| No, never | 56% | 56% - 60 | ||||
| Used to, but quit | 20% | 20% - 22 | ||||
| Light smoker, < a pack a day | 13% | 13% - 14 | ||||
| Moderate, a pack a day | 6% | 6% - 7 | ||||
| heavy, > a pack a day | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 107 | ||||||
Last edited by ghettoperson (2010-06-22 09:07:51)
I actually like the ban. I dislike smelling smoke when I'm eating/drinking as much as a non-smoker does.pilebomb wrote:
Never smoked, no desire to and don't give a shit if you do. Still think banning smoking in bars is stupid.
I agree! Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.pilebomb wrote:
Never smoked, no desire to and don't give a shit if you do. Still think banning smoking in bars is stupid.
It doesn't work like that though because you're still subjecting the employees of the bar/restaurant to all that second hand smoke. Lawsuits and medical bills just waiting to happen.SenorToenails wrote:
I agree! Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.pilebomb wrote:
Never smoked, no desire to and don't give a shit if you do. Still think banning smoking in bars is stupid.
All asians seem to.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
In Virginia it's not banned. There are a bunch of Korean BBQ places where it's like a throwback to the 50s in terms of smoking at a restaurant.
Koreans smoke like chimneys for some reason.
I guess I hadn't really considered that. It doesn't really affect me much since I don't smoke anyway...I've just never liked the ban. I had always understood that it was put in place for patron health, not employee health.JohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't work like that though because you're still subjecting the employees of the bar/restaurant to all that second hand smoke. Lawsuits and medical bills just waiting to happen.SenorToenails wrote:
I agree! Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.pilebomb wrote:
Never smoked, no desire to and don't give a shit if you do. Still think banning smoking in bars is stupid.
"Get a different job" doesn't really work either because it might be the only job they can find.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-22 09:20:52)
since when were you a mod?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Non-smoker here, as should be obvious from the last thread. To clear things up, I'm against smoking indoors at public places, but even more against government regulation against the habit. It should be up to private businesses to decide whether or not people can smoke in their establishments. To be frank, it doesn't even really affect me since I'm not a big time bar guy, gambler or restaurant goer.
Nah, it's about employee health. There were some pretty massive lawsuits in the 90s related to it.SenorToenails wrote:
I guess I hadn't really considered that. It doesn't really affect me much since I don't smoke anyway...I've just never liked the ban. I had always understood that it was put in place for patron health, not employee health.JohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't work like that though because you're still subjecting the employees of the bar/restaurant to all that second hand smoke. Lawsuits and medical bills just waiting to happen.SenorToenails wrote:
I agree! Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.
"Get a different job" doesn't really work either because it might be the only job they can find.
Well, that clears that up. I had figured it was just an extension of those 'smoking sections' that were all the rage way back.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, it's about employee health. There were some pretty massive lawsuits in the 90s related to it.
Pack of smokes in Taiwan is around 2.30 USD. People here smoke like a trooper lol.JohnG@lt wrote:
All asians seem to.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
In Virginia it's not banned. There are a bunch of Korean BBQ places where it's like a throwback to the 50s in terms of smoking at a restaurant.
Koreans smoke like chimneys for some reason.
Still smells godawful, though.JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, to all those concerned about second hand smoke...
Interesting read...
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Objective: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.
Design: Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.
Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Of course it does, which is why I go out of my way to be courteous when I smokeSpark wrote:
Still smells godawful, though.JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, to all those concerned about second hand smoke...
Interesting read...
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Objective: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.
Design: Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.
Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.