Smoking should be banned in Portland area bars and restaurants.

Smoking is currently banned in Portland restaurants (but not bars). Along with styrofoam take-out containers.

Smoke isn't a lethal toxin to most people (unless consumed directly). It is to some people, primarily asthmatics. But so are peanuts. And many perfumes. I've often temporarily been unable to breathe in places with lots of people, presumably because of some perfume or cologne being worn by someone near me. Smoke, on the other hand, is pretty much harmless to me. So, why do we single out smoke?

I know, you're going to say something about second hand smoke. But it hasn't been shown that you can generally get enough of a dose from second hand smoke to actually be significantly harmful in a cancer-causing way (throat irritation and such is a different matter). And I definitely can get enough of a dose from some second-hand perfumes.

I'd much rather have segregation based on desire to be exposed to a toxin than outlaw it for everyone. And you could try to get a job in a non-smoking bar. And a smoker could try to get a job in a smoking bar. And it'd probably generally be harder for a smoker to not smoke during work, and you could have bars that don't allow smoking breaks (as the smoke does get onto clothes and such).

I don't smoke or drink, but that doesn't give me any right to demand that bars stop allowing smoking and stop serving alcohol. To each his own, I say. Smoke all you want and drink all you want, just don't be a dick.

What about making a safe work environment? Or do not care about the safety of others while they serve you?

deal with it or get another job

Wow, that's some blatant discrimination.

As for claims about smoke not being a lethal toxin:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/factsheets/factsheet_clean.htm

"In 1997, the California EPA concluded that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) causes coronary heart disease and death in nonsmokers. Scientific studies have estimated that ETS accounts for as many as 62,000 deaths from coronary heart disease annually in the United States."

discrimination? how so?

If you don't like to ride in the back of the bus, tough, deal with it or go find another bus.

For all your claims about being anti-authoritarian, you sure are eager to deny other people their rights.

Dave-

There's another bar right down the street from this one. There's not another bus -- the bus being a government-endorsed monopoly.

Pop Quiz, Dave:

Describe the rights of each of these three groups of people, and explain how they might be at odds:

* smokers
* non-smokers
* bar owners and managers

Hmm, you're right. It can cause cancer in massive doses to non-smokers. Still, I don't see why we pay so much attention to smoke and not to perfumes and peanuts and other things that can kill people or cause difficulty breathing. And I still think segregation is probably best. There are smokers who want jobs, so why shouldn't they work in smoking environments?

yes, the whole point of the back-of-the-bus discrimination was that it wasn't optional. working at a place that allows smoking is.

I suppose having a home, feeding yourself and paying for your education is optional for people working in the (very competitive) restaurant and bar industry. For whom the job they have now is the only one available that can support their current standard of living (which is far from luxury).

The true discrimination is against those in lesser social strata whom, without much thought, society at large deem disposable laborers who are prone to suffer the hazards given to any untouchable.

Not everyone has the luxury of choice --especially those with occupations which put them in environments where their livelihoods depend on how well they can fulfill the decadent whims of their guests. Occupations of which I seriously doubt you have much if any experience to compare Mr. Hayhurst.

i'm glad your argument reduces to making incorrect assumptions about my history

the only people without the luxury of choice are smokers

In Ireland it is already illegal to allow smoking in the work place.

Companies are allowed have smoking area's (outside) but they must be well ventilated (there are laws about the layout of the walls so that it can't be an enclosed area).

People need to remember that the tax payer pays for hospital treatment for smokers who use healthcare more often too as they fall ill more often because of their addiction.

It is just wrong to allow an unsafe product to be continued to be sold.

A new law has been suggested in Ireland to outlaw smoking in the home so that young children are not exposed to the smoke and so that children don't see their parents (who are their role models) smoking in the hope to reduce the number of young people smoking.

"It is just wrong to allow an unsafe product to be continued to be sold."

So.. no Irish car dealerships, then?

D'A

And that's it for Irish Whiskey.

No irish Potatoes, as some people are allergic and they're unsafe.

And there are all these clover allergies, so we're going to need to deforest the county side.