Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2008, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,219,944 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Oh, and I promised myself I would not get involved in anything like this again! OK, I'm willing to buy the ventilation piece, but what about the person sitting right next to you? In other words, the air may be clean as measured in a certain spot, but not the same everywhere.

Re: the non-smokers paying extra for the clean air, sorry, I feel the smokers should pay b/c they are fouling the air, requiring the owner to install special ventilation equipment, etc.

I agree with Brian (!) on the slippery-slope issue. I also agree that banning cigarette smoke is different from banning perfume, chicken odors or even cow manure odors (hey, this is coming from Colorado!). Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen. It IS different.

I do not understand the bar owners who say bans have hurt business, especially when an entire state (such as this one) bans smoking. I can understand a few people living near the borders going to the next state, but that doesn't affect too many people.

Hopefully, I'll quit while this conversation is still civil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2008, 10:58 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by By~Tor View Post
The whole culture of intolerance just pisses me off, that's all...
But it isn't intolerance: it is self-interest. Most people aren't voting to ban smoking in public places because they view it as wrong in some abstract sense, but rather they are voting to ban it because it negatively affects them. And why should they have to share with you the costs of smoking? You are the one who benefits from smoking, not them, so why shouldn't you have to pay for the costs of smoking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Crafton via San Francisco
3,463 posts, read 4,622,952 times
Reputation: 1595
In theory, i hate the intolerance shown to smokers. However, as a non-smoker with a Dad who died from lung cancer, I really love that here in CA I can go in any bar/restaurant and not be subjected to second-hand smoke.

I forgot that other states are different when i visited Pittsburgh. I left a restaurant before ordering because of the smoke. It even had open doors and windows. I am just so used to zero smoke that I couldn't handle it.

Just my two cents...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, the Iron City!!!
803 posts, read 2,961,121 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
But it isn't intolerance: it is self-interest. Most people aren't voting to ban smoking in public places because they view it as wrong in some abstract sense, but rather they are voting to ban it because it negatively affects them. And why should they have to share with you the costs of smoking? You are the one who benefits from smoking, not them, so why shouldn't you have to pay for the costs of smoking?
I kinda' thought that question might be raised.... LOL!

Okay, to address the "ban" par of the question, again I say that is they install ventilation systems and retain separate "smoking" and "non-smoking" areas, then the issue is solved... non-smokers still don't have to smell it or be affected by it, anymore so than if they were in an outdoor area. The cost of these systems have fallen over the years, and if they had the choice to do so, most of your bar owners would elect to install them, if it meant increased patronage.... restaurant owners, that might be a different story...

As for the "sharing the cost" part, I can only offer that people without kids still pay school taxes. . . . . people in good health still pay for medicare benefits for those who can't . . . . "Shared Costs" is a part of American life, and the things that HEPA-filtered ventilation systems would clean the air of would go beyond mere tobacco smoke and carcinogens... it would filter out dust & mold particles as well, which even non-smokers would reap the benefits of...


Quote:
Originally Posted by juliegt View Post
In theory, i hate the intolerance shown to smokers. However, as a non-smoker with a Dad who died from lung cancer, I really love that here in CA I can go in any bar/restaurant and not be subjected to second-hand smoke.

I forgot that other states are different when i visited Pittsburgh. I left a restaurant before ordering because of the smoke. It even had open doors and windows. I am just so used to zero smoke that I couldn't handle it.

Just my two cents...

I can certainly respect the rights of non-smokers, not to have to breathe in my second-hand smoke where at all possible... I'm a firm believer in "My Rights End Where Your Rights Begin".... and the restaurant that was so smoky that you had to leave should make the efforts to install the smoke-ventilator systems, for the benefits of ALL their patrons...... my point earlier on, was that if they do install them, then there won't BE a need for Pittsburgh to follow NYC's footsteps and place an outright "ban" on it... but, if they don't do anything at all, eventually, the outcry for a ban will becom too great to ignore....

In summation (and in a fervent desire to get back on-topic....), smokers should be able to enjoy a smoke with their Guinness. It is a time-honored tradition, and goes together like chocolate & peanut butter. . . or something like that...

That said, it IS the responsibility of the tavern or restaurant owners to ensure the air quality for their non-smoking patrons, as well... it IS a public health issue, as well as a lifestyle choice issue, and no one should be forced to breathe in known carcinogens, any more than be forced to smell someone's Chanel No. 5 bath on a subway train....

If people, in general, would exercise more of a modicum of tolerance AND self-restraint, the issue could be broached and solved, without the need to place regulations in effect that would simply ostracize 30% of the community. There IS a simple answer, and yes, even though there is some initial cost involved, its benefits far outweigh the cost of introducing, passing, implementing and maintaining legislation to stop it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 08:03 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by By~Tor View Post
As for the "sharing the cost" part, I can only offer that people without kids still pay school taxes. . . . . people in good health still pay for medicare benefits for those who can't . . . . "Shared Costs" is a part of American life, and the things that HEPA-filtered ventilation systems would clean the air of would go beyond mere tobacco smoke and carcinogens... it would filter out dust & mold particles as well, which even non-smokers would reap the benefits of...
We all benefit from living in an economy with an educated workforce. We all benefit from pooling health risk through programs like Medicare. Those are both examples where we share the costs but also share the benefits. But how do I as a non-smoker share in the benefits from you smoking?

Now if you can sell mandatory ventilation system laws to the public for reasons independent of smoking, and as a side-effect it happens that they take care of the smoking issue as well, then maybe your plan has a shot. But to the extent your argument depends just on you wanting other people to pay for your ability to smoke in public, well then you have to come up with a reason why your smoking benefits the rest of us.

Quote:
In summation (and in a fervent desire to get back on-topic....), smokers should be able to enjoy a smoke with their Guinness. It is a time-honored tradition, and goes together like chocolate & peanut butter. . . or something like that...
After the sort of ban in question, you could have your smoke and Guinness--just not in public places where other people are trying to enjoy a Guinness without smoke. That is the basic problem: your choice to combine smoke and Guinness forces me to have smoke with my Guinness. It would be like you coming over to my table and shoving a chocolate bar in my peanut butter sandwich. Maybe you like it that way, but you have no right to make that decision for me.

Quote:
If people, in general, would exercise more of a modicum of tolerance AND self-restraint, the issue could be broached and solved, without the need to place regulations in effect that would simply ostracize 30% of the community. There IS a simple answer, and yes, even though there is some initial cost involved, its benefits far outweigh the cost of introducing, passing, implementing and maintaining legislation to stop it.
But again, to the extent only smokers are getting the benefits, but everyone is paying the costs, that is going to be a tough sell. So you better be able to convince people that even if smoking was not an issue, mandatory ventilation systems would make sense, and that coincidentally those mandatory ventilation systems will completely take care of the smoking problem as well.

The bottomline is this: with all due respect, smokers who think they have some sort of right to smoke around other people who find it physically irritating and a long-term health risk are deluding themselves, because the long-standing tradition in this country is that your rights end when they start physically harming other people. And asking those people to pay for the costs of dealing with the problem is also not going to fly, because smoking only benefits you, and not them. So, in all likelihood these bans are going to become commonplace, and that is not because people are intolerant of smokers or otherwise persecuting them. It is because your smoking in public only benefits you while at the same time physically harming other people, and activities like that tend to get banned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, the Iron City!!!
803 posts, read 2,961,121 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
We all benefit from living in an economy with an educated workforce. We all benefit from pooling health risk through programs like Medicare. Those are both examples where we share the costs but also share the benefits. But how do I as a non-smoker share in the benefits from you smoking?

Now if you can sell mandatory ventilation system laws to the public for reasons independent of smoking, and as a side-effect it happens that they take care of the smoking issue as well, then maybe your plan has a shot. But to the extent your argument depends just on you wanting other people to pay for your ability to smoke in public, well then you have to come up with a reason why your smoking benefits the rest of us.



After the sort of ban in question, you could have your smoke and Guinness--just not in public places where other people are trying to enjoy a Guinness without smoke. That is the basic problem: your choice to combine smoke and Guinness forces me to have smoke with my Guinness. It would be like you coming over to my table and shoving a chocolate bar in my peanut butter sandwich. Maybe you like it that way, but you have no right to make that decision for me.



But again, to the extent only smokers are getting the benefits, but everyone is paying the costs, that is going to be a tough sell. So you better be able to convince people that even if smoking was not an issue, mandatory ventilation systems would make sense, and that coincidentally those mandatory ventilation systems will completely take care of the smoking problem as well.

The bottomline is this: with all due respect, smokers who think they have some sort of right to smoke around other people who find it physically irritating and a long-term health risk are deluding themselves, because the long-standing tradition in this country is that your rights end when they start physically harming other people. And asking those people to pay for the costs of dealing with the problem is also not going to fly, because smoking only benefits you, and not them. So, in all likelihood these bans are going to become commonplace, and that is not because people are intolerant of smokers or otherwise persecuting them. It is because your smoking in public only benefits you while at the same time physically harming other people, and activities like that tend to get banned.



But Brian, it ISN'T only the smokers getting the benefits!!--- I had already said, how the vent systems remove dust and mold from the air as well... so EVERYONE benefits!

And as far as everyone "paying for my ability to smoke", the few cents per drink wouldn't even be noticed.... the systems in question cost less than $4,000, and most bars would reap a much greater benefit in increased sales (at least in cities where the ban is already in place) than the initial cost.

MY smoking shouldn't affect you. . . . .period. . . .I agree wholeheartedly with that.... but, when technology exists that can ake everyone hapy at once and eliminate the problem for all parties, I think it should be utilized, and that tavern owners who choose NOT to do so are actually forcing the non-smokers to rise up and instigate these "bans"....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 09:27 AM
 
48 posts, read 199,055 times
Reputation: 18
Relonow... good luck with the relo!
We're originally from northern Ohio, lived in PGH briefly after college, 12 yrs in Phila. and just moved back to PGH Nov. 07'. As I say, this is a far west as I will ever move. I loved Phila and the east coast but we also love PGH. Center City was such a pain to drive to, it was easier and faster for us to go to NYC for the night then Center City. The cost of living is grossly more affordable on all levels. People are like the midwest, just plain nice, friendly and helpful. The downtown is so accessible and getting around to anywhere is so easy. We love it! We live in Peter's Township and we're planning on raising our children here. No more moves for a long time!!! We have also met other NYC/NJ/Phila relocaters here and it seems we're all in agreement, this was a great move for us all. Enjoy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 10:00 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by By~Tor View Post
But Brian, it ISN'T only the smokers getting the benefits!!--- I had already said, how the vent systems remove dust and mold from the air as well... so EVERYONE benefits!

And as far as everyone "paying for my ability to smoke", the few cents per drink wouldn't even be noticed.... the systems in question cost less than $4,000, and most bars would reap a much greater benefit in increased sales (at least in cities where the ban is already in place) than the initial cost.

MY smoking shouldn't affect you. . . . .period. . . .I agree wholeheartedly with that.... but, when technology exists that can ake everyone hapy at once and eliminate the problem for all parties, I think it should be utilized, and that tavern owners who choose NOT to do so are actually forcing the non-smokers to rise up and instigate these "bans"....
Like I said, if you can sell these ventilation systems to business owners, or you can sell a mandatory ventilation system law to the public, and the ventilation systems do in fact end up taking care of the smoking problem as well, then I think your plan has a shot. But if all that doesn't fall in line ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, the Iron City!!!
803 posts, read 2,961,121 times
Reputation: 241
Yeah, I know. . . . I know. . . . . .LMAO!!!

* FIRES UP A STOGIE IN YOUR HONOR *
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2008, 09:59 AM
 
48 posts, read 199,055 times
Reputation: 18
What's up with this thread... is the only culture shock whether you can smoke or not in public places? Any other good advice or suggestions or shared experiences relocating to PGH from another part of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top