Ohio smokers: get a fucking grip

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=villa]
Well duh, of course. Just like the government can state one is allowed to smoke in a public place.

No one disputes the government can regulate private businesses in many ways. I actually said you didn’t have a right to dictate about private property.

[/quote]

Well “duh” yourself. I didn’t say I did have that right. Moron.

Oh, so it was a strawman argument. Wonderful.

If we’re going to talk about a misplaced sense of entitlement, let’s talk about people who think they have a “right” to smoke cigarettes in public. I’m not the one whining about supposedly unfair laws.

82

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Well “duh” yourself. I didn’t say I did have that right. Moron.
[/QUOTE]

It is, though, implicit in your seeming belief that everywhere should be compliant to your wishes.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Oh, so it was a strawman argument. Wonderful.

If we’re going to talk about a misplaced sense of entitlement, let’s talk about people who think they have a “right” to smoke cigarettes in public. I’m not the one whining about supposedly unfair laws.
[/QUOTE]

I would call it more of a potentially snide comment than a strawman, to tell you the truth.

As for people who think they have a right to smoke in public, I think they are wrong. I’d have no great issue with smoking being banned from the street. I very very rarely smoke in the street, except very occasionally while walking toward the bar, but I would happily give that up.

What I have a much greater issue about is people who believe they have some “right” to tell me I cannot smoke in the bar I go to, where the owner, the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed.

You have complained about how in the past there were very few non-smoking establishments to which you could go. Let’s leave aside the fact that at no stage to my knowledge were people banned from setting up such premises, so market forces might have been responsible for their absence. Your response to this is to support the closure of all bars where people can smoke. That’s not about ensuring you have a place you can go where you are not exposed to smoke. It’s about ensuring other people have no place to go where they can smoke. I have respect for people who put forward the argument that this is abot the health of workers. I don’t have respect for people who do it to screw over other people out of some concept of revenge.

83

[QUOTE=villa]
It is, though, implicit in your seeming belief that everywhere should be compliant to your wishes.

[/quote]

I never said any such thing.

Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate businesses, or does it not have the right? I believe it does. This isn’t about me personally. I do not have the power to dictate anything of that sort. Why do you persist with this strawman?

And I don’t know where you get this scenario where “the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed”. Some customers and workers smoke, and some do not. They are not all of like mind.

I do not support closing any bars.

This strawman is growing and growing. I have no desire to ensure that people have nowhere where they can smoke. Don’t know where you got that idea.

You must be a very angry person to make up such extreme bullshit.

84

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a cite that anybody’s actually suing for anything, only whispers and rumors among my neighbors and the patrons of the local (mostly gay) watering hole.

The first case about the broader implications of amendment, where a guy is claiming that the local domestic violence laws since he was whomping on a cohabitating girlfriend instead of a wife, has yet to go before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Here’s the text of the amendment in question:

You can see why the bolded portion is some cause for concern.

85

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a cite that anybody’s actually suing for anything, only whispers and rumors among my neighbors and the patrons of the local (mostly gay) watering hole.

The first case about the broader implications of amendment, where a guy is claiming that the local domestic violence laws since he was whomping on a cohabitating girlfriend instead of a wife, has yet to go before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Here’s the text of the amendment in question:

You can see why the bolded portion is some cause for concern.

86

[QUOTE=Canadjun]
Huh? To me, legal recognition is integral to the concept of marriage. It needs to be legally recognized to be marriage.
[/QUOTE]

To make an analogy, SSM is like denying someone a driver’s license but allowing them to drive a car. A smoking ban is like denying someone the right to drive a car under penalty of law. Big difference.

87

Going a bit further then I stated above, to me marriage is not of the state, but between the 2 people (and dare I say it - God), state recognition is secondary.

88

But when the state denies you the right to add your partner to your medical insurance, and denies them next-of-kin rights in an emergency, I wouldn’t call that “secondary”.

89

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
To make an analogy, SSM is like denying someone a driver’s license but allowing them to drive a car. A smoking ban is like denying someone the right to drive a car under penalty of law. Big difference.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve got it backwards. Or at least part of it.

A SSM ban is like the state allowing you to buy a car, but not allowing you to get a license, plates, insurance, or any of the other things that make driving safer and legal. Everybody else gets a license, but you don’t. Why not? Oh, some arbitrary reason. Let’s say it’s because you’ve got green eyes.

All of the non-green-eyed people are free to enjoy the benefits of automobile ownership - driving to the store, taking a road trip, or driving to a doctor’s appointment. But if you choose to actually drive the car you bought, you’re always running the risk of getting in to serious trouble.

If you get pulled over for a minor infraction - a broken tail light, speeding slightly, or whatever - you’re busted for driving without a license/insurance/registration, and you go to jail. If you hit somebody, and, god forbid, injure them, then you’re completely fucked - remember, you can’t get insurance. Not only do you go to jail, but you lose that car along with everything else you own.

That, beyond all the mushy lovey dovey stuff, is what life is like for committed gay couples. I know two guys, let’s call 'em Adam and Steve. They own a rather nice townhouse. Steve’s parents don’t approve of his homosexuality. If Steve gets hit by a bus, Adam is up shit creek. It’s entirely possible that he could lose their house. Yeah, they’ve got a will, but there’s a very good chance that the parents could have that broken in probate court. After all, Adam and Steve’s relationship has no legal standing - as far as the State’s concerned, they’re roomates, not a family, and all of Steve’s property should go to his closest kin: his parents.

If I get hit by a bus, all of my property goes to my wife. I don’t even need a will - the State assumes that since we’re legally, officially married, she is my closest family.

That fundamental unfairness is nothing like a smoking ban at all. It’s far, far worse.

The net effect of this smoking ban is that I have to walk a couple of extra hundred feet a week. The net effect of the SSM ban is that loving couples can have their lives completely torn apart.

Big difference, but not like you think.

90

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
I don’t know exactly what that’s about, but it seems likely that it’s designed to keep businesses from establishing essentially enclosed areas for smokers that will not be ventilated properly, thus exposing staff to high levels of secondhand smoke. You can have a smoking patio, but you can’t unduly enclose it to essentially create another room. At least, that would make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]

Um , its about making it inconvienent for a smoking patron during inclemement weather. With a roof and three walls, one wall seems to be missing for a completely enclosed area that cannot be ventilated.

In the Kitchener/Waterloo area of Ontario , one of the first municipalities to go non smoking, the letter of the law was that patios were permitted smoking as long as there was no continuous walls. The result was that several nightclubs erected draped plastic sheeting that stopped several inches from the floor , complying with the letter of the law, but obviously not the spirit of the law.

When heaters were in place, anti smoking zealots were aghast and furious enough to complain that it was essentially another room, and thus changed the letter of the law to make that impossible, nice when you can make the rules hmm.

As long as the patio is open to all weather conditions , smoking is permitted. If the patron gets pneumonia or any other sort of ailment , oh well suck it up princess.

Declan

91

[QUOTE=Rilchiam]
But when the state denies you the right to add your partner to your medical insurance
[/QUOTE]

It’s not the state, but the medical insurance companies that don’t allow it, the state just has the ability to decide if the terms are legal. So this point blows the OP right out of the water. Banning SSM is against government telling people how they can run their business, the smoking ban is for the government telling people how they can run their business.

We all know that there are serious issues with the healthcare system in the US, not just for SSM partners, but for many others as well, Perhaps with Hillary on '08 those inequities will be leveled.

92

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
It’s not the state, but the medical insurance companies that don’t allow it, the state just has the ability to decide if the terms are legal. So this point blows the OP right out of the water. Banning SSM is against government telling people how they can run their business, the smoking ban is for the government telling people how they can run their business.

[/QUOTE]

Did you just completely skip over my last post?

93

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I never said any such thing.
Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate businesses, or does it not have the right? I believe it does. This isn’t about me personally. I do not have the power to dictate anything of that sort. Why do you persist with this strawman?
[/QUOTE]

Of course the government has the power to regulate businesses, in line with the strictures of the constitution. No one is disputing that. I know you don’t have the power to dictate these kind of things. As I have said, the comment was not to do with any “right” to the extent of you being able to go out and enforce it, but referred to your apparent sense of entitlement to dictate that ALL businesses you might POSSIBLY ever visit should be required to prevent smoking on their premises, regardless of anyone else’s wishes. Clear enough?

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
And I don’t know where you get this scenario where “the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed”. Some customers and workers smoke, and some do not. They are not all of like mind.
[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, I got it from talking to the staff at the cigar bar that I frequent. All the bartenders smoke. All of them could work in other bars, but choose to work there. I don’t for a fact know about all of the wait staff (I tend to sit at the bar) but we shall see in January once 99% of DC’s bars are compelled to go non-smoking if any of them leave to the greener and nicotene free pastures elsewhere. I doubt they will. But if they do, I wish them the best. I know the owner wants to run a cigar bar where people can smoke because a) he told me so and b) he is running a cigar bar where people can smoke. As to the customers, I am making a rash assumption that people who come into a place that calls itself a cigar bar, see the big sign outside indicating that cigars are smoked and sold there, and choose not to go to the 4 other bar restaurants on the same block that do not allow cigar smoking, want to go to a smoking bar. Tell you what, after the ban comes in next month, I will see if the place gets busier or less busy, and if any of the regulars start going to the non-smoking bars. If they do, or if business drops off, I will agree that there were customers there who did not want it to be a smoking bar. Sound fair?

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I do not support closing any bars.

This strawman is growing and growing. I have no desire to ensure that people have nowhere where they can smoke. Don’t know where you got that idea.
[/QUOTE]

Closing the bars - no, that was an exaggeration on my part. Preventing the bars from allowing smoking - that certainly seems to be on your agenda. You support the ending of ‘smoking bars.’ That was the point I was trying to get across.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
You must be a very angry person to make up such extreme bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

Where would I possibly get an idea you were interested in revenge?

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So “patronizing another business” was not a choice, because there weren’t any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.
[/QUOTE]

Now that doesn’t sound like you are vengeful about this at all, does it? No implication there that you are getting your own back on those nasty smokers?

You wonder why smokers react badly to you? Maybe you come off as self-entitled over this? I’ll accept most of the bans. I would not particularly object to a ban on people smoking while walking down the street. All I am saying is that you aren’t doing this to ensure you have places to go to eat/drink that are non-smoking. That could be satisfied by allowing a limited number of smoking licenses. You could have most of the bars, and leave some where people could smoke. But that would not be enough for many of those who support bans. Because they aren’t only interested in themselves, they want to prevent others from smoking. Here we had to fight for a limited exception to the ban to allow cigar bars to continue - and it is a very limited exception.

You start dictating to people about their lives when it in no way affects you, and people get angry.

94

[QUOTE=black rabbit]
I know two guys, let’s call 'em Adam and Steve. They own a rather nice townhouse. Steve’s parents don’t approve of his homosexuality. If Steve gets hit by a bus, Adam is up shit creek. It’s entirely possible that he could lose their house. Yeah, they’ve got a will, but there’s a very good chance that the parents could have that broken in probate court. After all, Adam and Steve’s relationship has no legal standing - as far as the State’s concerned, they’re roomates, not a family, and all of Steve’s property should go to his closest kin: his parents.

[/QUOTE]

IAAL practicing probate law and this is a canard, the gay equivalent of an old wives’ tale, IMHO. A properly executed will (ie in my state, signed in front of two disinterested witnesses) is not at all easy to break. If you disagree, please provide cites to cases where a properly executed will was disregarded just because the decedent was gay and left his estate to his gay partner.

95

[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
IAAL practicing probate law and this is a canard, the gay equivalent of an old wives’ tale, IMHO. A properly executed will (ie in my state, signed in front of two disinterested witnesses) is not at all easy to break. If you disagree, please provide cites to cases where a properly executed will was disregarded just because the decedent was gay and left his estate to his gay partner.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll defer to your experience and expertise on this one.

Am I at least correct in my reading that straight, married couples generally don’t even need a will to deal with the estate?

96

[QUOTE=black rabbit]

Am I at least correct in my reading that straight, married couples generally don’t even need a will to deal with the estate?
[/QUOTE]

No, this is not correct either, but for more complicated reasons. Generally, surviving spouse inherits everything through deceased spouse’s estate without a will only when they have no children and it is their first marriage. If either of the parties has any children, either in the current marriage or a previous one, the surviving spouse does not automatically receive the entire estate through probate without a will.

You may have heard estate planning attorneys speak of the goal of avoiding probate, because probate can be a time consuming and expensive hassle. While probate isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is much worse (ie more expensive and time consuming ) when the person dies without a will. Most attorneys recommend that their clients, be they gay, straight, bi or undecided, have a will.

97

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Sorry, gotta jump on the bandwagon here:

What if all the bars allow smoking? How is that a choice?
[/QUOTE]

It’s always amazing to me to hear people actually say something this stupid out loud.

To be brief: you do not have a constitutional right for someone ELSE to provide you a service in the way you want: that’s not what “having a choice” means. If no bars live up to what you want, no one has taken a choice away from you. If you are so gung-ho about having things your way, nothing stops you from opening your own bar and doing things your way. But demanding that other people use their property in the way you want them to is a small measure of theft, not “choice.”

Regardless of whether you think the bans are right or not, claiming that you don’t have a choice because the state doesn’t force people to use their own property to give you one is just asinine.

98

[QUOTE=Apos]
It’s always amazing to me to hear people actually say something this stupid out loud.

To be brief: you do not have a constitutional right for someone ELSE to provide you a service in the way you want: that’s not what “having a choice” means. If no bars live up to what you want, no one has taken a choice away from you. If you are so gung-ho about having things your way, nothing stops you from opening your own bar and doing things your way. But demanding that other people use their property in the way you want them to is a small measure of theft, not “choice.”

Regardless of whether you think the bans are right or not, claiming that you don’t have a choice because the state doesn’t force people to use their own property to give you one is just asinine.
[/QUOTE]

Fuck you, Apos. Pull your head out of your ass and try reading the fucking thread. I did not refer to any such constitutional right in any way, shape, or form.

You are exactly, 100%, ass backwards on the issue. I am not complaining. The fucking crybaby smokers are complaining because they do not like restrictions on smoking.

DianaG is opposed to the STATUS QUO, because she believes this is a property rights issue. That is an incorrect assessment. The government has the right to regulate even PRIVATE property if it’s open to the public. They do it all the time. I never hear anyone crying about it until it affects them personally. I never hear, “Whaaaa! Why do we have to have fire doors?” or “Whaaaa! Why can’t they serve tainted food? It’s so unfair!”

DianaG wrote:

I simply pointed out that if you leave the decision up to the property owner, and virtually all the owners decide the same thing, then there is no choice available.

I did not refer to any constitutional right.

I did not ask for anything to be changed.

I did not demand any “service” be provided to me.

I did not say I was “gung ho” about having things my way. In fact, the smokers are the ones who are complaining.

Having regulations for public places is not “theft”, not even in the most extreme Libertarian-party propaganda.

Asshole.

99

I am a nonsmoker but both my parents were heavy smokers No one in my house smokes. When my son stops at a bar with his co workers he reeks from smoke. It just does not stay with the smoker. No matter how any smoker wishes to bend it ,the smoke travels to nonsmokers. Why should we be quietly accepting of that.

100

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

I simply pointed out that if you leave the decision up to the property owner, and virtually all the owners decide the same thing, then there is no choice available.
[/QUOTE]

No, there is choice. The choice of the owner. You don’t have the choice you want maybe, but maybe you should open a bar then.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Fuck you, Apos.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Asshole.
[/QUOTE]

Remember, lowbrass thinks I’m the angry one here…