people who want to ban smoking should be banned!
if you dont like it, go somewhere else!
this is all a part of the evil compensation culture that is destroying civil liberties everywhere…
Can you expand on the ‘evil compensation culture’ idea a bit. Does it have anything to do with ‘the victimization of america’ theme?
DMark Oh man, I can’t wait for the first frozen smoker headline! I also totally agree with your statements on non-bar goers voting for smoke free bars, so if they ever did go to a bar, even though they don’t, it would be smoke free.
Blowero Anything else you don’t like? Cause then I can prepare for the next legislation that will curtail my personal freedoms. I hear that sugar is pretty bad for ya. And if you had such a ‘need’ for a smoke free bar, why didn’t you open one yourself? AFAIK there isn’t a law that forbids you from starting your own business? Oh wait, maybe there isn’t a need after all. Maybe people like you get so fed up with everything that they go and open a smoke free bar and then they have to close it when all the people that said they would go to a smoke free bar still don’t go. Doh!
I can see St. Peter at the “Pearly Gates” now…will that be smoking or non-smoking?
Oh that’s right! you’ve been banned, so GO TO HELL you tobacco smoking piece of s___ .
Doesn’t that tell you there wasn’t a market demand for one?
See, now in California, you can’t have a smoker’s only bar. And as my earlier cite states, I think you’ll find a lot of bar managers are closing an eye to patrons lighting up inside.
There was a case on the summer series, Law and Order Crime and Punishment, about a man who shot at another man outside a bar (lover’s quarrel, apparently.) The bullet missed and killed a man inside the bar.
The intended victim had gone outside to smoke, and the gunman followed him. Would the crime have occurred if the victim had been able to stay inside to smoke? Who knows?
I believe the dangers of ETS have been highly exaggerated.
I also believe smoking bans should be added to the list of pointless debate subjects like abortion and the existence of God. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind, so why bother debating?
Hey, Mr. Take-everything-out-of-context, I was responding to Dmark, who seems to think that non-smokers don’t like to go to bars at all, and just got the law passed out of spite. My response was intended to show that yes, I did not enjoy the smoke in bars before the law, and that I now happily go to bars AFTER the law has passed. And no, the bars in California are not empty now, and non-smokers are not sitting at home giggling because we shut down all the bars.
We already covered the whole “personal freedom” bullshit and the attempts to compare smoking (which hurts other people) with things like eating sugar (which does not hurt other people). That happened about 5 pages back in this thread. Try to catch up, O.K.?
Oh yeah? Well maybe you could…uh…open…a…smoking bar…and all the…er…smokers could…um…go to other…uh…bars and then they…uh…wouldn’t be going to your bar and then you would cry.
SandWriter, I don’t think you’re helping the other people on your side of the argument.:rolleyes:
How many times do we have to cover this? I’m sorry, but “supply and demand” does not magically fix everything. We don’t let “the market” sort out who is going to use lead-based paint, or asbestos, or fail to refrigerate perishable items, or allow vermin to infest their business, or use toxic chemicals, or sell cars with faulty brakes, etc.
Huh? First of all, your are arguing from something you saw on a fictional TV show. Second, I could just as easily argue that the ceiling could have collapsed inside the bar, and if anyone were outside, their lives would have been saved. I’m starting to wonder if nicotine destroys your reasoning ability.
You do realize the irony of the above statement, don’t you?
Not everywhere. What would you suggest to someone who lives where there are no non-smoking restaurants or bars in the area, and who wishes not to be exposed to smoke?
ivylass, you said that you’re not sure about the harmful-ness of second hand smoke. What exactly are you not sure about, at this point?
I’m undecided on the issue of complete bans of smoking in bars and restaurants. But I feel a lot of you in this thread aren’t seeing the anti-smoke perspective here. In a lot of places and circumstances, it’s not the smokers that are being “opressed”.
I feel a lot, that you, need to re-read the OP.
This entire thread is a rant against non-smokers and how they are forcing their no smoking policies on the smoker.
And it specifically answers your concerns that non-smokers who don’t like smoke in an establishment can get the hell out.
And the thread has also suggested, many times, that non-smokers can open up their own establishments and then watch them fail as non-smokers complain about smoke but don’t do anything about it, except pass lame legislation trying to regulate individual behavior.
And I’m sorry Blowero, but there is no way you can say that you have to ban smoking as it’s effects are as bad as asbestos and lead paint and not ban alcohol as well. I mean, you can say it, but your arguments can all be applied to banning alcohol, sugar, etc. You can’t have it both ways.
I would argue that there are more topics than just that one being discussed in this thread.
Great. Happy to hear that all of us who, for medical reasons, should not be around smoke should sit at home and lead lonely lives. I’m glad you worked that out for me.
Okay, so I should open up a bar that I know will fail because… why again? Oh, right, because non-smokers are hypocrites, apparently. And lame.
There is a difference. Both alcohol and sugar, when used in moderation, can be healthy, or, at the very least, not unhealthy. There is no amount of smoke that is not unhealthy.
well, for one, some one can use alcohol, sugar etc. and given no other activity not involve a near by person in the action (of course, if the person consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel of a car and drives drunk etc.).
However, the act of smoking itself involves bystanders in the activity, making it, in that sense at least, totally different than other items some one might consume.
SandWriter, are you being intentionally obtuse? How long do you plan on repeating your strained analogy while ignoring the fact that smoking directly affects OTHER people, but drinking alcohol and eating sugar DO NOT?
I think the reasons pro and con have pretty much been said and they do not really matter as much as the fact that the smokers are fighting a losing battle. Smoking is being banned in more and more places and it is only a matter of time before it is banned in bars too. Smokers are fighting it like a cat backed into a corner but the fact is they are losing and they are losing it. Which just goes to show you what addiction does to you. Get used to it. Smoking will be banned sooner rather than later.
WTF? Thanks for the completely pointless link, Sandwriter.
The link is one of many news stories that show how sugar negatively affects the body. Sugar -> Obesity -> Heart Disease -> lost work hours -> medical treatment -> rise in medical insurance premiems -> less money for YOU!
There is a connection.
As for alcohol, getting hit by a drunk driver definately has an impact on people that don’t drink.
Sorry for the delay - been away for a week. Anyway…
Hello Sailor - always wanted to say that. Nastiness is not uncalled for, when it’s in response to such shitheaded stupidity as Virgowitch. Hell, it’s absolutely required. I do apologize though if you thought I was aiming any of it at you though which surely wasn’t the case. Onto your arguments:
**
And my point is that a bar is a private place. It is not a public amenity, and no-one has any compulsion to drink or eat there. Therefore why extra regulation on how they should be managed.
**
Indeed - but who has argued that government regulation is either new or strange. The argument here is whether it is merited, as you yourself recognise. Onto your three reasons for this
**
Point 1 is your strongest. Forcing people to endure smoke at their workplace is wrong. Personally though I am still not convinced that anyone is forced to work at a bar, and however you try to even the field with legislation and regulation you will never arrive at a situation where all jobs are for all people. My main response then would be what sort of idiot goes for a job at a bar that allows smoking if they dislike it?
Your second point is fairly weak though. Lots of business is done in bars and restaurants? Exclusively in smoking bars and restaurants? Please - that’s just too hypothetical. Let’s look at more defined situations. If someone is trying to sell you something, then tell them you want to go to a non-smoking bar. If you’re trying to sell someone something, then either way you look at it if the client is such a heavy smoker that they feel better off in a place where they can smoke when they deal, you’re going to accomodate that, whether it’s going to the smoking section of a restaurant, or joining them when they go outside for a smoke break. Unless you intend to ban all smoking everywhere during office hours? Nope, judging by your 3rd point you want to ban all smoking, everywhere. “the state has a compelling interest in diminishing the number of smokers” Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t smokers pay higher rates for medical insurance in the US? Obviously not applicable to countries with state health systems such as the UK, where smokers pay up to $5 tax on each packet of cigarettes. Either way, smokers do have to pay for this additional treatment cost. The other point is that do you really want a world where adults are forced by the state how they should live? Alcoholism and obesity also cause additional costs, should the state eliminate alcohol and unhealthy food? Just how totalitarian do you want your government?
Me? I’d say business opportunity. Out of interest where do they live?
Apparently alcohol abuse is more common than you think, at least according to the American Journal of Public Health. From from http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa000108a.htm
So at what point do we recognise that alcohol is an inherently unhealthy drug which adversely affects many non drinkers? Why does the logic apply to smoking, but not drinking?
I absolutely agree.
If you think that’s what no-smoking ordinances are about, then you haven’t understood a word any of us has said. I’m through with you - you’re never going to get it.