Smoking Ban Being Discussed

Quote:

---

ANd who doesn't love to see a big corporation get it's ass handed to it? Realizing that asbestos only had X number of years left (although, amazingly, it is still alive and breathing) the trial lawyers needed to fill the vaccuum. Tobacco seemed to be a great target, but actually the tobacco companies held their own early on. After all, if we apply logic and common sense, we note that, seeing as the product has, for 40 years, carried a warning label on it indicating that it gives you cancer, it's kind of hard to award damages to someone who used it and got cancer.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not convinced asbestos's day is yet over. Last I checked the number of claims is still rising. I can provide the reports if ya like.

The days will not be numbered unless there's legislation that makes it less profitable for the lawyers. Until every bit of asbestos exposure is removed, there will be litigation.

As it stands right now, in order to receive damages for asbestos, one does not have to prove actual injury but mere exposure. It's absolutely nutty.

So when state legislatures finally get their ass in gear and bring this situation under control (the top ten states account for something like 75% of the damages - but don't quote me on that - and Ohio is one of them) the lawyers will focus their attention elsewhere.

Next up: silica.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 22, 2004 08:32 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Quote:

---

Oops gotta make the tobacco companies pay since their product did what the label said it would.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I haven't read a cigarette package label in some time. Does it say the product may cause addiction?

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 22, 2004 08:30 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

To address something trav said about a ban causing business to lose money. According to today's Enquirer, a poll of 300 registered voters in Blue Ash found that 73% would support a smoking ban in restaurants and 65% would support a ban in bars (margin of error +/- 5.6%). Those are well within landslide territory.

One advocate of the smoking ban cites economic studies in California and New York (where there are statewide smoking bans) that indicate overall revenues are up for the bar and restaurant industry.

Lew your replies, while pertinent and correct, address only the smoker. What about me?

Why should I be forced not to go to a restaurant that I want to but can't because I cannot stand second hand smoke; because I don't like my food to taste like an ashtray; because the KNOWN toxic materials in smoke waft over to my table and I am fortunate enough to get to breathe them thank you very much.

The smoker can always wait (hopefully) to smoke until they leave but I can't breathe alternate air while I'm there. So essentially smokers are infringing my rights to choose which restaurant I want to eat at.

Doesn't matter really. No government in this city has the balls nor the manpower to enforce a smoking ban anyway.

I guess I'll find the one or two non smoking establishments and eat there while the rest of the city can choose to eat anywhere they want.

Yeah, that seems fair.

Reason-

Asbestos isn't dead by any means, but numerous judges have commented on how it has continued far beyond its original scope. And, although no one knows for sure, it does have a shelf life. Few companies have made or installed it since the 1980s, and insurers stopped covering claims for it in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As for those who directly made it, the well has more or less run dry.

But that didn't stop the asbestos lawyers from being creative. Then began to expand their list of defendants to companies that handled it, like trucking firms. They also began to expand their list of plaintiffs from those who actually sustained injury to also include those who were exposed to it, did not sustain injury, but lived in fear of getting it. Both of these concept are well outside of traditional tort doctrine, but when we're talking about the money that was changing hands here, it's easy to see how exceptions were made. So yes, unfortnuately, asbestos will still be around for some time. And I say unfortunately because it isn't the injured parties who have collected the money....


Jumper- I realize you and D2 are health conscious, but in answer to your query, the 2 of you wouldn't patronize a smoking establishment anyway. Again, let the market decide. Restaurant A allows smoking, Restaurant B does not, then everyone has a place they can go.

Greg- same thing. Let the market decide. Businesses, public places, etc. should be smoke-free for the reasons you mentioned. But private places, like restaurants, lounges, bowling alleys, etc. it should be up to the owner so long as it's disclosed up front, i.e. you clearly let the customers know going in that it's a smoke-free facility, it's a smoking facility, whatever it happens to be.

And Reason again- keep in mind that the Constitution is a limiting document. It doesn't really say what government can do, it places restrictions on what it cannot do. And the very real fear that Trav and others have is that the day will come when smoking will be banned, period, whether inside your home, your car, whatever. If you think it sounds ridiculous, try going back 30 years ago and telling people that some day chain smokers would be able to collect millions against tobacco companies.

If they banned smoking altogether there would be many a fortune made just like during Prohibition.

Quote:

---

places restrictions on what it cannot do.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think the Constitution puts limits on the "right" to harm others.

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ends when it harms someone else. Unfortunately in today's world personal liberties are granted at the expense of those who suffer greatly.

As a result we all suffer. I believe this is the decay of modern society.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 22, 2004 02:30 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Quote:

---

And the very real fear that Trav and others have is that the day will come when smoking will be banned, period, whether inside your home, your car, whatever.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That fear is not real, and it isn't even part of the discussion. I know of no movement to ban cigarette smoking. Even standup.org doesn't advocate banning cigarette smoking.

When that becomes the case, then I'll agree with trav.

Will you all please grow up?

Smoking is still LEGAL. I smoke where I am permitted to BY LAW.

End of discussion.

Quote:

---

Will you all please grow up?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heeeeeell no!