Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

[q

Restaurant workers are a proud bunch. They don't need you talking about them like they're helpless and powerless. They certainly don't want to be pawns in your phoney-baloney agenda.

Making sweeping statements like this (when you are unable to verify such claims) doesn't help your argument. Because it can be easily turned around and used against you.

Restaurant workers are a proud bunch. They certainly don't want to have to inhale your second-hand smoke when they serve you.

And yes many restaurant workers ARE powerless and helpless. Not all of them work in the developed world where there are many more choices.
If some work as restaurant servers in a Third World country where unemployment is high and there are 10 more people just waiting to take your job...it's not so easy just to up and quit.

lemak

Joined: 02 Jan 2011

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

How's this- Japan has one of the highest rates of smoking, yet one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Shouldn't those two things not go together?

Just imagine how high their life expectancy *would* be if they didn't smoke.

Quote:

And anyway why should we bother? It is the law or will be...non-smokers can afford to wait a bit...we've won the war.

This. reminds me a little of that fish that has been taken out of water. Flapping and fighting. Too-fish brained or stubborn to know it's lost the battle. Might as well just lay down and face inevitability.

You should be thanking us non-smokers for giving you fewer opportunities to slowly poison yourself, Stinkyrails.

Not speaking for the others, but on *my* behalf "You're welcome" (in advance)

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:22 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

we've won the war.

So said Prohibitionists and Anti-Narcotic advocates. I agree, the trend is with you.

But 70 years from now, after tobacco has been made illegal and organized crime, police spending, and corruption has taken its toll, you'll wave the white flag.

Or we could save our nations that headache and just agree that non-smokers go and eat and drink at non-smoking restaurants, and smokers go to smoking restaurants and bars. And if there is a mixed group of friends, they could sort it out amongst themselves and reach a compromise.

You know, what reasonable people do. Not run around and start trying to make laws.

Quote:

Excuse me? You are aware of the start-up costs and cost of making sure your restaurant is compliant with all regulations and red tape?

If the Irish, Gays, Vegetarians, Persians, Mexicans, Rednecks, and Ghetto Fabulous types can open up their own bars, non-smokers in Korea/Back Home can too.

There's no reason a city the size of Seoul shouldn't have a plethora of dining and drinking options that feature non-smoking. And it does. Most fine dining places are non-smoking. Heck, your local kimbap place is non-smoking.

Hofs open and close all the time, there's no reason one of them shouldn't be able to try and be non-smoking.

Quote:

Restaurant workers are a proud bunch. They certainly don't want to have to inhale your second-hand smoke when they serve you.

Restaurant workers will quit over nothing. If they didn't want to inhale smoke they wouldn't work in a smoking restaurant or serve the smoking section.

These are people who will no call-no show because they feel like it or got a better gig at another restaurant down the block.

Quote:

And yes many restaurant workers ARE powerless and helpless. Not all of them work in the developed world where there are many more choices.

Well that's an issue for countries in the developing world to take up with their government.

But as for Korea/Back home, no one is powerless and helpless.

How are you powerless and helpless and forced to work in an industry that averages 100% turnover a year?

Quote:

If some work as restaurant servers in a Third World country where unemployment is high and there are 10 more people just waiting to take your job...it's not so easy just to up and quit.

That's an issue for that country. If things are so bad there, I doubt workplace smoking is at the top of their list. For one, life expectancy is so low that no one is living long enough to get cancer anyway. For another, I bet malaria is more of a concern. I also doubt there is much of a "workplace safety" concern there and people will take whatever job they can, smoking or non, to feed their family.

I think getting them access to a stable food supply, clean water, and competent health care would be at the top of the list. Not some workplace smoking ban.

And again, no one cares about the restaurant workers of the 3rd world in this issue. If we cared about them, this issue would have been brought up on pages 1-3 as the argument began, not on page 15 as the arguments about people being "forced" to endure second hand smoke have been exposed and demolished.

No one is forced to go to a smoking restaurant for leisure. That is a demonstrated fact. Also, no one in the developed world is forced to work in a smoking restaurant. That is a demonstrated fact.

So now to justify smoking bans in the developed world, the anti-smoking crowd is citing restaurant workers in the 3rd world as evidence as to why we should have work place smoking bans.

To the anti-smokers, that's a perfectly sound argument. But an argument citing Prohibition, The War on Drugs, and NYC's soda ban is a "ludicrous doomsday scenario" Rolling Eyes

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:40 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Excuse me? You are aware of the start-up costs and cost of making sure your restaurant is compliant with all regulations and red tape?

If the Irish, Gays, Vegetarians, Persians, Mexicans, Rednecks, and Ghetto Fabulous types can open up their own bars, non-smokers in Korea/Back Home can too.

:

If they have a few hundred thousand dollars and able to get a business/investor visa and able to deal with all the red tape in Korean and able to attract Korean customers as well as expats...then yes non-smokers can. But we are not talking with wealthy expat CEOs we are talking with (for the most part) economic migrants.

People on Dave's for the most part don't have several hundred thousand dollars to throw down on a restaurant (heck most don't have several hundred thousand dollars period or any thing close to what it would take. Even a large group would be pressed to contribute that much and just imagine the disagreements that would occur.

Not to mention how do they support themselves while building/opening the restaurant...can't teach on an investor visa and can't build with a teaching visa...

Either here or back home. The idea is ludicrous. And just a red herring to boot. Simply because I prefer to eat in a smoke-free restaurant does not mean I should build one.

And no when tobacco is illegal I will be quite happy thank you very much. This isn't like Prohibition where most people were unhappy with the law. Most people prefer these laws...sorry your days are numbered.

If the pro-smoking crowd wants to smoke so badly THEY should be the ones building their own little private smoking restaurants.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Lawdy Lawdy, how did every single expat bar in Korea ever manage to open up?

How did people manage to start up hagwons?

Quote:

Simply because I prefer to eat in a smoke-free restaurant does not mean I should build one.

If gays want a club to go dance in and meet people should they A) File a discrimination lawsuit against a currently operating club, demanding that at least 1 day a week is gay night or B) Open their own club?

Give the gays credit, guess what they did? They opened their own bars and clubs.

If the gays, Irish, and blacks can do it, certainly non-smokers, a group with way more economic and political power than those groups had back in the day, are more than capable of opening their own bars and restaurants.

Quote:

And no when tobacco is illegal I will be quite happy thank you very much. This isn't like Prohibition where most people were unhappy with the law

Actually most people were happy with Prohibition when it went into affect. After all it required a Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment in the United States requires a 2/3rd majority in both the House and Senate and a 3/4 majority of the States ratifying it. Ratification being done by each state either by that state's legislature or a special Convention.

And what will happen with tobacco illegality? Do you think that once the law is made that tobacco use will simply cease?

Where is the money going to come from for enforcement? Are you going to send soldiers and money to countries like Cuba, The Dominican Republic, and Egypt to combat the illegal tobacco trade? Are you going to throw people in prison for possession, consumption, production, and distribution of tobacco?

What are you going to do about the loss of tobacco tax revenue? Pass a tax on something else? Cut spending?

What are you going to do about the criminal gangs, both foreign and domestic, that will make massive profits off of the illegal tobacco trade?

And what are you going to do about the violence that crops up because of these gangs? When some 8 year old gets gunned down in a drive-by of a tobacco dealer, are you going to tell her mom "It's for a good cause. My right to not have to deal with smoke at a night club at 2AM was more important than unleashing the War on Tobacco which has ravaged the inner city".

Quote:

sorry your days are numbered.

Yes they are. But we all know what the next step is. For with banning must come enforcement and expenditure. Like some Far-off country policing a foreign land, eventually you will be bled dry and grow weary.

Although with smokers our low life expectancy will probably deny us the pleasure of saying "I told you so".

Quote:

If the pro-smoking crowd wants to smoke so badly THEY should be the ones building their own little private smoking restaurants.

We already have! That's the whole bloody point! We already have built our own smoking restaurants and bars. That's why they have ashtrays in them. Smokers won't whine and moan about having to open their own clubs. They'll gladly foot the bill. We know that there is some smoker out there who has some coin and will see the market for a smoking bar. Same with a greasy spoon diner. We see no reason to demand smoking in non-smoking restaurants, we'll just open our own places.

And we support that idea. Yes! Let us build our own private smoking restaurants where we can smoke without fear of it being made illegal. You will get a 100% endorsement from smokers. That's always been our point.

Apparently many in the anti-smoking community think that that should not be allowed. It should be illegal for smokers to build their own private little smoking restaurants, bars, and clubs. Smoker owner, smoker staffed, smoker patronized.

Apparently the "Public Health" argument says that workers who smoke are being victimized by smoking patrons in their smoking restaurant. Rolling Eyes

CentralCali

Joined: 17 May 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject:

Don't be stupid. Nobody's making tobacco, nor even the smoking of it, illegal. What's being restricted is the selfish and harmful practice of smoking around others in certain venues. Face it. The numbers of people who smoke are dwindling. Those who cling to that particular stupidity will have to get off their duff and stroll a few meters to the great outdoors to practice their particular form of slow suicide, all without inflicting their selfish and destructive habit on others. Sounds perfecty reasonable to me. But, then, I'm a reasonable person.

Zyzyfer

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:05 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

So how do you think the current expat-owned bars managed?

Quote:

Either here or back home. The idea is ludicrous. And just a red herring to boot. Simply because I prefer to eat in a smoke-free restaurant does not mean I should build one.

I think the point is more that new places that open up should have a choice in the matter as opposed to just obeying government mandate.

There are bars in the general Itaewon area that have banned smoking. One banned it for a while and then reverted because it hit business too hard. Another one I have in mind banned it and is doing very well.

Again I'll mention Chuncheon as well. Every restaurant I saw there had banned smoking. I can dig that, it led to me smoking less since I had to go outside.

I'm not a fan of the libertarian "build it if you want it" attitude. But I am a fan of choice.

Quote:

If the pro-smoking crowd wants to smoke so badly THEY should be the ones building their own little private smoking restaurants.

I mentioned earlier in this thread a certain foreigner-owned bar, which opened before these regulations went into effect, that caters specifically to cigar smokers. The place gets booming business on the weekends from older US military folks and cigar smokers in general. It has what seems to be a pretty good ventilation system and the only other thing I could imagine it being besides a cigar bar, given how it's set up, is some snooty little jazz club.

I'm very curious what this bar owner who possibly staked his livelihood on his cigar bar thinks about government regulations banning smoking in bars. His bar isn't big enough yet to fall under their jurisdiction but it won't matter eventually since this will eventually impact every single bar.

Sadly, he'll probably end up making some tiny little walled-off area where non-smokers can enjoy...well...whatever it is they enjoy in a cigar bar. Sam Ryan's is already flouting this by sending non-smokers out to the outdoor patio.

But nobody pays attention to my posts on this thread. I know SteelRails makes a nice, fat, juicy lulztarget for you guys but damn.

CentralCali wrote:

But, then, I'm a reasonable person.

Yes you are, which is why I'm kind of put off by your vehemence. I generally enjoy reading your input on various topics but I can't help but be repulsed when you're effectively calling me (as a smoker) an idiot, unreasonable, etc., numerous times in this thread.

Wish you could express your views without being so spiteful about it but whatever.

John Stamos jr.

Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Namsan

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject:

I wonder how long Steelrails will keep this internet schtick going. Will he still be writing personal essays on Dave's in 5, maybe 10 years? Just blathering endlessly, fighting for Korea with his 100% objectivity, and talking about things almost no one seems to agree with. I wonder...

god of English

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:28 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Comparing me to a migrant worker is an insult to migrant workers.

You're probably right, but not in the way that you think.

I'm sorry if this hurts your pride but the fact is that you *are* a migrant worker. I suggest you look up the term if you don't believe me.

Quote:

The high turnover rate is clear and indisputable evidence that no one is FORCED to work in a restaurant.

The high turnover rate is clear and indisputable evidence of a high turnover rate. The fact is that some people *are* forced to work in restaurants. Not forced in the literal sense that you're obstinately clinging to, but forced because they can't risk staying unemployed or losing seniority or whatever dire situation the current economy put them in.

I know it's difficult for you to accept anything beyond the literal definition of "forced" because it completely undermines your already weak argument but let's try to introduce some more complex thinking here.

Quote:

Anti-smokers, please, drop the "worker health" thing. For starters, anyone with a brain can tell that you don't give two craps about worker health and are instead just using them in your argument to further your agenda.

How can we tell? Smoking arguments always begin with the anti-smokers complaining about smoking in restaurants. They involve personal stories, moral arguments, but almost no statistics. But of course, in the end, they have to admit that they aren't forced to enter that restaurant and instead, chose to.

Bla bla bla...

Rather than continuing to attack the messenger rather than the message, why don't you offer a clear reason why it's more important for you to stay glued to your chair rather than walk 10 or 15 to the doorstep and improve the health and longevity of the workers inside? Something a bit more compelling than this:

Quote:

I'd rather jeopardize their health than the health of passersby outside who may be exposed to my second hand smoke.

FYI, I've been consistent throughout this thread: this is a workplace smoking ban, not a restaurant ban -- at least the way I see it. Go back to my first post in this thread if you don't believe me. This is completely irrelevant to the debate, of course, but I'm mentioning it here in the hopes that you'll abandon these personal attacks and stay on topic.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I'm sorry if this hurts your pride but the fact is that you *are* a migrant worker. I suggest you look up the term if you don't believe me.

The term migrant worker has many different definitions and connotations depending what country you are from.

Me working in a foreign country has nothing to do with being forced to work somewhere.

I am not forced to work in Korea. I can find another job somewhere else. I choose to work here. I chose to work here when I applied for the job.

Quote:

The fact is that some people *are* forced to work in restaurants. Not forced in the literal sense that you're obstinately clinging to, but forced because they can't risk staying unemployed or losing seniority or whatever dire situation the current economy put them in.

At some point they chose to work in that restaurant. If the restaurant was a smoking restaurant, they chose to work there.

Seniority and risking unemployment isn't an issue because when they chose to work there, they had no seniority and they were already unemployed!

Duh.

If, if, the restaurant decided to add smoking after the person was hired (which according to the "Tide of History" is not the way things are going), I would be 100% behind the person being able to sue for damages and lost wages as a result of them having to quit their job.

Quote:

I know it's difficult for you to accept anything beyond the literal definition of "forced" because it completely undermines your already weak argument but let's try to introduce some more complex thinking here.

It's clear that no one is forced. That's why now you're trying to claim things "other than forced", but still, as illustrated above, no one was anywhere close to forced.

Quote:

why don't you offer a clear reason why it's more important for you to stay glued to your chair rather than walk 10 or 15 to the doorstep and improve the health and longevity of the workers inside?

Because that's what I am patronizing the bar for.

Because the person who owns the bar decided they wanted to allow smoking, and the workers there decided they have no problem with smoking and its health risks. We have reached a mutual agreement that their working and making money and my desire for leisure and to spend money overrides either of our's concern for our health.

Consenting adults. We consent to smoke, eat deep fried food, and to drink excessive amounts of alcohol. The waitresses and bartenders consent to work around smoke (as they are smokers themselves), in the case of the bartenders they will often "work" smoking customers for bigger tips by taking a smoke break and having a cigarette with a customer and chat them up. In the case of owners, many of them are also working behind the bar and are smokers themselves.

It's a mutually beneficial or mutually parasitic relationship, but either way, it is mutual.

Quote:

Only after several pages of people arguing their personal disgust with smoking.

And still, no personal and visceral stories. Where did the motivation come from?

god of English

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:39 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

I am not forced to work in Korea. I can find another job somewhere else. I choose to work here. I chose to work here when I applied for the job.

Looks like I touched a nerve with this "migrant worker" comment. I'm glad to hear that you're flush with prospects but unfortunately for every fresh grad seeking adventure there's at least one veteran who wants to return home but can't because they'd be in a sense, forced to work in a restaurant or some other minimum wage job. These are people with university degrees. Think about the people without higher education. Do you think a restaurant's smoking policy is going to be on their radar when they're struggling to put food on the table or stay off the street? No, I didn't think so.

Quote:

Because that's what I am patronizing the bar for.

Bla bla bla...

I asked you for a *clear* reason, not another rambling, airy-fairy fantasy scenario. Let me rephrase:

Would you rather damage the health of workers and increase their risk of cancer and heart attacks than rise from your seat, walk 15 feet to the doorstep, and relieve your nicotine addiction outside?

CentralCali

Joined: 17 May 2007

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:59 am Post subject:

Zyzyfer wrote:

CentralCali wrote:

But, then, I'm a reasonable person.

Yes you are,

Thanks.

Quote:

which is why I'm kind of put off by your vehemence. I generally enjoy reading your input on various topics but I can't help but be repulsed when you're effectively calling me (as a smoker) an idiot, unreasonable, etc., numerous times in this thread.

Wish you could express your views without being so spiteful about it but whatever.

Could you be so kind as to indicate those instances? I mean, not those instances where I've directed those against the ridiculous comments by Steelrails. And also indicate what shows my "vehemence". Thanks in advance.

Oh, just for fun, let me add some sources for my (possible) vehemence on the issue of people smoking in "no smoking" areas. Each of these has happened in my presence and the people responsible for enforcing the laws either don't enforce them because (a) they can't be bothered to or (b) they're smoking in the same places as the other offenders!

Man who started a fire in the trashcan on the subway platform because he was using the trashcan as an ashtray. You'll note that smoking is not permitted in the subway stations. You'll also note that it's not the only time I've seen people smoking on the platforms; this is just the only time I've seen a fire start in Korea from the stupidity of using a freaking trashcan to toss a lit cigarette.
Groups of people smoking in the subway in the unpaid area. As mentioned above, you'll note that smoking is not permitted in the subway stations, either in the paid area or the unpaid area.
Public bus drivers (yes, plural) smoking while they're driving their route. You'll note that smoking is not permitted--not even for the driver--on the public buses.
People smoking in that area at the end of the cars (can't recall the real term for that at the moment) on the KTX. You'll not that smoking is not permitted on the KTX.
Group--yes, group--of adult men who lit up in the cinema during a movie. You'll note that smoking is not permitted in the cinema.

For more fun, ask me in which of those areas I've mentioned above someone has chastised me for "talking too loud" when I wasn't loud but was, in fact, simply speaking to my companion in English and then, shortly after such chastising, the very same person has lit up a cigarette. Go ahead. Ask.

Maybe you're one of the apparently incredibly few smokers who actually do follow the laws already on the books. Maybe you're one of the incredibly few smokers who actually are concerned about those in your immediate vicinity who do not smoke. But the big problem is that the number of your fellow smokers who do smoke, do so with such blatant disregard for others that many nonsmokers--and evidently the government--no longer believe that smokers will actually be considerate. Thus the legislation. It'd be nice if the legislation is enforced. I'm not holding my breath though.

Another "for fun" instance: While waiting for a friend on the street near the entrance to a subway station in Busan, there was also a small group of university students waiting for one of their friends. When one of the group decided to light up, a young lady in the group politely asked him not to smoke around her because she was feeling sick. His response was to light up, take a big drag, and then blow smoke in her face. She puked on him.

sligo

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:51 am Post subject:

To answer the IS ANYONE FORCED TO ENTER A RESTAURANT QUESTION a few years ago a friend of my best friend came to Korea to visit him for a holiday. To cut a long story short, they got drunk one night, had a massive argument, and parted company. His friend took himself off to spend the time travelling, and as such if he wanted to eatHE WAS FORCED TO ENTER SEVERAL RESTAURANTS

tardisrider

Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:21 am Post subject:

sligo wrote:

HE WAS FORCED TO ENTER SEVERAL RESTAURANTS

Not true. He could have purchased raw potatoes at an outdoor market and eaten them while hiding in an alleyway.

sligo

Joined: 15 Oct 2008

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:24 am Post subject:

tardisrider wrote:

sligo wrote:

HE WAS FORCED TO ENTER SEVERAL RESTAURANTS

Not true. He could have purchased raw potatoes at an outdoor market and eaten them while hiding in an alleyway.

Completely true, i withdraw my arument, and am curretntly putting on a sack cloth and about to ashen my face.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Next
Page 15 of 18

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe