I'm assuming the workplace parking lot is privately owned. If that's the case, why is there an officer there handing out tickets? Could officers write a ticket for a car parked in a private residence driveway? Why not drive around and ticket people who don't lock the front door to their house or who don't have a motion security light outside or who leave their windows for their house open when it's hot or don't apply shatterproof laminate on the windows?

It reeks of fascism to me.

This is a popular myth, but all those fancy features you see in race cars are designed for race cars and race car crashes. For example, your roof would collapse in a roll over, making a 3 point seat belt a recipe for a snapped neck (you're body can't slide under the steering wheel). The reason better harnesses work in race cars is because they have reinforced bodies and roll cages, which you do not have. You'd have to radically redesign all vehicles to make many of those other safety features actually work like they're intended to work.

The fact is, forcing seat belt use makes a very big difference, statistically, in the severity and kinds of injuries sustained in the types of accidents that are most common on the road. This also lightens the burden on society, which is where the "give me freedom at all costs" philosophy kind of breaks down, imo, as there doesn't seem to be a good way to force behavior adjustments when the very common and very poor behavior has a very measurably impact directly on you (lack of safe cars manufactured, unnecessarily injured parties become a social burden, etc.).
I used to do county and city record research for vehicular fatalities while working for a traffic engineering firm. I can assure you fatalities are brutal, horrific, and make the news. Crippling injuries tend not to, and the latter are extremely common in cases where restraints are not used or not properly used.
It is a fineable offense in the US, that's part of what those cigarette taxes are for, in addition that massive pot of cash paid to the US Government by the industry is likewise intended to both defray that and pay for campaigns to reduce smoking in the first place.
This probably depends entirely on the ordnance as its written. Unless they somehow find that it's prevented by state law, whatever the city council passed as the allowed enforcement is probably going to stand. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pretty sure that's how this kind of thing tends to work.

I think smoking in bars should not be permitted and here is why: I tend to be in favour of individual freedoms that don't infringe on the freedoms of others. If you are smoking in an enclosed space, it is to the detriment of those around you. A bar owner's desire for a smoking establishment does not trump the staff and customers' health.

I know some occupations have inherent risks but the workers are compensated with hazard pay. I have never heard of a waiters/waitresses getting hazard pay.

I worked in a place that was "no smoking" so even if you sat in your car during your lunch break with the windows up you weren't allowed to smoke. I know, I know, "Our property, our rules" - but seriously, I think that's pushing it a little too far. My car is no longer my property because it's parked on your space?

I don't see your point. If some other change is required for a safety measure to be effective (in this case, rollcage with harness), that would be mandatory too.

As would enforcing the other safety measures mentioned.

By the way, I'd like to point out I'm arguing that seatbelt use should be optional, not that seatbelts being fit in the car should be optional.

All the arguments for enforcing seatbelt use apply to the other things I've mentioned and no-one has given a good (in my opinion) reason why seatbelts should be mandatory and other measures should not.
Like the freedom to go to another bar?

I see. I still like the idea of a legislative body whose only concern is legislating what the government can't do. Maybe something like Professor Bernardo de la Paz proposed in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where a legislative body has to pass a law with 2/3 majority and then a separate legislative body can repeal laws that people don't like with a 1/4 vote. Because, as Prof put it, if 1/4 of the people want a law to be repealed, doesn't that mean it's probably a bad law and they should try to come up with something better? Or just let it die.

That's the problem, those other safety measures have relatively low effectiveness in the types of crashes that occur on the highway compared to their big cost. In addition, the cost of retrofitting simply new car designs would be extraordinary. Seat belts cost relatively little, are extremely simple to employ with almost no training, and are very effective.

The other stuff you're talking about is fucking great when you're racing, necessary even, but they all have drawbacks on the highway that make them far less effective.

Arguing that seat belts are optional or that you can go to another bar is a sucker's bet, it sounds like a good idea until you find out that if smoking is allowed in bars virtually all bars will be smoking and no cars will have seat belts.

Like I said, opting to not wear your seat belt very much does affect others, I assume you're granting that point, but you're trying to counter with an argument ad absurdum (or however the hell you say it) that all safety precautions should then be required. That ignores the cost, difficulty, and trade offs in safety of each of those other devices (you can't just reinforce all the body panels in a vehicle without altering how it handles and how it crashes, for example - in addition race car drivers are extremely trained to take advantage of them and avoid crashes, would you be okay giving up your right to drive until you've completed 500 hours - sort of guessing on the amount of hours - of training and have to certify your excellent health each year? That's what they do). Were those devices all equal to seat belts in those regards, sure, I'd be with you, but they are not so the argument is just plain silly.

I actually found learning about those features pretty fascinating, tbh, I started because of my racing buddy, you might actually find them interesting since you're the inquisitive sort.

The whole "you're freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose" thing makes for a great sound bite, but in far too many real life cases it's completely useless as a yardstick. In real life it far too often boils down to your right to swing your fist or the other party's right to have a nose at all. As a society we just have to do the best we can to find a good compromise.

It would mean that the demand on non-smoking bars is almost or equal to zero. And what's wrong with that? If my customers were 70% smokers I would do a fucking smokers bar.

If I had a restaurant on the other hand, I would probably make it non-smokers one, because most people don't like to inhale smoke while eating.

It's MARKET. Demand and supply decide. If the demand on non-smoking bars is low, it means people don't need them in general.

If there were only smokers bars, opening an non-smoker bar should be a road to el dorado for me. Because all non-smokers would be instantly my customers.

Non-smokers tend to act like douches. "I like this bar but I don't like the smoke, so let's ban smoking, yeah!" , they never really tried or demanded new non-smoking bars, and even if they appeared, they never went there! Non-smoking pubs don't last long, somehow non-smokers do not choose to go there. But yeah, they want to force all bars to be non-smoking. I hope it's not what yoy see as compromise.

I guess if you could run a pub all by yourself it would be okay to allow smoking there, but the moment you need to hire help you may be legally required to provide a safe work environment for them. While the customers can choose to go elsewhere that may not be an option for the unemployed who has bills to pay.

I would not mind smoking as long as the smokers would wear closed helmets while doing so and they would not be able to open them before the smoke is filtered away and they are no longer exhaling it.

Last time I checked, nobody forced to apply for a job in a coal mine or a pub. Going to a smokers club and bitching about smoke is like going to a strip club and bitching about naked women.

If you haven't noticed even a coal miner's working conditions have improved as the society have progressed forwards. Today even an injury at the workplace can be a serious business while a hundred years ago a few deaths in any construction site where nothing but a little inconvenience to the employers. I did also specify that not everyone can just refuse a job if the bills are coming to due and no other offers are found so the idea is to protect those from being "forced" to choose between their health and credit rating.

And I wasn't talking about me going to anywhere, but about any smoker who can't breath in and out fresh air for a few minutes after a smoke before coming to talk to me.

That's only what you think it means, what it really means is the profits don't drop off enough and people will be inconvenienced in order to be social (or engage in other activities). It's a simply a fallacy of a belief in a free market solution to everything.

I know, I've lived through both halves of the "smoking allowed in bars" debate over here. It's quiet clear that nearly all bars were smoking previously and that even bars that had non-smoking areas often had no barriers or extra air venting to keep the smoke out of said area. Now that it's banned, save in extremely restricted circumstances, bars still make money and there are actually places to go if you don't want to smell cigarette smoke (and let's be honest, if you don't smoke, it smells about as pleasant as a ripe fart).

Let me be clear, in my city of over one million people, despite having the highest per capita bars/restaurant/strip club amount per capita, there were virtually no places to attend where you wouldn't smell like an ashtray by the end of the evening.

Sorry, there was clearly "demand", the voters demanded it (it was a referendum). That's one of the ways the "free market" decides things;)
You may be unfamiliar with how pre-union coal mines were run, complete with company store... When the choice is a "Sophie's Choice", i.e. do it or you very literally might starve, then it becomes no longer about freedom. That's why society collectively calls "bullshit" from time to time and decides to fix it.
This is the part I'm trying to get across, no they're really not, they require massive investments in training and industry. When I talk about increased costs, we're not talking about doubling or tripling the cost, compromising curb weight, which is at odds with fuel standards requirements, etc.

It's really, really not as easy or simple as you're making it out to be and many of those things don't actually work all that well in the types of wrecks you have on the road.

While I'm for increased examinations for driving, the level of training race car drivers receive might be a tad excessive and costly for the resultant benefit.

Voting over private places is sick. It's just like I and my friend voted how should you paint your walls in your house or restaurant or which car should you buy.

I am a strict non-smoker, but I see forcing private owners to do something against their business interest is something I wouldn't ever choose over my own convenience or health. I wouldn't want to be told by strangers how should I run my business.

That's all I'm gonna say :P
Your statement about smoke in bars was just like you would say workers in coal mines should work in coal free environment.
Pubs were smoked in most places, so saying banning smoke is ok because it's for employees health is like saying banning coal is good for coal miners work.

But yeah, it's good when employed pub worker gets unemployed, because tons of smokers go elsewhere (bigger pubs that have separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers) instead of small pub that HAS TO BE non-smokers only and is almost empty now.

Let me clarify. "we" banned smoking in pubs in Poland unless you have separate rooms. And as you may guess easily, bigger and richer (as usual) could afford making separate rooms and they have the most amount of people now.

Small bars that are strictly non-smoking, because they can't aford expanding on two separate rooms, had to sack most of their staff due to lack of customers (how come?! people wanted non smoking pubs!!!), and it's more difficult to start a bar now, because you have to meet strict regulations and your non-smoking customers have smoking friends, so they won't go to your place anyway.

Oh yeah, market is a bitch.

Of course bars still make money, there is no competition. What bar-like establishment is there that allows smoking? As far as I am aware, it's none, because the ban applies to any such establishment. Reducing everyone to only one food (probably gruel :P) and then saying "People still eat it!" is a really bad argument and that is, I think, what you are doing there. Especially because there have always been places you can go without ending up smelling of smoke.

1) We had a choice (smoking bars, non-smoking bars) and people went to bars.
2) We restricted the choice to only non-smoking bars and people still went to bars.
3) Therefore limiting it is good.

Anecdotal but I am and always have been a non-smoker, grew up in a non-smoking environment and I think the smell of smoke mostly ranges from neutral to mildly pleasant. It may be true that most people who find themselves in a similar position take up smoking though. For the record, I do not like the smell of ripe farts!

Because none of the "I want a non-smoking bar" people started one? They wanted one, you say there is a big enough market and in a city of 1 million people, that should make enough patrons to keep it going, surely?

It's funny how "demand" increases the less effort it takes to acquire "demanded" thing.

Invest money, time and energy in starting and running a non-smoking bar with all the risks running a business entails or... put a cross in a box once.

Doesn't help that a lot of people who feel the need to try and enforce their beliefs on others are very vocal about it, making me worry that a sizeable chunk of those voters don't even go to bars, even with the ban in place.

Well that's unfair. I had to pay for my driving training!
Perfectly possible != perfectly practical or perfectly cost-effective.

But it moves the cost from society to the person who wants to pilot a heap of metal at speed. In addition, I'm not the one arguing that racecar-driver training should be mandatory.

I think that raises a good point though.. is there training for existing safety things? For example, to not lean forwards if you're expecting a crash in a car with an airbag, how to check the seatbelt will engage properly during an accident and is at the proper tension "at rest".