Blowero, I’m going to say this one more time. I don’t know if you are developmentally disabled or something, so I will try to be patient.
Listen up. The reason the ordinance in Edmonton is so bad is not because it bans smoking. It is because in order to smoke, you MUST drink. Got it? Telling recovering alcoholics to drink is a bad thing.
Explain to me how anyone was forced to go to this private club and breathe anyone’s cigarette smoke. Once again, nonsmoking recovering alcoholics have about a gazillion choices of places to go to meetings and hang out with other people in recovery. Yes, smoking USED TO BE ubiquitous. It is no longer. Give it a fucking rest, already!
FTR, I am in recovery, don’t smoke and would not choose to go to the club that allowed smoking. However, I have no desire to punish people who smoke by denying them a place to attend an AA meeting or hang out with other people who smoke. It doesn’t hurt me one tiny bit that they are allowed to smoke in that particular club. Because I don’t have to go there, see?
Twit.
I have to ask, blowero, how is this even affecting you? Have you ever been to Edmonton? Are you in AA? Do you know where Edmonton even is?
Wrong again, genius. I think the ones who want to breathe clean air should stay where the air is clean and not go into smoke-filled rooms.
Is it really so hard for people who don’t like smoke to avoid smoky clubs? Do you think there’s some kind of magnet pulling them inside? If the people you’re worried about are so damn stupid that they can’t tell there’s smoke inside until they’ve collapsed on the floor from an asthma attack, a simple sign on the door would suffice - we have them all over Spokane: red, yellow, and green, like traffic lights.
Your argument makes about as much sense as banning topless dancers in clubs, because some people might be offended by them. Somebody points out “Hey, no one is forcing them to go into a strip club,” and you sputter out nonsense like “I think it makes sense for the ones who are polluting our morality to keep it in the back room!”
If the club owner and patrons want to smoke, it’s a pointless inconvenience to make them go outside to do it. A horrible grievous hardship, no, just a frivolous trampling of the club owner’s rights.
Sounds like blowero is having nicotine withdrawl. :rolleyes:
The club in question is a private club, who has a very close knit group for members. I drive by it every day on my way to work. It’s like anything else, if you don’t want to join, go somewhere else. I don’t like the smell of raw fish, so I don’t hang out in a fish market.
.
Good for them! I hope that someone will take an actual look at this and make a fair, balanced decision.
“The law is the law, Jean Valjean” really isn’t a good excuse.
Robin
blowero, howzabout if we have a club where 100% of members and staff want to smoke. Please can we smoke then?
Now take that to 99%. Is it unreasonable that the 1% who doesn’t want to breathe smoke (and I do indeed believe that nobody should be forced to) can leave the club?
If bluster were logic, you’d have a hell of a case.:rolleyes:
I already said I didn’t think that would be unreasonable. Honestly, I think some of you are more interested in hurling epithets than actually reading what I wrote (and thank you for not doing so, jjimm). So show me that it’s 99% - do you have a cite? I’ll say it again, although nobody seems to be listening - If it is truly the case that all the patrons of this establishment smoke, and NONE of them object to smoking, they ought to give them an exemption. But it wasn’t made clear at all in the article. And then everyone seems to keep forgetting that it’s all a moot point, because in 2 years, they won’t be able to smoke in the bars, either. My understanding is that KISS is not a private club. Has anyone provided information otherwise?
I also explained why the argument that “they want them to start drinking again so they can smoke” is disingenuous. Nobody here has refuted that; they just keep repeating the same disingenuous argument, and adding more and more cuss words to it.
Personally, I would like to see clubs for smokers, since there are obviously people who want them. The problem is that most pro-smokers don’t want any regulation at all. They want to just leave it up to the owner of the establishment, and let him decide for everyone. But if you look at places that have no regulations, or look at how things were before regulations, it’s obvious that the availability of nonsmoking venues falls far, far short of the actual desire for them. You would have to have some way of ensuring that the availability of non-smoking venues is actually proportional to the number of non-smokers who want to go there. I want my smoke-free pancakes, dammit.
blowero, nice backpedal.
AA clubs are certainly private and non-profit. They exist solely for the purpose of helping alcoholics stay sober. They charge dues to make rent, utilities, and other expenses. They also don’t allow just anyone to hang out there. You have to be a dues-paying member or you will be asked to leave. (AA meetings are the exception; anyone can come to an open meeting, you just can’t stick around unless you’re the guest of another member.) If these conditions make it a public business, then my name is Queen Elizabeth.
Robin
A fact that was mentioned in the article and repeatedly throughout this thread.
:rolleyes:
What did I backpedal on?
Well, the article didn’t say that KISS was operated by AA, nor that it was non-profit. 13thUnicorn said that KISS is a regular, for-profit business, and I haven’t seen anyone provide info to the contrary.
Fair enough. So it’s apparently a private club. Is it also non-profit?
Wrong as usual, Lezlers - the article says nothing about it being non-profit, and 13thUnicorn’s assertion didn’t seem to be contradicted until now, so quit with the “I already told you” whining. Maybe you need another nicotene patch.
I’ll say it for the third time - if it’s a private club, and it’s really 80 or 90 percent of the members who smoke, and nobody objects, I don’t have a problem with them giving it an exemption. And I have a feeling that might be what ends up happening.
I was referring to the specific question you claimed no one had answered and the fact that it was stated in the article, and mulitple times in this thread. It’s a private club. One in which members pay dues.
Just admit you failed to pick up on rather obvious facts in your anti-smoke induced haze and acted like a bit of a dumbass, as usual.
:rolleyes:
Funny blowero, how you’re so quick to run crying to mommy when someone says anything slightly less than polite to you, but feel free to lash out at others (another nicotine patch? How witty. Except, not).
Who cares? It’s private. PRIVATE. Like my house. You can’t just walk in off the street and not drink, you have to be invited to go in and not drink. There’s some magical difference whether the owners take any excess revenue as salary and call it a non profit or they accumulate it and pay it as dividends?
Stupid bitch.
Now now, manhattan,
We don’t want to hurt blowero’s widdle feelers.
Right. Instead of staying indoors, and only bothering people who choose to frequent the establishment, they can stand outside, where there smoke will annoy anyone who happens to walk past on the sidewalk. That’s a GREAT solution!
And five will get you twenty that blowero will be first in line to complain about those smokers hanging around outside bars, “polluting” his air.
Nice. Further evidence that the rolleyes smilie is allmost always used as a crutch for those who don’t have the intelligence to argue coherently, or realize they don’t have a case and so they hide behind vaguery.
One more fucking time. Please explain how applying a different standard is fair. Please explain how tying the smoking license to the liquor license, and refusing to make exceptions, does not put the KISS club in a Helleresque catch 22. Please explain why it is allright for a drinking club to smoke, while it is not allright for a non-drinking club to smoke.
You have yet to address that. If you drink in Edmonton, you can smoke. If you drink in Edmonton, the law says you have to deal with that, at least for now. Why SHOULD it be different for the KISS club?