New Smoking Policy

[renakuzar]

Re: New Smoking Policy

<quote>smoking bans

this is the big one for me, and as many of you know... i don't even smoke.

societies have a valid interest in previnting the choices of one citizen from having an undesired impact on another citizen who is not making the same choices
</end quote>

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.

Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.

indeed... but that's a bit of a harsh statement (only slightly, though)

the argument i often hear pertains to the "career" aspect... if someone's whole "career" is in the service industry (ok, something probably went wrong in your life if "waitress" is your career from age 18 to 65, but i could sort of see the argument as far as professional bartenders are concerned)

a bartender who works in a state with no smoking restrictions basically is required to be exposed to smoke (often quite a lot of it) without any choice if they want to make a living. now, there's a pretty valid point to mention that they should have known this before they went into that field... but i can see the way a person makes the "forced to be unhealthy to earn a living" claim.

however, again... i think my middle of the road point best addresses the matter: the establishment can be compelled to have adequate air-flow through means of large open windows/half-walls everywhere or they can install a filtration system.

it's fair that the bartenders could be prevented somewhat from working in unhealthy conditions... but their union doesn't have the right to ask that everyone stand outside to smoke just because the bartenders go home at night and have to listen to their sig-o's complain about their clothes smelling.

[barbu]

Re: New Smoking Policy

as a hardcore smoker of...a variety of substances..., let me assure you that a smoking ban is not a big deal.

I live in Ottawa where the (3 year old) smoking ban means standing outside the bar in -25 C (or worse..) weather to smoke. As a smoker and an adult, i can accept that. I do not smoke in my home either, it has become quite natural to just go outside. I do not know *anyone* who allows cigarette smoking in their house these days. If we can go outside all winter, i don't see how anyone in Las Vegas in the summer can complain, unless it's about the heat :>

Furthermore, I would like to string up whomever was smoking those gawdawful clove smokes throughout BH/DC last year. Everywhere i went that odour made me wretch! Banning all indoor smoking is totally worth it to avoid that stench :X

To sum up, smoking outside is a great way to meet & greet, and enjoy the lovely Nevada summer.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

indeed... but that's a bit of a harsh statement (only slightly, though)

the argument i often hear pertains to the "career" aspect... if someone's whole "career" is in the service industry (ok, something probably went wrong in your life if "waitress" is your career from age 18 to 65, but i could sort of see the argument as far as professional bartenders are concerned)

a bartender who works in a state with no smoking restrictions basically is required to be exposed to smoke (often quite a lot of it) without any choice if they want to make a living. now, there's a pretty valid point to mention that they should have known this before they went into that field... but i can see the way a person makes the "forced to be unhealthy to earn a living" claim.

however, again... i think my middle of the road point best addresses the matter: the establishment can be compelled to have adequate air-flow through means of large open windows/half-walls everywhere or they can install a filtration system.

it's fair that the bartenders could be prevented somewhat from working in unhealthy conditions... but their union doesn't have the right to ask that everyone stand outside to smoke just because the bartenders go home at night and have to listen to their sig-o's complain about their clothes smelling.

Truly, I don't have a problem with a middle of the road compromise of the issue, I just hate to see false "rights" bandied about in place of real rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "Worker's Rights" too often means that the worker doesn't like something, and tries to push around the guy who's actually footing the bill. It comes of having your cake and wanting to eat it too. The option to find another job is often overlooked, or looked at as being impossible as if the employees were indentured.

If the governments' interest in this was really to just keep the air clean for people, it could be done simply enough by establish a standard for x parts per billion, and make the establishment determine how to go about that. Whether by forced air systems, ionization, open windows, a ban (imposed by the establishment), or some other means, it could easily be left up to the management Such requirements and the systems to monitor them are already in place for companies that have truly hazardous atmospheres.

However, the "we'll protect them from themselves" attitude prevails, the outright ban is seen as essential by the governments doing as an blatant effort to modify social behavior. That's what I object to.

[renderman]

Re: New Smoking Policy

As I've noted before, I don't like smoking, but I'll put up with it.

I do think that on some level the hotel will like being forced to impose a ban (since it's all hotels, their not seen as the bad guys). Less damage over time to paint/wallpaper, carpet, etc, can over time add up to alot of savings.

If you choose to smoke, you'll have to do it outside, and as noted by others, this is often a really good networking opportunity. It's now my choice as a non smoker to join friends out there (preferably upwind) to take advantage of the small talk.

If your in a place that allows smoking, just be considerate. I've asked people at cons in the past to switch seats so I could be upwind, or move outside, but I don't recall ever asking someone to stop.

Shmoo is smoking, Defcon is Non-smoking. It evens out on some level I guess.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

I have to be careful because this issue pushes my buttons more than any other, so I will choose my words carefully to avoid offending people.

Whiney non smokers can kiss my fucking ass. These laws are fucking ridiculous. Smoking is legal. I would prefer them pass legislation banning the growing, manufacture, processing and sales of cigarettes to these laws that force people to behave as a second class citizen because they choose to use a legal product in the exact means it was intended.

If smoking is so evil that we have to segregate the smokers off to avoid the mere possibility that someone might inhale a little smoke off the end of my cigarette then the government should continue to exercise it's duty to protect us all from ourselves and make it illegal. Stop taxing the fuck out of it. Stop the laws to make it uncomfortable. Stop taking insane amounts of money from the tobacco lobbies, shut down the tobacco companies and shut the fuck up.

As long as this is not the case then people should shut the fuck up and leave me the fuck alone for doing what I want.

Idiot example from last week. Marriott hotels went completely non-smoking a while back. A decision that I couldn't be more displeased with since I travel a lot and was Gold Elite with them at the time. I wish they hadn't made this decision, but I didn't bitch...because it was a BUSINESS decision they made. No one forced them to do it, just like no one forces me to stay there.

Last week I was traveling to Atlanta and stayed at the Marriott Century Center. I wasn't thrilled to be staying at a Marriott because I know their policy, but just as I have chosen to stay elsewhere since the policy was put in place, I CHOSE to stay at this Marriott because it was very close to the place I was going to be working. No biggie, I'd go down stairs to smoke.

My travel profile shows my room preference as smoking so our travel agent always requests a smoking room.

Here was my check in experience at the hotel:

Me: Hi, I have a reservation, here is my credit card and ID
Bitch: 2 nights?

Me: Yep.
Bitch: We are a non-smoking hotel.

Me: I know
Bitch: No, there are no smoking rooms at all

Me: I know
Bitch: You may not be aware of this, but Marriott is a completely non-smoking chain. There is no smoking in any of our hotels.

Me, getting pissed: Yes, I have been aware of that ever since you made that horrendous choice.
Bitch: Most of our customer prefer clean air.

Me: I am not most of your customers
Bitch: You should quit.

Me: Give me my fucking room and stop telling me how to live my life
Bitch: You can only smoke outside

Me: I FUCKING UNDERSTAND GIVE ME MY FUCKING KEY.


They have a right to choose not to let people smoke inside their properties. I have a right to stay somewhere else. Bitches like this chick should be kicked squarely in the cunt.

Have a nice day

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Don't like to see drinking or smoking because it offends you? stay home or move to Utah

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference.

<sarcasm>
Sure, we should all just "adjust" and not question anything that the government says, as it is all for our own good.
</sarcasm>

In case you haven't figured it out, it's "called trampling on your rights." People bitch about the things that are arguably legal such as the NSA doing toll analysis or the TSA taking their nail clippers, but roll over like a whipped dog whenever pseudo health issues are raised. If the Feds ever figure this out, they'll just centralize everything under the CDC.

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!

I think the reference to Utah is stereotypical given the high percentage of LDS and their "clean living" way of life. It doesn't mean *all* people in Utah don't smoke or drink!

EDIT: According to here Utah does in fact have the lowest % of smokers out of all 50 states; 12.7% while the next closest is 4% higher.

EDIT 2: According to here Utah has the lowest % of drinkers, too.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!

Just so I understand....

You AREN'T upset about silly laws trampling on your rights but you ARE upset that someone made an offhanded remark about the state you live in. Priorities are teh hard.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Just so I understand....

You AREN'T upset about silly laws trampling on your rights but you ARE upset that someone made an offhanded remark about the state you live in. Priorities are teh hard.

Ok, first I'm not upset about an off hand remark. I am upset that people use generlizations and stereotypes to define their world. People, places, things, and ideas are much more than this. And secondly, what about trampling on the rights of non-smokers. Let me get this straight non-smokers should be denied the experience of DefCon because they don't smoke? So, if it was turned around you would be ok with not attending DefCon because you smoke? (which is obviously not true) Somebody's rights have to trampled, you cannot have two opposing views living happily (atleast not in this case) beside each other. Which begs the question: shouldn't whose rights get trampled be based on the issue of which does worse damage to society as a whole? In this instance that would be smoking.

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

I am upset that people use generlizations and stereotypes to define their world.

Based on the data I cited here, a "generalization" or "stereotype" of Utah as a "clean living" (non-drinking, non-smoking) place is actually fairly accurate.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Based on the data I cited here, a "generalization" or "stereotype" of Utah as a "clean living" (non-drinking, non-smoking) place is actually fairly accurate.

First off, this information wasn't orginally in your post, you edited it. To be honest that doesnt even matter and neither do the statistics. Why? Where do statistics come from? Well mostly questionaires. Did you know that a garbology study done @ Arizona State questioned people about their drinking habits and then studied their trash found that most lied on their questionaire about how much they drink. With that in mind do you still trust statistics?

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

You guys didnt even answer my quesiton? Whose rights should be trampled and why? Aren't you essentially saying that by arguing smoking should be allowed that it is ok to trample somebody's rights as long as their not yours?