I'm taking a stand!

[sdifox]

err, this needs to be aired because?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Okay...well that doesn't make sense. So restaurant = no smoking because of the food. Bar = smoking.

So what if I wanted to go to a bar (not a bar & grill type of thing) and not have to deal with smoking? Oh...can't. Don't see how that is a great compromise.

I can see how it may sound like that's the way it all breaks down but that is not the case here. The trick is the amount of food which sets the requirement. If you spend some time bar hopping in certain areas in Florida where there are a lot of bars then what you will discover is that there are plenty of actual bars (not just restaurant bars) with pool tables, darts, etc that do not permit smoking either by choice or because they are opting to serve more food items than what the law permits in order for it to be a smoking establishment. During your bar hopping experience, you will also find plenty of bars which permit smoking and also offer a small menu of food which usually consists of some appetizers.

I really do not know what else to say other than that it really has worked here. People are very content with the situation because everyone is given enough choices and freedom to the point that it feels like there is no law set in place. Instead, it just feels like we naturally have a bunch of places to smoke and a bunch of places where we cannot smoke.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: OdiN
The thing is - it's a rights thing.

I have a right to breath smoke-free air.

Smokers have a right to smoke.

The two rights are contradictory to each other. So who's is more important? I see things as since smoking is a health risk, I shouldn't be subjected to it. If you want to ruin your own health and do something which is bad for your body, that's fine. I dont' care. But your actions shouldn't be allowed to also subject me to that same substance which is bad for my health. People have said well people eat bad food which is bad for them, ban that too! Well....you eating horribly doesn't affect my body, so it's not at all the same.

The two rights are indeed contradictory. But you're missing a vital piece of the equation: location. If you were trying to get smoking banned in public places, you'd have a legitimate claim that since smoking poses a health risk, it should not be allowed in places where non-smokers are likely to congregate. That all changes when you move into private property. If a bar keeps its doors and windows shut so that virtually no smoke escapes (as they should), the smoke is not entering the public air, and is only affecting people who choose to be patrons of that particular establishment. If you don't want to be subjected to that smoke, you are not required to enter said establishment and breathe the air. If enough people decide the smoke it too offensive, the bar will lose money, and reevaluate its policy on allowing smoking.

Originally posted by: OdiN
You say it's about the rights of property owners. I doubt there would be a single bar which, if allowed, would decide to not allow smoking over allowing smoking. Not that I care much personally, because I rarely go to bars.

I can think of several bars in my neighborhood which, voluntarily, do not allow smoking (one does after 10pm, but virtually no one ever smokes in there; perhaps because the bartenders don't leave the ashtrays out, so no one thinks it's allowed). There are plenty of establishments where you can go and enjoy a drink without dealing with the foul stench of cigarettes (I'm not a smoker).

Originally posted by: OdiN
I think smoking should be banned in public - even outdoors, except for perhaps designated areas.

Why? Becuase walking around San Fran or something and trying to enjoy the nice bay air only to have that ruined by smokers is not something I found enjoyable. Smoke is very offensive to me, it causes me to cough badly.

Imagine a horribly offensive odor and airborne substance which causes you to cough and be extremely uncomfortable. Now imagine that many people all around you secrete this and cause you discomfort. Would you like that? Smokers don't care because....well they smoke and it doesn't bother them. But they don't stop to think (most at least) about what it does to others, and they don't care. But if the situations were reversed I think you wouldn't mind a ban.

I am more in line with banning smoking in public places. The public has a right to be secure in their health, and smoking has been proven to be detrimental to health. What people choose to do in private settings is completely different. If people want to subject themselves to a known carcinogen, a product which is killing them as they use it, if they are doing it in a private place, then let them be. Bars are not public property. You have every right to not frequent an establishment because it allows a behavior that you detest.

The other night I was talking to someone in a bar, and she told me about a place in my town which is essentially an orgy club. The club is divided into several different areas; a voyeur room, where you can simply watch others "play," a room in which you are expected to join in, and private rooms for those who desire specific company. There are fetish events in bars around town on a rotating basis which feature acts that I find personally repulsive (suspensions and BDSM play). I know not to frequent those locations when such events are happening; I don't demand the government stop these people from having their fun so that I may feel more comfortable in someone else's establishment. What right do I have to tell other people that what they choose to do for enjoyment in a private establishment is wrong (I draw the line at obvious criminal acts, such as rape, murder, child pornography, etc., but as smoking is still legal, I don't really think it qualifies)?

I pretty much agree with all that. I really don't care about smoking in bars. I rarely, if ever, go there. I am just taking kind of a devils advocate type position for others who may frequent them and don't want to be subjected to smoke.

I am fine with business owners deciding what they want. But I wouldn't want that ability to interfere with things I like to do. For instance - bowling. There used to be smoking allowed in them when growing up. Wasn't fun. I enjoy bowling. There are usually only 1 or 2 alleys in a town, so if they were both allowing smoking - that would suck. That's just one example.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

 

[RGN]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is why CA can eat a D.

It shouldn't be outlawed period. It should be up to the owner. That way, everyone gets their piece of the pie.

Illinois did it too. I don't smoke, but I think it ruined some places. I liked not being able to see across the room.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: OdiN
I am fine with business owners deciding what they want. But I wouldn't want that ability to interfere with things I like to do. For instance - bowling. There used to be smoking allowed in them when growing up. Wasn't fun. I enjoy bowling. There are usually only 1 or 2 alleys in a town, so if they were both allowing smoking - that would suck. That's just one example.

I completely agree about bowling alleys. But there's a pretty substantial difference. Bowling is a family activity that is often engaged in by minors. Minors are never found in bars (not real bars). I believe that protecting minors from second-hand smoke should outweigh the rights of property owners. But protecting adult clientelle who can make their own decisions about what establishment they choose to frequent seems way too far-reaching, and a perversion of government. Must we rely on the government to protect us from everything dangerous for the rest of our lives?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

I'm sorry, is your city forcing you to go into specific bars that allow smoking? If so, I completely retract my objection to this ban. However, if it is your personal choice that is putting you in these establishments, I don't feel the government should be required to step in and tell everybody else they must conform to what you would prefer the bar was like.

Keep in mind, I already have said I'm in favor of banning smoking in public places. Quite frankly, I wish cigarettes had never been invented; they are vile, disgusting, foul things. But in the same way I will defend the freedoms of the white supremacists to spew their racist hatred, even though I wish they would all die, I will defend the bar owners' right to determine whether the legal activity of smoking should be allowed in their establishment, even though I wish they would all disallow it. I do not need the government taking away other peoples' rights for some small personal benefit when I can simply avoid putting myself in harm's way through my choices and actions.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

What right to that fresh air do you have in a PRIVATE establishment? You're ignoring completely the right of a business to cater to their chosen customers. You are not forced into that establishment. This is in a bar, not a public place. That is a completely different argument, and one I'd agree with you on.

They should be making the decisions as it doesn't impact those who don't choose to be there. This isn't something like chemical dumping in a river.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

What right to that fresh air do you have in a PRIVATE establishment? You're ignoring completely the right of a business to cater to their chosen customers. You are not forced into that establishment. This is in a bar, not a public place. That is a completely different argument, and one I'd agree with you on.

They should be making the decisions as it doesn't impact those who don't choose to be there. This isn't something like chemical dumping in a river.

It's a public establishment. Also, the employees and patrons have rights.

 

[Chunkee]

you will be missing out on all those slutty smoking women with oral fixations...your loss guthram

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

Mosh, how often are you not breathing in fresh air due to second hand smoke? Also, out of all of the time that you spend breathing smoke in, how much of that time could easily be avoided should you choose to do so? I really think this whole non-smokers breathing in second hand smoke is being blown (no pun intended) completely out of proportion.

I would also love to see some statistics showing how many people have been proven to experience very noticeable negative changes towards their health due to second hand smoke which meets the following criteria:

1. They do no live with a smoker and smoking is not permitted indoors even with guests.
2. They do not work in an indoor environment which permits smoking.
3. They were never a regular smoker.

After that, I would like to see the amount of people who meet the exact same criteria but have not been proven to experience any negative health effects due to exposure to second hand smoke. Even though both of those numbers are probably very difficult to obtain, most likely the ratio between the two would make the reality seem ridiculously obvious that any laws which ban smoking in bars are not going to improve the health of Americans by any more than a drop in the bucket. Therefore, I believe that most of these laws are only around to give people peace of mind which imo is not worth sacrificing the amount of freedom which would be required to give up should the laws be too strict like in CA.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What right to that fresh air do you have in a PRIVATE establishment? You're ignoring completely the right of a business to cater to their chosen customers. You are not forced into that establishment. This is in a bar, not a public place. That is a completely different argument, and one I'd agree with you on.

They should be making the decisions as it doesn't impact those who don't choose to be there. This isn't something like chemical dumping in a river.

It's a public establishment. Also, the employees and patrons have rights.

A bar is not a public establishment. You have to meet certain requirements before you are allowed in a bar, and you must meet others to stay; these are all mandated by the bar owner (with the exception of age requirements, which are set by government regulation). For example, you may need to pay money to enter, and you may be required to purchase food/drinks to be allowed to stay (all of which requires money). You may be asked to leave if you begin exercising your right to free speech in a way the bar owner does not like. The bar owner can refuse service to anyone. It is a private establishment.

The employees do have rights, but I have never, ever, ever heard a bartender complaining about secondhand smoke. I have heard complaints from bartenders about not being allowed to smoke before 10pm. The patrons have as many rights as someone would in any private establishment, whether that be a restaurant or store or hotel. If the management does not want you there, you do not have the right to stay.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What if the tables were turned and there were more smokers and they were creating laws banning establishments from having non-smoking zones?

lol, that pretty much has been going on for years minus it being a law.

What sort of nonsensical argument is that? This reeks of "Now we have the majority, it's payback time!" White people have oppressed minorities for centuries in this country. Would you be OK with minorities oppressing whites when they are the majority? This country was founded on the belief of looking out for the freedoms of all individuals, not just those who happened to hold a majority (OK, so the founding fathers weren't great at following this ideal, but it's still a noble goal to aspire to). Banning activities that you find personally offensive from private establishments is one of the most vile and detestable uses of government I can think of.

blah blah blah windbag alert.

that's all i'm hearing from you, and then that tired... "WHITE MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN" reference.

you are FORGETTING my freedom to breath fresh air cause that freedom doesn't count, right?

Mosh, how often are you not breathing in fresh air due to second hand smoke? Also, out of all of the time that you spend breathing smoke in, how much of that time could easily be avoided should you choose to do so? I really think this whole non-smokers breathing in second hand smoke is being blown (no pun intended) completely out of proportion.

I would also love to see some statistics showing how many people have been proven to experience very noticeable negative changes towards their health due to second hand smoke which meets the following criteria:

1. They do no live with a smoker and smoking is not permitted indoors even with guests.
2. They do not work in an indoor environment which permits smoking.
3. They were never a regular smoker.

After that, I would like to see the amount of people who meet the exact same criteria but have not been proven to experience any negative health effects due to exposure to second hand smoke. Even though both of those numbers are probably very difficult to obtain, most likely the ratio between the two would make the reality seem ridiculously obvious that any laws which ban smoking in bars are not going to improve the health of Americans by any more than a drop in the bucket. Therefore, I believe that most of these laws are only around to give people peace of mind which imo is not worth sacrificing the amount of freedom which would be required to give up should the laws be too strict like in CA.

Are you a smoker?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
What right to that fresh air do you have in a PRIVATE establishment? You're ignoring completely the right of a business to cater to their chosen customers. You are not forced into that establishment. This is in a bar, not a public place. That is a completely different argument, and one I'd agree with you on.

They should be making the decisions as it doesn't impact those who don't choose to be there. This isn't something like chemical dumping in a river.

It's a public establishment. Also, the employees and patrons have rights.

A bar is not a public establishment. You have to meet certain requirements before you are allowed in a bar, and you must meet others to stay; these are all mandated by the bar owner (with the exception of age requirements, which are set by government regulation). For example, you may need to pay money to enter, and you may be required to purchase food/drinks to be allowed to stay (all of which requires money). You may be asked to leave if you begin exercising your right to free speech in a way the bar owner does not like. The bar owner can refuse service to anyone. It is a private establishment.

The employees do have rights, but I have never, ever, ever heard a bartender complaining about secondhand smoke. I have heard complaints from bartenders about not being allowed to smoke before 10pm. The patrons have as many rights as someone would in any private establishment, whether that be a restaurant or store or hotel. If the management does not want you there, you do not have the right to stay.

You do know that proponents of these bans include employees right?

 

[Chunkee]

how about slutty women can only smoke in the bars? sounds good to me... its a win win situation...you guys are not viewing all the angles here...get into the gutter and get moving

jC

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Are you a smoker?

I quit being a regular 1 pack a day smoker about 5 years ago. I quit cold turkey for the first year because I wanted to see if I could do it which was surprisingly easy for me even though I realize I am one amongst few that can honestly say that. These days I might buy a pack once a month or so and smoke part of it if I am going out to a bar with the guys or something. I usually give the rest of them away. I enjoy occasional smoking socially like that. I really have no interest in quitting 100%, but I never want to go beyond the amount I do it now.

 

[gorbs]

damn xavier434 you got the best of both worlds there when it comes to smoking. i have been trying for years to become a smoke when i feel like it and not when the addiction demands it smoker and am still trying.

i quit for about a three years span 24 years ago and started again. i admit i hate the addiction but i do like the ones i want. i think i will give chantix another go around here pretty soon as that seemed to really take the edge of. a pack would last me 3 days instead of one but i wasn't ready to commit. the upside is the dreams from that drug were awesome.!!!



moshquerade,

you started a hell of a thread here haha. have a nice weekend.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BudAshes
They should ban drinking at bars too. Alcohol is bad for you.

That's not the point. I could see banning alcohol if everyone who drank it in turn immediately peed all over everyone else..

Well, between drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc., one could probably make the agreement that alcohol is just as (or maybe even more) harmful to others as second-hand smoke.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: gorbs
damn xavier434 you got the best of both worlds there when it comes to smoking. i have been trying for years to become a smoke when i feel like it and not when the addiction demands it smoker and am still trying.

i quit for about a three years span 24 years ago and started again. i admit i hate the addiction but i do like the ones i want. i think i will give chantix another go around here pretty soon as that seemed to really take the edge of. a pack would last me 3 days instead of one but i wasn't ready to commit. the upside is the dreams from that drug were awesome.!!!

Well, I must admit that there is one trick that I use which helps a lot. During my occasional outings where I actually buy the pack myself, I try to buy things like clove cigarettes which some people dislike so my trick is not for everyone. They have less nicotine in them so the risk of addiction decreases. They are still really bad for you though. Otherwise, I usually bum regular smokes off other people so that I can avoid buying the pack myself.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BudAshes
They should ban drinking at bars too. Alcohol is bad for you.

That's not the point. I could see banning alcohol if everyone who drank it in turn immediately peed all over everyone else..

Well, between drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc., one could probably make the agreement that alcohol is just as (or maybe even more) harmful to others as second-hand smoke.

Which is why drunk driving and beating up your spouse are illegal...

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BudAshes
They should ban drinking at bars too. Alcohol is bad for you.

That's not the point. I could see banning alcohol if everyone who drank it in turn immediately peed all over everyone else..

Well, between drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc., one could probably make the agreement that alcohol is just as (or maybe even more) harmful to others as second-hand smoke.

Which is why drunk driving and beating up your spouse are illegal...

Was just trying to point out the irony of people getting so worked up over second hand smoke, yet going out and drinking themselves stupid every weekend (trust me, I know plenty who are like this). Alcohol tends to contribute to other harmful activities, whether these activities are legal or not is irrelevant. I'd consider alcohol to be far more detrimental to society than smoking, but I guess that's an entirely different discussion.

And not sure why I said agreement in my last post... obviously meant to say argument instead.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

people shouldn't be allowed to take shits in public bathrooms. seriously, someone took a shit on the wall/on top of the reservoir at the gym 2 weeks ago. it definitely would have ranked at least an 8 on ratemypoo. i don't think i'll ever be able to piss on that seat again. holy crap it smelled bad. fresh air ftw.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: M0oG0oGaiPan
people shouldn't be allowed to take shits in public bathrooms. seriously, someone took a shit on the wall/on top of the reservoir at the gym 2 weeks ago. it definitely would have ranked at least an 8 on ratemypoo. i don't think i'll ever be able to piss on that seat again. holy crap it smelled bad. fresh air ftw.

Dude, I think you posted in the wrong thread.

And, that's fucking gross!!!!!

 

[Robert Munch]

Originally posted by: M0oG0oGaiPan
people shouldn't be allowed to take shits in public bathrooms. seriously, someone took a shit on the wall/on top of the reservoir at the gym 2 weeks ago. it definitely would have ranked at least an 8 on ratemypoo. i don't think i'll ever be able to piss on that seat again. holy crap it smelled bad. fresh air ftw.

wow lol.