Who the hell made you junior mod? You don’t get to decide what’s germane or not. The question is absolutely apropos. What idiotic logic says that a thread dealing with health-related restrictions should be off limits to a question about health-related restrictions?
And reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit either, since you keep trotting out the addiction nonsense despite the fact that I’ve already told you it’s a non sequitur. If every bar in the world restricts smoking, it won’t affect me personally a bit. But I forgot–you subscribe to the Farmer Says style of debate.
Come on, you can do it–just answer the question. It’s a simple test of your convictions. Hmm. I wonder why, oh why, you won’t answer it? What could be the reason? Man, what dudes won’t do to avoid answering a simple question. And here’s one for you, sparky, no extra charge: :rolleyes:
If I wanted to operate my motor vehicle in your home, where the emissions were incapable of escaping, I daresay you’d have an objection. Because, of course, my habit should not interfere with your ability to breathe.
That makes no sense. If anything, bars are less of a health threat, since one could always choose not to go into one. What choice do I have? Should I live in a bubble? Surely you’re not suggesting that car emissions are a health threat only if they occur in the same room. The effect of increasing levels of car emissions on public health is well-chronicled.
So, all of us who drive are interfering with everyone else’s ability to breathe. So, certainly it must be reasonable to restrict non-essential driving then, right? Or are health threats only appropriately acted upon when it’s a habit you don’t like?
Only if one believes that “a majority” always forms an equation with “reasonableness.” Unfortunately, there is no lack of examples where that is NOT the case.
“Conceding the obvious” means that you want us to say “Gosh, Stratocaster, you’re right - we’re horrible hypocrites! Go ahead, smokers, light up wherever you want. How selfish of us to have inhibited you!”
Sorry, but no.
The “obvious” part that continues to elude you is that virtually everyone in our society, directly or indirectly, derives significant benefits from driving, whether “essential” or not. We recognize that there is a downside, in part due to auto pollutants, and we’ve accepted costs and restrictions that reduce their impact. Smoking, on the other hand, provides “benefits” to a much smaller group, there is far less that positively impacts society as a whole, and significant dangers to that large majority.
So that’s why we can support regulations against smoking in enclosed public spaces with undisturbed consciences.
You can stamp your foot and declare how unfair it all is, or you can organize with fellow true believers to make the majority change its mind. It’s all the same to me what smokers fighting the inevitable choose to do, but the petulant whining does get old.
And the solution is very easy to implement without much, if any, downside. The addicts have to occasionally step outside (such an unreasonable expectation :rolleyes:)…problem solved.
We get to ask that dudes not hijack threads, Mod or no mod. Nor is this thread about health-related restrictions in general, it’s about smoking. Read the OP.
And if you’re a smoker, you’re an addict, I don’t care that you only smoke cigars in your own basement or wherever. You’re still clearly rationalizing, and in denial- note where you try to claim in one post you’re not a smoker at all.
Yes, you’ve made my point. Non-essential driving provides no, well, essential benefit. This is obvious but key. Yet collectively, the majority has determined that the health cost is far too high for smoking, but a similar cost is perfectly acceptable for driving. You act as if what you offer is an explanation, but it’s a restating of my hypothesis, which is that the high horse that supports the rationale for smoking bans is a mirage, or it would apply equally.
The fact that most people would agree with you is a reflection of the tyranny of the majority, not some logical conclusion. If I don’t want to deal with your car emissions, even if I’m part of a minority, and the answer is “tough shit,” even if we concede the health impact is there–well, let’s stop pretending the trigger for smoking bans is anything other than “we’re the majority and we don’t like it.”
Petulant whining, eh? That’s what this debate is? Spoken like a member of the overbearing majority. Frankly, I accept the fact that we are never going back. That doesn’t mean it’s right. I like to just point out the hypocrisy where I see it. Part of my obligation as a virtuous do-gooder.
Dude, you need to get new talking points. Here, let me point out where your continued insistence is nonsense: First, let’s assume that an occasional cigar makes me an addict, which is ridiculous (but I realize that doesn’t fit your talking points, so I’ll work with you). The fact that I don’t smoke in bars or restaurants, not even before the smoking ban in my state, means that the ban is personally irrelevant to me, except as a source of amusement in pointing out hypocrisy. This point is hard for you, it seems. I feel bad for you.
And it was obvious in context I meant I didn’t smoke cigarettes, since in this very thread earlier I mentioned, without being asked, that I smoke cigars. I know it makes you feel like you’re Columbo, discovering some key fact, when you point this out. But you know I smoke cigars because I offered that fact. Only in your twisted logic does the exchange in this thread amount to me denying–i.e., I’m in denial I’m an addict (because I smoke an occasional cigar, though not in bars or restaurants); and I’m in denial that I smoke cigars, in the very thread where I mentioned I smoke cigars. Gotcha. Very clever. How can I rebut such genius? I need to run off to my 12-step cigar recovery program, so I’ll need to sign off now.
Anyway, this will certainly be your cue to put your fingers in your ears and chant talking points #6, 11 and, I believe, 42. Fire away, you great debater, you!
I’m a real mod and have the jackboots to prove it.
Saying that another person’s arguments are not germane is not an example of junior modding – it’s a legitimate debate move.
Calling another person’s logic idiotic and impugning their reading comprehension is definitely headed in the direction of a personal insult. Watch it.
Actually, though, it looks like this turned into a debate a couple of pages ago, so I’m going to move it to GD and let tomndebb and Marley deal with the lot of you.
Really? When did the debate get that narrow? Again, I assert the wacky notion that those who seek employment in a lounge that permits smoking shouldn’t be shocked to find that there’s, you know, smoke floating about the premises. And I would agree completely that this debate should have nothing to do with smoker’s rights. It’s an owner’s rights issue. Smokers are not “owed” a place to smoke, just as non-smokers are not owed a place that’s smoke free (not in bars, anyway). If every bar owner in the world decides no smoking is allowed, too bad for the smokers. If they don’t like it, open their own place.
So, would you permit a bar that allowed smoking and only employed smokers? If not for the employees, would you consider this an overbearing law?
How about the cigar lounge I go to–no bar, no food, just cigars (and a couple of couches and a television). Should that establishment be permitted to allow smoking? I happen to know that one of the employees doesn’t smoke cigars any more.
It ought to be about that, the workers, but also so much else, like the fire hazards of smoking and the fact so many other hobbies are not allowed out in public, but are for home. Can I take a bow and arrow in a restaurant and target shoot? Bring in an engine block I am rebuilding and work on that? The most similar of all is drinking, many more do that than smoke, yet you are not to do it in public streets and such.
An open bottle of liquor I am drinking while walking is just SO much less dangerous than a lit smoke, the smoking ban should have come first long ago. I still can’t believe they ever allowed it on an airplane full of foam and burnables like they did. It should be a home only hobby and even there pay much higher insurance and such if you practice it, because of the added dangers.
Get ready… the more that government controls the healtcare system the more they will try to regulate smoking and drinking and walking and driving and eating and bathing and…
This is the basis of an exemption to the Ohio public smoking ban (and likely applies in other places that have such laws).
In Ohio, you can have a members-only club that allows smoking and serves drinks (assuming you get the usual liquor license). You can’t have any paid employees, meaning that members of the club do the bartending, serving and other work.
So there you go. Surely if drinking and smoking are inseparable components of the bar experience, smokers would be willing to give up a bit of their time to enable this essential activity, even if they don’t get paid for it? I haven’t heard of clubs like this operating here in Ohio, but maybe there actually are considerate smokers who don’t feel that salaried workers need be subjected to a 20-30% higher incidence of heart disease and cancer.
That’s fine, but that’s not the question. How’s about a regular, old bar, but all the employees smoke. Any reason there not to permit it?
How about this: suppose I offer a “smoke” premium to my employees. What if they’re compensated above “normal” to accommodate this customer preference. Any reason we should restrict that? Suppose there are people that would gladly accept this condition. Do we need to protect them from their own “bad” decisions?
So you make up a special little world with only smokers for patrons, an owner who just loves smoking and workers who just love to suck on second hand smoke and you want us to respond like it is a reality. There is an exception. Go to cigar bars.
How about a country where owners like to make money off of smokers, workers are free to work where they want to if the employer wants to hire them and patrons are free to patronize wherever they want to… or not.
On a scale with anti-drug laws? You bet! And probably about as effective!
Ahhhhh - the anti-tobacco version of the NRA-ILA. I was wondering when they were going to pop up.
And tell me Gonzo – and I am dead seriou8s about this – why is smokers stepping outside such a terrific solution to you when you know it harms my wife and others with actual medical conditions? What did she ever do to you that you must put her at risk like that?
The other patrons probably smoke.
The employees may very well smoke
A sealed tent outside like other states allow for smokers is a greater risk because it does not have the HVAC systems designed to handle and treat the smoke that many bars do.
Why can’t the anti-smokers quite trying to rule other people’s uses of a legal product?
<<That is the most selfish , dangerous and inconsiderate of all the options.>>
No ----- as a volunteer from Camp Huff-n-Puff and someone who knows the pain respiratory illnesses can cause, the worse option (the truly selfish one) is driving all the smokers out on the sidewalk where it is impossible to avoid them. For people with actual medical conditions, that is. It may keep the head-cases happy but this should be about actual benefits and not a “feel good” approach.
