned smoking in public places, but included a clause that, at the businesses’ discretion, they could provide a fully-partitioned smoking room, which could be entered voluntarily. For instance, if the main part of a bar were smoke-free, the business could supply a second bar for smokers. Anyone who wanted to could go sit in there to drink and smoke; and if they wanted service, e.g. another drink, they would have to walk out to the main bar, where the tender could pour them a drink, and then they could take it back. That way, the public could enjoy full use of the offered services without a smoky atmosphere, unless they willfully chose the smoking bar; and the hired workers could perform their jobs without ever being exposed to second-hand smoke. The businesses would have to arrange for janitorial services a sufficient amount of time after the smoking bar had been closed, so that the janitors were not exposed to second-hand smoke either. Similar arrangements could be provided by restaurants as well. This would also help to eliminate the problem of smoky entrances to smoke-free businesses.<br><br>Does that sound like a reasonable proposal?

Now that you mention it, Pitchford, I think this might have been involved in the Proposition. A business can, at it’s discretion, have a room with a separate ventilation system for smokers. I read the act, and it doesn’t really seem to say that, but some people say that it does.<br><br>That would probably be an acceptable solution.

It’s amazing the posts that get traffic.<br><br>Pitch, does this room have a decontamination chamber between it and the main area? Or, maybe the servers could just wear those big yellow radiation suits. Surely I jest.<br><br>Man, I’m tired and grouchy today.

If you notice, he said that the servers wouldn’t have to go in there. Unless of course they wanted to.

I know. That comment wasn’t part of my grouchiness. I was just offering up another viable idea.<br><br>It’s funny that nurses and doctors make a good deal of money to risk catching a harmful disease at work, but servers do it for $2.35 + tips.