Complete Cigar Ban!

[Amanda]

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

[cigar no baka]

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

Well, after they finish marginalizing and demonizing smokers, drinkers are next. So just wait, its coming.

[Amanda]

The most frequently cited case study on secondhand smoke was conducted in 1993, and the people who commandeered the study intentionally manipulated the results. Simply put, they came up with a set of figures, arbitrarily doubled the margin of error....then arbitrarily doubled the margin of error again...and then came up with oft-cited number of 56,000 annual deaths associated with secondhand cigarette smoke. While I'm no scientist, I wouldn't dispute that prolific exposure to secondhand smoke probably does cause a marginal number of deaths per year, it's far from being an epidemic....and I would surmise that the kind of casual secondhand smoke exposure endured by non-smoking bar and restaurant patrons has never killed anybody. The entire "second-hand" debate is the product of convenience. Those who don't like the smell of smoke can defer to junk science and declare the area around a smoldering cigarette or cigar to be a toxic waste dump putting them and their children in bodybags. Meanwhile, they probably inhale 100 times more carcinogens per year sitting in traffic jams on crowded freeways than they do sitting across the bar from somebody trying to enjoy a cigarette in peace.

cigar_no_baka, you may be right in your contention that drinkers will be the next to be marginalized, but I'm less sure. Smoking is "the other guy's bad habit". Most people don't smoke, even recreationally. Most people, on the other hand, do partake in an alcoholic beverage reguarly or semi-regularly. With that in mind, the urgency of passing legislation to "protect the children" from drinkers is far less cataclysmic than it is for smokers. Society is willing to put up with the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related fatalities per year than they are smoking-related deaths because the council members don't want to miss out on the opportunity to have a few cocktails following the city council meeting where they banned "public" smoking. On the other hand, I do expect we will see significant sin taxes imposed on alcohol in the years to come. Revenue will diminish from tobacco taxes with diminishing usage, so they'll be desperately seeking a new trough to feed from.

[cigar no baka]

The most frequently cited case study on secondhand smoke was conducted in 1993, and the people who commandeered the study intentionally manipulated the results. Simply put, they came up with a set of figures, arbitrarily doubled the margin of error....then arbitrarily doubled the margin of error again...and then came up with oft-cited number of 56,000 annual deaths associated with secondhand cigarette smoke. While I'm no scientist, I wouldn't dispute that prolific exposure to secondhand smoke probably does cause a marginal number of deaths per year, it's far from being an epidemic....and I would surmise that the kind of casual secondhand smoke exposure endured by non-smoking bar and restaurant patrons has never killed anybody. The entire "second-hand" debate is the product of convenience. Those who don't like the smell of smoke can defer to junk science and declare the area around a smoldering cigarette or cigar to be a toxic waste dump putting them and their children in bodybags. Meanwhile, they probably inhale 100 times more carcinogens per year sitting in traffic jams on crowded freeways than they do sitting across the bar from somebody trying to enjoy a cigarette in peace.

cigar_no_baka, you may be right in your contention that drinkers will be the next to be marginalized, but I'm less sure. Smoking is "the other guy's bad habit". Most people don't smoke, even recreationally. Most people, on the other hand, do partake in an alcoholic beverage reguarly or semi-regularly. With that in mind, the urgency of passing legislation to "protect the children" from drinkers is far less cataclysmic than it is for smokers. Society is willing to put up with the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related fatalities per year than they are smoking-related deaths because the council members don't want to miss out on the opportunity to have a few cocktails following the city council meeting where they banned "public" smoking. On the other hand, I do expect we will see significant sin taxes imposed on alcohol in the years to come. Revenue will diminish from tobacco taxes with diminishing usage, so they'll be desperately seeking a new trough to feed from.

Well, I don't see them banning alcohol (tried that in the roarin' twenties and they saw how well that went), but marginalizing and demonizing them...yes, I can see that coming.

[CoventryCat86]

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

LMAO!!! Well done!

[Kenyth]

Well put Amanda! On all counts! It will be interesting to see where it all goes. The anti-smoking propaganda these days is nothing short of mind boggling. It's so unneccessary! Everyone knows smoke is bad for the lungs. ALL environmental pollutants are bad for the lungs. It's no big secret. The whole thing is just an attempt to demonize the tobacco industry and further the public's desire to persecute them.

[Buhz]

Not too familiar with the exact wording of the legislation, but it might actually be a blanket ban for Calgary. I should look into it I guess. It might be that either the entire place is smoking or non smoking, no more being asked if you want one or the other.

[Lopaka]

In Oklahoma, we can still smoke in Bars, however that's it for public places. I agree with banning of smoking in public buildings. However, outdoor places we should be able to smoke. If we are so worried about smokeing in public places in America, I think we should also ban cell phones in public places, like MOVIES!!! Or a resturant, or my favorite, in a Book/Coffee shop. Nothing iritates me more then when I'm enjoying my cup of cofee, reading a good book and a phone rings and someone starts talking on it so loud, like no one is around, and they descide to have a lecture about B.S. Subjet 101. Wish I could smoke a Cigar there so I could smoke them out!!!