ConcreteBoard

QuotePhilly City Council Bans Smoking In Bars, Restaurants
Some Buildings Exempt
POSTED: 2:03 pm EDT May 26, 2005

PHILADELPHIA -- A proposal to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in Philadelphia has been approved by a City Council committee.

Councilman Michael Nutter re-presented the bill he offered previously -- but this time with changes. It passed Thursday afternoon on a vote of 10-to-7.

Nutter had withdrawn the bill in March after it became clear it didn't have enough votes to pass.

Nutter introduced amendments that would exempt sidewalk cafes, offer private clubs a waiver, and give bars an extra two years to become smoke-free.

Bars would be defined as establishments where receipts from food sales are no more than ten percent of the total.

For other businesses, the ban would go into effect in January 2006. For bars, it would be 2008.

Give me a break. I hate anti-smoking laws. And I don't even smoke. Idiots.

Nutter is a douche.  Hope he chokes to death on smoke.

A guy I used to work with said that where he lived before (somewhere out west) banned smoking in bars.  Every bar just became a "club" with a $1 yearly fee and you could go in and smoke if you wanted to.

Quote from: MURP on May 26, 2005, 02:32:01 PM
Nutter is a douche.  Hope he chokes to death on smoke.

A guy I used to work with said that where he lived before (somewhere out west) banned smoking in bars.  Every bar just became a "club" with a $1 yearly fee and you could go in and smoke if you wanted to.

LA had the ban implemented when I was living there. It sucked. Bars lost a ton of business.

yep, all these places got to do is charge a cover and call it a member fee, and this is all for naught.

there are a lot of places in NY that just ignore this with a "tip jar" for fines.

I've been smoking for around 10 years out here in Cali and smoking is banned out here in the same manner.  I don't mind it, in fact I think it is a good thing.  I think definately there should be no smoking in any restaurant.  I mean, putting some of the people in a "smoking section" in a restaurant that is 20 feet from some family trying to have a nice meal is rediculous to me.  The people who work in restaurants shouldn't have to inhale that crap all day everyday either IMO.

As a smoker you get used to it.  It's simple, you walk outside of a bar or restaurant and have a smoke.  It's actually cool, because then you go outside and meet all the other outcasts.  As a smoker I try to keep my smoke away from children, even if I am outside I try to stay away from families because I don't want to impose my smoking habit on those childrens lungs.

As for bars, it does suck sometimes.  I mean when you are a smoker, you love to have a smoke with your beers but at the same time I don't want to shove my smoke into other peoples faces when they want to have a few drinks without coughing.  Shoot people who aren't "smokers" like to have a cig with their drinks sometimes, but I still think it is no big deal to ask someone to go outside.

Oh and another thing, there are rumors out here in Cali that they are soon going to ban smoking in homes.  I am not saying that new bill will pass, but it could be the next step.  This may be going to far, but for people who have children, I think it should be illegal to raise their children in a smoke filled house.  Then again that is going pretty far so I don't know how that would work for all those people not living with children.

lol, cant wait to see what it will be like with everyone in center city going in and out of packed bars every time they want a cig.  That should be a blast.

QuoteLA had the ban implemented when I was living there. It sucked. Bars lost a ton of business.

Those were more short term losses, people got over it/used to it and it is back to normal for the most part nowadays.

Quote from: NB on May 26, 2005, 02:54:16 PM

QuoteLA had the ban implemented when I was living there. It sucked. Bars lost a ton of business.

Those were more short term losses, people got over it/used to it and it is back to normal for the most part nowadays.

Not being able to smoke in small dive bars killed them. I'm not talking about restaurants...I'm talking about the little dive bars in Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beaches.

The smoking ban in Florida turned out to be a boon for bars & restaurants.  It allowed them to open up sidewalk seating which in a lot of cases meant a huge increase in business.

Florida is not Philly, however, and standing out in the freezing cold for a smoke will most definitely suck for those of you who light up.

:P

I know what you mean, the bars are doing fine now.  Some people still bitch about it, but most people are so used to it they don't think about it.  I've been to countless bars and people don't seem to mind anymore going out, having a smoke and meeting people. 

Now, having to go outside to have a smoke in 30 degree weather is another thing  :P, but out here it is nice to go outside.  :D

Quote from: NB on May 26, 2005, 03:02:09 PM
I know what you mean, the bars are doing fine now.  Some people still bitch about it, but most people are so used to it they don't think about it.  I've been to countless bars and people don't seem to mind anymore going out, having a smoke and meeting people. 

Now, having to go outside to have a smoke in 30 degree weather is another thing  :P, but out here it is nice to go outside.  :D

Sure, if you don't die from the cigarette, you can die from the smog.  :-D

Quote from: PhillyGirl on May 26, 2005, 03:05:02 PM

Quote from: NB on May 26, 2005, 03:02:09 PM
I know what you mean, the bars are doing fine now.  Some people still bitch about it, but most people are so used to it they don't think about it.  I've been to countless bars and people don't seem to mind anymore going out, having a smoke and meeting people. 

Now, having to go outside to have a smoke in 30 degree weather is another thing  :P, but out here it is nice to go outside.  :D

Sure, if you don't die from the cigarette, you can die from the smog.  :-D

If you can't beat'it, join it.

not taking place by 2008-so hopefully ill have quit by then

I can help you quit. You just lay down on the ground and I'll drop this cinder block on your arms repeatedly. No need to thank me.

Nice

Quote from: General_Failure on May 26, 2005, 03:39:28 PM
I can help you quit. You just lay down on the ground and I'll drop this cinder block on your arms repeatedly. No need to thank me.

that would make me want to have one.

and you'd feel bad and have to hold it for me. so youre really just making more work for you in the long run

Quote from: mussa on May 26, 2005, 03:34:26 PM
not taking place by 2008-so hopefully ill have quit by then

although the ban is already in place here, I feel you on the quitting part

Quote from: General_Failure on May 26, 2005, 03:39:28 PM
I can help you quit. You just lay down on the ground and I'll drop this cinder block on your arms repeatedly. No need to thank me.

Quitters suck.

Quote from: NB on May 26, 2005, 02:43:35 PM
As a smoker you get used to it. It's simple, you walk outside of a bar or restaurant and have a smoke. It's actually cool, because then you go outside and meet all the other outcasts.

When I was just out in Cali, I didn't mind the fact that I had to go outside of a bar/nightclub to smoke (it actually made it easier to meet women) as much as I minded the fact that I had to wait in line to get back in.  That was pretty common in the gaslamp down in SD.  I've already paid my farging cover charge and these assclowns are trying to tell me I have to wait until someone else leaves before I can go back in.  farg that shtein!

Quote from: Wingspan on May 26, 2005, 03:52:06 PM
and you'd feel bad and have to hold it for me.

You're confusing me for someone that has feelings.

thanks for the support iceholes :-D

If you'd prefer I've got cobblestones.

Quote from: General_Failure on May 26, 2005, 04:18:32 PM
If you'd prefer I've got cobblestones.

im not into that kinky shtein..sorry

The more laws they pass to make smoking more difficult the more I want to start smoking again.

Quote from: Wingspan on May 26, 2005, 02:39:34 PMthere are a lot of places in NY that just ignore this with a "tip jar" for fines.

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but where?  I live in NYC (Bronx) and I don't know a single fargin' bar where people still smoke inside.  Admittedly, I'm not out on the town at 3:30 a.m. on Tuesday nights, so I don't know what goes on everywhere, but all the same.  I see NO smoking in bars here.

The lawmakers who pass this shtein think nothing of driving their SUVs down to town hall, spewing more deadly smoke on the way to work than a smoker does in a month.  It's a witch hunt, plain and simple.  If you're so goddamned concerned about air quality, look at the farging cars and factories, not smokers. 

And really...who wants to go to a farging dive bar with no smoke?  You might as well go to the PTA sponsored after prom party.

a friend of mine was just up in manhattan over the weekend, said they found a place and the one bouncer let them smoke downstairs.  not sure of the name--ill ask him

Quote from: Diomedes on May 26, 2005, 07:59:12 PM

Quote from: Wingspan on May 26, 2005, 02:39:34 PMthere are a lot of places in NY that just ignore this with a "tip jar" for fines.

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but where?  I live in NYC (Bronx) and I don't know a single fargin' bar where people still smoke inside.  Admittedly, I'm not out on the town at 3:30 a.m. on Tuesday nights, so I don't know what goes on everywhere, but all the same.  I see NO smoking in bars here.

honestly, it's mostly second hand(no pun intended). but i was in a corner bar in queens about 6 months ago and i was smoking in it, i was told by the bartender there was a cover. it was about 11pm on a wednesday. and the rest is only by the guy i was visiting then.

Quote from: mussa on May 26, 2005, 09:11:57 PM
a friend of mine was just up in manhattan over the weekend, said they found a place and the one bouncer let them smoke downstairs. not sure of the name--ill ask him

It's probably already occurred to you, but in the interest of protecting those involved, let's not post any actual names on an internet message board.  IM me instead.   :paranoid

Philly City Council Passes Smoking Ban

POSTED: 12:40 pm EDT June 15, 2006

In a surprise development, the long-debated smoking ban has been passed by Philadelphia city council.

The bill now goes to Mayor John Street for approval.

Council passed a compromise bill to ban smoking in most restaurants, other businesses and public spaces in the city.

The final vote was 9-to-6.

The legislation includes exemptions for outdoor cafes and so-called "neighborhood" taverns -- smaller bars that make their money primarily from liquor sales.

Street has not yet indicated if he will sign the bill into law. Street had previously indicated he had problems with the proposed legislation.

so called " neighborhood" taverns?

what the farg gives them the exception? and what qualifies as a neighborhood tavern? that is bullshtein.

lol...i was thinking that as well

only in philly would neighborhood joints get an exemption

meh, i'm a smoker so it annoys me, but to tell you the truth it doesn't bother me coming home and not reeking of cigs.  and its not that hard to step outside for a few minutes.  plus you meet people that you normally wouldn't meet in the little smokers circles outside. 

plus you meet people that you normally wouldn't meet in the little smokers circles outside

fag

i smoke as well...and this really doesnt bother me one way or the other.

Quote from: phattymatty on June 15, 2006, 01:20:51 PM
meh, i'm a smoker so it annoys me, but to tell you the truth it doesn't bother me coming home and not reeking of cigs.  and its not that hard to step outside for a few minutes.  plus you meet people that you normally wouldn't meet in the little smokers circles outside. 

yea there's is nothing like talking to a crazy homeless guy when you both are trashed and you have a hr long conversation, smoking cigs.  i never did that before.  :paranoid

i don't smoke and it bothers me from the fact that it's the government telling a private business owner what to do.

Quote from: SunMoTzu on June 15, 2006, 01:26:46 PM
i don't smoke and it bothers me from the fact that it's the government telling a private business owner what to do.

And trying to tell adults what they can put into their bodies and where. We all know when we go to a bar that people will be smoking there. We could stay home if we want, or we can suck it up and not act like bitches. It isn't the government's job to protect us from ourselves.

It should bug you.  It's bullshtein.  Farging witch hunt.

Not allowing people to smoke in BARS is the most retarded thing ever.

screw that...cigarettes should be illegal period

and if they arent gonna be keep em in your house...i dont want that nastiness around me

well you can't smoke in a bar, but you can get shtein faced and drive home!!! yippiiiiiiiiiie!

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 01:31:03 PM
screw that...cigarettes should be illegal period

and if they arent gonna be keep em in your house...i dont want that nastiness around me

Can we ban your stench in bars too, then?

In that case, keep your exhaust spewing car in your garage igy.  I don't want that nastiness around me.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 01:31:03 PM
screw that...cigarettes should be illegal period

and if they arent gonna be keep em in your house...i dont want that nastiness around me

Then don't go to bars that allow smoking. Why should other people have to change what they do to appease you?

IGY = Bar Diva

Quote from: rjs246 on June 15, 2006, 01:28:07 PM
We could stay home if we want, or we can suck it up and not act like bitches.

this is where the zealots ask you why they shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain resturaunt.  they don't understand the freedom of choice though.

2 years ago this would have made me furious.  now that i'm beginiing to think about quitting i could care less.

In that case, keep your exhaust spewing car in your garage igy.  I don't want that nastiness around me.

cars are a necessary evil...i dont particularly like them but they serve a purpose and until they offer public transportation from maryland to the linc i need one

well you can't smoke in a bar, but you can get shtein faced and drive home

actually you cant do either...and if you get caught doing so you will pay the consequences

I already quit, AND I rarely go to bars... but I do know that drinking at a bar without smoking is for douches.

Quote from: SunMoTzu on June 15, 2006, 01:34:10 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on June 15, 2006, 01:28:07 PM
We could stay home if we want, or we can suck it up and not act like bitches.

this is where the zealots ask you why they shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain resturaunt. they don't understand the freedom of choice though.

They are allowed to go whereever they want. In certain places they'll just have to deal with people exercising their right to smoke. The truth is that people just don't like cigarettes and want to stop other people from doing it for their own selfish bullshtein reasons.

Ok IGY, but my point is you can consume alcohol in a bar. you can consume as much as you want until the bartender flags you. you can jump in your car and drive home with a balding hooker. you can wake up with a burning meatcicle. but u can't smoke in a bar.

The truth is that people just don't like cigarettes and want to stop other people from doing it for their own selfish bullshtein reasons.

of course it is...what the hell else would it be....its pure nastiness...something that not just is physically dangerous to people but is also unbelievably annoying and gross...do it if you must just dont do it around me

this is no different than smokers same selfish reasons for not wanting to be inconvienanced and have to smoke outside

There is a difference. Telling adults that they can put one dangerous drug into their body but not another is arbitrary. Telling them where they can do it is also arbitrary, especially when the drug in question doesn't impair the mind at all. Might as well tell someone that they can't take tylenol on a park bench or snort coke off of a hookers anus. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

I'm not a smoker and I hate heavy smoke in bars BUT it is not the government's place to dictate legal activities in a private business.  Smoking is either legal or illegal.  If there are enough people who don't want a smoke-filled bar, someone will open it and you can have a choice.

Telling adults that they can put one dangerous drug into their body but not another is arbitrary

when one drug effects people other than the person doing the drug it most certainly should be arbitrary tho

yes you can drink alcohol and drive but it is illegal to drive as your actions there might effect someone else...thus drinking and driving is illegal but drinking isnt...just like cigarette smoking is not illegal but doing it in a scenario that effects another is

Standing at sports games should be illegal, then.
Because people should have the right to stay seated and still see the game.  They paid for the seat, right?

Standing at sports games should be illegal, then.
Because people should have the right to stay seated and still see the game.  They paid for the seat, right?

that doesnt compromise another persons health


look im done going back n forth we could do it all night...fact is outside of nebraska and montana smoking will in the not to distant furture be out of all public places...and that is a GREAT thing....so in the end i win

The smoking ban in Florida was a boon to the bar business.

I know it's a different climate and all but it's been a rousing success here.

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2006, 02:05:20 PM
The smoking ban in Florida was a boon to the bar business.

I know it's a different climate and all but it's been a rousing success here.

It encourages prissy losers to go out and overspend on their smoke-free cosmos and daqueris.

Quote from: FFatPatt on June 15, 2006, 03:17:32 PM

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2006, 02:05:20 PM
The smoking ban in Florida was a boon to the bar business.

I know it's a different climate and all but it's been a rousing success here.

It encourages prissy losers to go out and overspend on their smoke-free cosmos and daqueris.

Ha. Nicely put.

actually the smoking ban has increased business in almost every place it has been implemented. there are a lot more non smokers than there are smokers in this country...

what a bar may lose in smoker business, they are getting from non smokers who will go now that there is a ban.

the reason theres no loss of business is because contrary to the bitching and moaning of smokers not a single one of them stops going to bars because of a smoking ban...they still go they just smoke outside like all good smokers should...and then they complain about it over their beer

everyone knows this which is why ever single smoking ban ever put forth passes

IMO private business owners shouldn't be allowed to allow everything they choose in their bars. I have no problem with the government telling them what to do.

They just need to get over themselves and their insecurities.

The government is bossing you around, OMG IT'S LIEK THE EDN OF THE WORLD!!11!!

wah wah

It's healthier, end of story.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:43:07 PM
IMO private business owners shouldn't be allowed to allow everything they choose in their bars. I have no problem with the government telling them what to do.

They just need to get over themselves and their insecurities.

The government is bossing you around, OMG IT'S LIEK THE EDN OF THE WORLD!!11!!

wah wah

It's healthier, end of story.

So, you and IGY are exactly in agreement.  That speaks volumes to the rest of us.


My whole point is that if it truly improves business, then the private business owners would all be motivated to ban smoking from their establishments of their own free will.  The fact that many bar owners choose to allow smoking means that they are either throwing away profit or that the idea of banning smoking in bars actually increasing business is a complete myth perpetuated by the anti-smoking causeheads.

People are afraid to ban smoking because even if it improves business in other areas it may not improve it there. It may, but they don't want to take the risk.

Even if it does hurt business, it won't hurt it enough to make the establishment suffer significantly. I don't recall reading about any bars that closed down in any of the towns that have smoking bans because of it. Plus, no one is going to stop going if you look at it logically. People want to go to bars and drink. They have no where else to go nearby because NJ has the ban too. So they ultimately will suck it up and go and smoke outside. Private business owners shouldn't be allowed to regulate things like this in their establishment.

i dont believe it helps business altho thats what places like new york city have claimed

but it definitely does not hurt business....people are going to go to bars no matter what...people who hate the smoke like me are gonna go no matter what and people who smoke arent gonna stop going to bars

when its not sports bunkley knows what hes talking about....its a health issue plain and simple...smoke outside where you are not hurting/bothering anyone

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:43:07 PM
IMO private business owners shouldn't be allowed to allow everything they choose in their bars. I have no problem with the government telling them what to do.

They just need to get over themselves and their insecurities.

The government is bossing you around, OMG IT'S LIEK THE EDN OF THE WORLD!!11!!

wah wah

It's healthier, end of story.

you would've been a hit in WWII Germany

i like to smoke outside while putting my cigarettes out on peoples palms.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 03:52:17 PM

when its not sports bunkley knows what hes talking about....its a health issue plain and simple...smoke outside where you are not hurting/bothering anyone

don't go to a place that allows smoking if it bothers you

Quote from: SunMoTzu on June 15, 2006, 03:53:47 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 03:52:17 PM

when its not sports bunkley knows what hes talking about....its a health issue plain and simple...smoke outside where you are not hurting/bothering anyone

don't go to a place that allows smoking if it bothers you

With a ban, smokers and non-smokers alike can go so it's fair for everyone. Why make certain groups of people not be able to go? Now everyone can go and enjoy themselves.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:56:39 PM

With a ban, smokers and non-smokers alike can go so it's fair for everyone. Why make certain groups of people not be able to go? Now everyone can go and enjoy themselves.

then impose a ban on clubs that play music.  it's unhealthy to my ear drums and it bothers me.  dummy.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 03:52:17 PM
i dont believe it helps business altho thats what places like new york city have claimed

but it definitely does not hurt business....people are going to go to bars no matter what...people who hate the smoke like me are gonna go no matter what and people who smoke arent gonna stop going to bars

when its not sports bunkley knows what hes talking about....its a health issue plain and simple...smoke outside where you are not hurting/bothering anyone

So, your first two paragraphs completely contradict each other, unless you are actually claiming that the most likely scenario is absolutely no change in the bottom line whatsoever, which is complete B.S.

And your last paragraph just proves you've gone completely batty.

Quote from: SunMoTzu on June 15, 2006, 03:57:47 PM

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:56:39 PM

With a ban, smokers and non-smokers alike can go so it's fair for everyone. Why make certain groups of people not be able to go? Now everyone can go and enjoy themselves.

then impose a ban on clubs that play music.  it's unhealthy to my ear drums and it bothers me.  dummy.

That's what clubs are for. To play music. Why would you even go to a club if the music hurts your ears? Bars are for going and getting drinks. Smoking is not what it is about. People do smoke in bars, but smoking isn't what the bar is made for.

Many bars ARE made for smoking, actually.  And for plenty of bar-going people I know, smoking is just as important as drinking.  Your argument sucks more ass than your football opinions.

a bar is a meeting place.  you can smoke, drink, talk, play pool, or any number of things there.  a club is the same way.  but keep trying to wriggle out this one.

don't go to a place that allows smoking if it bothers you

every person should have the right to go to public places without having their health affected vs people having the right to do something just cause they feel like it

Banning smoking in bars is the next step to a world like "Demolition Man", where everything bad for you is against the law including fluid transfer activities, saturated fat, and alcoholic beverages.  Let's work towards that.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 04:09:45 PM

every person should have the right to go to public places without having their health affected vs people having the right to do something just cause they feel like it

and what about my arguement about music in bars or clubs?  that's ok?

You are wrong. Clubs are made specifically for playing music. The drinking, etc, are extra benefits.

Bars are made so you can go drink alcohol.

If there was a building made specifically so people could go and do nothing but smoke, then it would be stupid to ban smoking there because only smokers go there. But smokers and non-smokers alike want to go to bars, and drink.

NO ONE is going to go to a club if they don't enjoy the music playing, and it bothers them. All clubs do it.

unless you are actually claiming that the most likely scenario is absolutely no change in the bottom line whatsoever

thats exactly what im claiming...the plus minus difference is negligible

smokers dont stop going to bars because they have to smoke outside

and if you wanna say it helps business then thats even more reason to have smoking bans

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 04:09:45 PM
don't go to a place that allows smoking if it bothers you

every person should have the right to go to public places without having their health affected vs people having the right to do something just cause they feel like it

while the premise is true...bars and restaurants are not public places. they are private establishements that invite the general public to patronize.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 04:13:22 PM
You are wrong. Clubs are made specifically for playing music. The drinking, etc, are extra benefits.

Bars are made so you can go drink alcohol.

If there was a building made specifically so people could go and do nothing but smoke, then it would be stupid to ban smoking there because only smokers go there. But smokers and non-smokers alike want to go to bars, and drink.

NO ONE is going to go to a club if they don't enjoy the music playing, and it bothers them. All clubs do it.

you're arguing the semanitcs of what clubs and bars are for.  i could easily combat that by talking about bars that have bands play, but i won't.  that proves you know that you have no arguement, so that's fine with me.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 04:13:22 PM
You are wrong. Clubs are made specifically for playing music. The drinking, etc, are extra benefits.

Bars are made so you can go drink alcohol.

If there was a building made specifically so people could go and do nothing but smoke, then it would be stupid to ban smoking there because only smokers go there. But smokers and non-smokers alike want to go to bars, and drink.

NO ONE is going to go to a club if they don't enjoy the music playing, and it bothers them. All clubs do it.

They should ban white men dancing at clubs, because it endangers the health of other people dancing.

and what about my arguement about music in bars or clubs?

outside of marilyn manson music never killed anyone

it's bad for my health.  it can damage my ear drums. 

Club is a general term. I'd have no problem banning loud music in strip clubs, if it really bothers people. People go there to look at naked women, not listen to music.

But a CLUB is made so you can listen to music. They wouldn't exist without it. It would just become a bar if there was no music/dancing.

it can damage my ear drums

can it...probably

does it...no

So, anything a person does that may somehow hurt others using the support of politically-charged, sketchy science but certainly does annoy them should be banned/illegal?

I guess that pretty much bans IGY from life.  Thanks for playing, buddy!

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 04:17:48 PM
and what about my arguement about music in bars or clubs?

outside of marilyn manson music never killed anyone

tu-pac and biggie smalls have a minor point of contention with that statement

politically-charged, sketchy science

go ahead george bush

and yes if something annoys me it should be banned...smoking being at or near the top of my list

it comes down to the government telling you to bend over and you thanking them for it

it comes down to the government telling you to bend over and you thanking them for it


in this case it feels oh so good tho

Which is why I said people need to get over themselves. You have to be really farging paranoid if it bothers you so much that someone tells you what to do in an instance where it doesn't even hurt your business.

If smoking bans made all establishments plummet in business and caused them all to shut down, then they wouldn't ban it. But it doesn't.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:43:07 PM
IMO private business owners shouldn't be allowed to allow everything they choose in their bars. I have no problem with the government telling them what to do.

They just need to get over themselves and their insecurities.

The government is bossing you around, OMG IT'S LIEK THE EDN OF THE WORLD!!11!!

wah wah

It's healthier, end of story.

Should the government ban fatty food like wings and fried mushrooms or cheese sticks in bars too?  I mean, it would be healthier.  It is not about insecurities, it is about government overstepping their authority and infringing on private business.

Should the government ban fatty food like wings and fried mushrooms or cheese sticks in bars too?

again thats a personal choice that doesnt effect anyone but the person doing it...apples and oranges dookie

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 04:46:07 PM
Should the government ban fatty food like wings and fried mushrooms or cheese sticks in bars too?

again thats a personal choice that doesnt effect anyone but the person doing it...apples and oranges dookie

Bullshtein.  I pay for their healthcare.  And those fat folks fit only three to a section on the subway instead of four, like normal people.  Both of those affect me directly.

I'm with IGY. Just ban smoking all-together. Then there's no arguments about this stuff anymore.

Your argument is tenuous at best, do-gooders.  It's all based on the assumption that second-hand smoke actually poses any kind of significant risk, and that is not even close to proven.

Bullshtein.  I pay for their healthcare.

you pay for smokers healthcare too AND the people they corrode

Exactly.  So why are fatasses stuffing their arteries with crap any different?

because they only hurt themselves....smokers hurt others around them

this is getting really boring

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 15, 2006, 05:04:06 PM
because they only hurt themselves

Wrong.  As we said.  And you haven't proved that smokers do anything but inconvenience others.

As a non-smoker (never touched the stuff) who grew up in a smokers' household (heck, my grandfather smoked four packs of Pall-Malls a day for years), I'm torn.

I can't stand being around smoke.  When I used to go to my sister's house (she and her then-husband smoked), I had to take a shower as soon as I got home.  The smoke was that bad.  I don't go into establishments that have a lot of smoke- which, as Rome said earlier, isn't too many places, as Florida restaurants are smoke-free by fiat.  And, since I don't drink, either, there's not much use for me to go into bars.

However, I hate it when the government steps in and makes laws like this.  What's next?

Create all the programs to get people off the death sticks that you want.  Rachet up the penalties for allowing kids to purchase cigarettes (or buying them for kids yourself). 

I never really had a problem with smoking sections in restaurants, either- unless I was put into one of the tables right next to it with one of those phoney "dividers".  I wish that, if there was going to be a law made about it, that restaurants be given the choice of creating a smoking section with some kind of filtering system that would clean out the smoke from going into other parts of the restaurant, rather than just banning totally.

And banning smoking totally won't work.  Check out prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition).  Just give one more thing for the crime gangs to fight over, and one more thing for the police to try to look after.

And, what's next?  Candy?  Snack foods?  Red meat?  Violent video games?  Watching the Phillies?  It's all bad for your health.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 15, 2006, 05:08:46 PM
And, what's next?  Candy?  Snack foods?  Red meat?  Violent video games?  Watching the Phillies?  It's all bad for your health.

If it were mine to give, you'd have a brand new XXL Utley jersey on the way to your house.

Well said, sir.

i dont really care as long as smoking bans keep getting passed...and they all do eventually

Quote from: FFatPatt on June 15, 2006, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 15, 2006, 05:08:46 PM
And, what's next?  Candy?  Snack foods?  Red meat?  Violent video games?  Watching the Phillies?  It's all bad for your health.

If it were mine to give, you'd have a brand new XXL Utley jersey on the way to your house.

Well said, sir.

buy it from your sister and send it to him.

I don't see why this is a huge issue with anyone.  I'm a big smoker, if I'm getting drunk at the bar I'll go through an entire pack in a night sometimes, and I have absolutely no problem going outside to smoke.  Big deal.  Outside is good.

So, you admit that arguments for government-given smoking bans are tenuous and possibly harmful to the long-term greater good, but because it's what you personally want, you're glad it's going on.

Here's an idea. Why don't we allow the government to make even more decisions about what is right and wrong and decrease civil liberties even further. I mean, seriously, we're obviously all too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. How can we be trusted with our own health? How can we be trusted to stop going to bars if we don't like cigarette smoke or GASP deal with the consequences of our decision? This is definitely the government's job to intervene.

People who approve of government restrictions on behavior should be deported.

for me...the smoking ban is just the item at hand in a government issue. 

i felt the same way about motorcycle helmets.  it should be up to the person to make a choice.  the government shouldn't be forcing you to do it.

Outside Sucks when its snowing or raining Phatty Matty.  My wife and i live in MD but hang out in alot of delaware bars.  Delaware went no smoking 2 years ago and i have to say its nice waking up and not smelling like smoke.  But on the other hand there are times when you dont want to leave the bar to go outside to smoke like lets say for instance an Eagles Game.  I truly think it should be up to the individual bar owners to make the decision and if they allow smoking to upgrade their ventilation/air purification systems. 

Quote from: phattymatty on June 15, 2006, 05:15:32 PM
I don't see why this is a huge issue with anyone.  I'm a big smoker, if I'm getting drunk at the bar I'll go through an entire pack in a night sometimes, and I have absolutely no problem going outside to smoke.  Big deal.  Outside is good.

PM, there are some cities that are also banning smoking within certain distances of entryways to businesses, too.  Heck, some cities are going as far as banning smoking anywhere someone else that doesn't smoke may be.

Here's one of the strictest:  Calif. City Bans Public Smoking (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188360,00.html)

well thats redonkulous.

the only reason i don't care about the law is that i feel like the only way i can quit is if i get arrested for it.

farging awesome. I hope they do that here.

Again, personally I benefit from smoking bans since I am a nonsmoker, as I don't enjoy the smell of smoke at all.  However, the rollback of people's rights rarely stop, once they start.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 15, 2006, 05:22:57 PM

Quote from: phattymatty on June 15, 2006, 05:15:32 PM
I don't see why this is a huge issue with anyone.  I'm a big smoker, if I'm getting drunk at the bar I'll go through an entire pack in a night sometimes, and I have absolutely no problem going outside to smoke.  Big deal.  Outside is good.

PM, there are some cities that are also banning smoking within certain distances of entryways to businesses, too. Heck, some cities are going as far as banning smoking anywhere someone else that doesn't smoke may be.

Here's one of the strictest: Calif. City Bans Public Smoking (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188360,00.html)

That makes me want to murder people. And I don't smoke.

Quote from: SunMoTzu on June 15, 2006, 05:21:04 PM
i felt the same way about motorcycle helmets.  it should be up to the person to make a choice.  the government shouldn't be forcing you to do it.

Plus, it allows for muscleheads with a god complex to get their face all busted up!  Fun for all!

But guys, for real, I need the government to tell me how to take care of myself. I'm practically dying with all the decisions and responsibility as it is. If they could just tell me what to do and how to act a little more, I feel like we'd all be better off.

Quote from: rjs246 on June 15, 2006, 05:32:34 PM
But guys, for real, I need the government to tell me how to take care of myself. I'm practically dying with all the decisions and responsibility as it is. If they could just tell me what to do and how to act a little more, I feel like we'd all be better off.

Jerking off is now illegal is Massachusetts.

If the government told Ben what to do, he'd probably have all of his teeth right now.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 05:38:51 PM
If the government told Ben what to do, he'd probably have all of his teeth right now.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

OK, you are now banned from ever using the "Post" button on :CF again.  Another crisis averted due to totalitarianism!  Ain't authority grand!  Let's all have a book burning party!

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 05:38:51 PM
If the government told Ben what to do, he'd probably have all of his teeth right now.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

That's a great point since we have nothing but MENSA members holding government positions. farging twit.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 05:38:51 PM
Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

They shouldn't be allowed on the internet either................yet you're still here. 

That was pretty weak.

You don't rate any effort. 

zing

The smoking ban in Philly is a stupid one because it's a total ban, not just a partial one.

There are bars here in Florida where smoking is permitted.  The dividing line is placed between bars who sell food and those that don't.  To be more specific, if a certain percentage or more (I believe it's 10%?) of a bar's gross revenues comes from the sale of food, then smoking isn't permitted there.

What this has done is allow places like sports bars to have families in them who might otherwise stay out because of the second hand smoke issue.

It also allows traditional taverns to keep their smokers happy by allowing smoking in them.

It was a nice compromise that the Florida Legislature worked out because certain businesses wanted smokers and others didn't.  Plus, the ones who didn't simply placed tables outside to accomodate the smokers or set aside a certain area for them to hang out in.  By segregating smokers and non-smokers in those settings, it actually had a positive net effect because it made everyone happy.

That's what should have been done in Philly.  Too bad for youse it wasn't.

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2006, 08:12:38 PMIt also allows traditional taverns to keep their smokers happy by allowing smoking in them.

I figured that's what the "neighborhood" moniker meant in the Philly ban.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 15, 2006, 03:43:07 PM
IMO private business owners shouldn't be allowed to allow everything they choose in their bars. I have no problem with the government telling them what to do.

They just need to get over themselves and their insecurities.

The government is bossing you around, OMG IT'S LIEK THE EDN OF THE WORLD!!11!!

wah wah

It's healthier, end of story.

It's not like the end of the world; it's like the beginning of a fascist nation.  Sure I'm being over-dramatic, but legislation like this is undeniably and undoubtedly forcing us to take the first steps further journey down a slippery slope where at the bottom all rights of individuals and businesses are taken.

Edited because I previously blissfully ignored Big Brother's stranglehold

Quote from: Tomahawk on June 15, 2006, 10:29:08 PM
It's not like the end of the world; it's like the beginning of a fascist nation. Sure I'm being over-dramatic, but legislation like this is undeniably and undoubtedly forcing us to take the first steps down a slippery slope where at the bottom all rights of individuals and businesses are taken.

I only wish these were the first steps. The first steps were taken long ago...

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2006, 08:12:38 PM
The smoking ban in Philly is a stupid one because it's a total ban, not just a partial one.

Did you miss the part where its legal in "neighborhood taverns"?

If the government told Ben what to do, he'd probably have all of his teeth right now.  Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

not true at all...not wearing a helmet on a bike only hurts the person doing it...smoking effects everyone around you

helmet and seat belt laws are ridiculous


romey = RIF

I guess I did miss it.

Sorry.

:-o

go outside to smoke, dirtbags.

Stop wearing sweatpants to the nudie bars, then.

Thread like this make me want to start smoking again.

Thread like this make me want to start smoking again.

or at least smoking in bars

Especially smoking in bars. But especially smoking in day care centers.

especially!

You're missing a 1.

no, i'm not.

espec1ally in daycare centers!

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/bigassmember/9o9.jpg)

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 16, 2006, 08:18:31 AM
If the government told Ben what to do, he'd probably have all of his teeth right now.  Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

not true at all...not wearing a helmet on a bike only hurts the person doing it...smoking effects everyone around you

helmet and seat belt laws are ridiculous

I don't think they are ridiculous. Basically it comes down to, does it save lives, and it does. What you are saying is as long as somebody doesn't annoy someone else, you don't care if they get killed or not. Which is your prerogative, but I personally hate seeing people(stupid or not) get killed and leave behind a 3 month old daughter.

I don't feel as strongly toward the seatbelt and helmet laws as I do smoking though. It all comes down to whether or not you care what happens to stupid people that can't interfere with your life.

Stop. Move to a country where everything is regemented and they tell everyone exactly what you can and cannot do and where you can and cannot do it. There must be some place where freedom of choice in all matters has been abolished. That's where you belong. Leave. Please.

You don't need to take it to the extreme. We have plenty of rights. Some of which we deserve and some we don't. You don't need to get carried away with the "soon all our rights will be gone" garbage. It's never going to be that way.

I don't think they are ridiculous. Basically it comes down to, does it save lives, and it does. What you are saying is as long as somebody doesn't annoy someone else, you don't care if they get killed or not. Which is your prerogative, but I personally hate seeing people(stupid or not) get killed and leave behind a 3 month old daughter.

man i thought i was liberal

maybe you can start a grass roots effort to get a no suicide law introduced

I'm not liberal at all. In fact, most liberal ideology annoys me. But, I hate using labels like liberal and conservative on people. I think a certain way on certain issues, and IMO, has nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative."

more government and caring about a hypothetical fatherless daughter of someone you dont even know = super liberal

You are wrong. Your first mistake is labeling someone like me who you don't even know. Which is why I hate labeling to begin with. People have their views on certain situations, and it doesn't make them one thing or another. It's just what they believe.

I just happen to respect human life and have seen first-hand multiple times how an untimely death can rip apart a family.

But crime-wise my beliefs are very strict. If I was in charge I'd give no leeway on punishment. So as far as ideologies are concerned, I am very liberal on some and very conservative on others. But I don't label myself as one side or the other.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 16, 2006, 04:50:13 PM
more government and caring about a hypothetical fatherless daughter of someone you dont even know = super liberal

Ha. Spot on.

Although, in actuality the conservative government has done more to limit personal freedoms recently than the Liberal side. I say we napalm them both.

Quote from: rjs246 on June 16, 2006, 04:56:27 PM
Although, in actuality the conservative government has done more to limit personal freedoms recently than the Liberal side. I say we napalm them both.

Why stop there? 

I think the sport of boxing should be done away with, quite obviously.

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking
'Serious Health Hazard' Is Cited

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; A01

Secondhand smoke dramatically increases the risk of heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers and can be controlled only by making indoor spaces smoke-free, according to a comprehensive report issued yesterday by U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona.

"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," Carmona said. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

According to the report, the government's most detailed statement ever on secondhand smoke, exposure to smoke at home or work increases the nonsmokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. It is especially dangerous for children living with smokers and is known to cause sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory problems, ear infections and asthma attacks in infants and children.

The report -- which was applauded and embraced by public-health and tobacco-control advocates -- found that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to smoke from others. It concludes that any exposure to secondhand smoke is a risk to nonsmokers, and as a result the only way to protect nonsmokers is to eliminate indoor smoking.

"Restrictions on smoking can control exposures effectively, but technical approaches involving air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air cannot," the report says. "Consequently, nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces and by a voluntary adherence to policies at home," particularly to eliminate exposures of children.

The report represents the strongest statement about smoking and tobacco control to come out during the Bush administration -- which received millions in campaign donations from the tobacco industry.

The administration has been neutral or negative about two major tobacco-control initiatives -- proposals to grant the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco, and enacting the World Health Organization global treaty on tobacco. The WHO treaty, for instance, was signed by the administration but has never been sent to the Senate for a ratification vote.

The tobacco industry has been somewhat divided on the dangers of secondhand smoke, with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. saying that the science remains inconclusive and Philip Morris USA generally willing to accept public-health advocates' conclusions. All the companies, however, were accused by the Justice Department of conspiring to undercut the scientific consensus on secondhand smoke, and that charge remains part of the department's lawsuit against them.

A Philip Morris spokeswoman said yesterday that the company is reviewing the report, while R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said that the report "does not change our views about secondhand smoke." He said that the company continues to believe that owners of bars, nightclubs and other places restricted to adults should decide whether to allow smoking.

On its Web site yesterday, the company said: "There are still legitimate scientific questions concerning the reported risks of secondhand smoke."

The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot eliminate secondhand smoke and that only smoke-free environments are risk-free. Carmona called state and local mandates for smoke-free buildings a major public health success and said they have had enormous positive effects. Levels of cotinine, a biological marker for secondhand-smoke exposure, have fallen by 70 percent in nonsmokers since the late 1980s, he said.

The report does not present new scientific data but is an analysis of the best research on secondhand smoke. It said, for instance, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated last year that exposure to secondhand smoke kills more than 3,000 nonsmokers from lung cancer, approximately 46,000 from coronary heart disease, and as many as 430 newborns from sudden infant death syndrome.

"This report once and for all ends any scientific debate about whether exposure to secondhand smoke is a cause of serious diseases like lung cancer and heart disease," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The report, he said, "leads to one inescapable conclusion: Only comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws can protect all workers and the public from the serious, proven health risks of secondhand smoke. . . . Public-health advocates will use this report in every state and every city and every workplace, restaurant and meeting place that doesn't already have a comprehensive smoke-free law."

American Medical Association President-elect Ron Davis added that "this report should be a wake-up call for lawmakers to enact comprehensive clean indoor air laws that prohibit smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces."

The surgeon general directly accused the tobacco industry of trying to minimize the scientific consensus on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke.

"The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus," the report says.

There are more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke, and smokers and nonsmokers in rooms with smokers inhale many of the same toxins. Because the bodies of infants and children are developing, the report says, they are at special risk. Even short exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to immediate cardiovascular problems and long-term health problems and lung disease, the report concludes.

The surgeon general last addressed secondhand smoke in 1986. The Environmental Protection Agency and the California EPA have both addressed the issue since -- concluding that nonsmokers are at risk for secondhand smoke -- but the surgeon general is generally considered the nation's most authoritative source on issues of science and tobacco.

Waaah.

If you're worried about it don't go to bars where people smoke. And if you're not worried about it stop whining about it.

If you're worried about it don't go to bars where people smoke


luckily i dont have to do that since all the bars where i live are smokeless

Great! Then stop whining.

i will not stop until earth is smokeless

shoot me...but i actually care about people other than myself

You care about their health but not their right to choose what they do with their bodies? How wonderful for you.

they can do it...just not where it hurts other people

Uh, that's not what you said ONE POST AGO.

Quote from: ice grillin you on June 28, 2006, 09:44:02 AM
i will not stop until earth is smokeless

You might as well ban cars as well (as Dio has repeatedly pointed out). Oh, and going outside in the sun? That's a big no-no too. Better segregate people with any sort of communicable illness as well.

Everything on Earth leads to one end. Death. Let people live how they want to live in the mean time.

The crap that comes out of most people's mouths is a harmful to my mental health.  I propose we ban speech in the interest of preserving my sanity.

done....thank god



Street Signs Smoking Ban
By Vernon Odom

Philadelphia's mayor signed the city's smoking ban today. Smoking will be forbidden in most bars and restaurants starting next year.

With the move, Philadelphia joins New York City as well as New Jersey and Delaware to put such a smoking ban in place.
The final measure is still facing possible amendments to include sidewalk cafes and extend indefinitely the exemption for bars that do less than 10% of their business from food sales. There will be complete team coverage of this developing story on Action News at Noon.

Another step closer to my departure from this country. I can't wait until someone tells me I can't speak too loudly at a bar for fear of injuring someone's delicate ears.

Laws like this are going to force me to extinguish my cigarette in the eyes of its proponents.

cmon rjs, even I smoke a choker here and there when Im drinking at a bar, but if you cant see this ban as a benefit just because your a smoker...I mean

The government telling me what I can and can't do when I'm out is never going to be ok with me.

And I'm not a smoker.

im not even going to enter the debate on this because neither side will ever change...im just glad it got done and I WIN!!!

You won a micro-managing government that will acquiesce to any group that bitches enough. Congratulations.

So you have a problem with authority?

What Im getting at is-- stop looking at it as the gov't is trying to punish/reprimand "rjs" and look at it as them trying to do something positive for the entire population.

They are taking decision-making away from their population. And we actually have people applauding them. Unreal.

This argument was already decided in favor of rjs.  Witch hunt + Meddling government = Stupid law.

Next up, the neighborhoods with bars will complain of drunk smokers making noise outside.  Government will try to address the issue by refusing new liquor licenses, then move to restrict how late bars can be open, and then finally move to outlaw standing outside a bar.

Seig Heil!!

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 11:20:01 AM
Next up, the neighborhoods with bars will complain of drunk smokers making noise outside.  Government will try to address the issue by refusing new liquor licenses, then move to restrict how late bars can be open, and then finally move to outlaw standing outside a bar.

Much of this is already done in my part of the world (central PA). I'm not sure about the standing outside part, but I know that a new liquor license in my township is impossible. The current ones sell for premium scratch.

And one of the the oddest things I ever experienced was being part of the patronage being given the bum's rush out of a bar in Westminster, MD, at 11:45 PM. The bars cannot sell alcohol after midnight. And if there is even one customer in the bar at exactly 12, the local cops will fine the bar in a big way. As I left the place that night I did notice one cop sitting outside one of the establishments, making sure the employees had everyone out. Strange.

Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on September 14, 2006, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 11:20:01 AM
Next up, the neighborhoods with bars will complain of drunk smokers making noise outside.  Government will try to address the issue by refusing new liquor licenses, then move to restrict how late bars can be open, and then finally move to outlaw standing outside a bar.

Much of this is already done in my part of the world (central PA). I'm not sure about the standing outside part, but I know that a new liquor license in my township is impossible. The current ones sell for premium scratch.

And one of the the oddest things I ever experienced was being part of the patronage being given the bum's rush out of a bar in Westminster, MD, at 11:45 PM. The bars cannot sell alcohol after midnight. And if there is even one customer in the bar at exactly 12, the local cops will fine the bar in a big way. As I left the place that night I did notice one cop sitting outside one of the establishments, making sure the employees had everyone out. Strange.

How old are you? How does it feel to, in essence, have a state sanctioned curfew at your age?

The only real reason it bothered me is that in PA, the bars close at 2 AM. And I was just getting comfortable at 11:30.

I suppose that if I lived in that area, I wouldn't have thought much about the whole scene.

*sigh*  This is not a personal rights issue.  The basic tenant of liberty is that you have the right to do as you choose, unless it infringes on someone else's right to do as they choose.

Smoking is not banned because it hurts the smoker, it is banned because it hurts the non-smoker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoke).

As to the analogies in this thread?  Take a closer look:

1) Drinking / Drinking and Driving: Drinking is legal, getting drunk is legal.  Drunk driving and public drunkenness is illegal - they affect other people.
2) Driving a car: Aren't you paying for an annual emissions inspection?
3) Loud music / talking too loud: While rjs's voice may be annoying, it probably isn't capable of doing physical harm (probably).  On the otherhand, nightclub music is a workplace safety issue that employers must account for and protect their employees who are compelled to be exposed for extended periods of time.

Also keep in mind that the real strength behind these bans are not protection of the public - as you say, the public can choose to go or not go.  The emphasis of these bans is typically a matter of workplace safety - the waitstaff & bartenders affected by the choices of the patrons.  There is extensive legal and worker relations history to show that "if you don't like it, work somewhere else" is not a valid answer to workplace safety issues.

What pisses me off is that you are all so upset about taking away your right to smoke, but don't give a shtein (well, ok - Dio does) that the federal government is eroding your personal right to privacy and free speech.  Hey, if it doesn't affect me personally (yet) then what does it matter, right?

Quote from: Cerevant on September 14, 2006, 12:28:40 PM
What pisses me off is that you are all so upset about taking away your right to smoke, but don't give a shtein (well, ok - Dio does) that the federal government is eroding your personal right to privacy and free speech. Hey, if it doesn't affect me personally (yet) then what does it matter, right?

If you're throwing me into the group of people who don't care about our privacy and free speach rights being eroded you're wrong. I am very aware of that and very farging pissed off. But it's more fun to talk about the smoking ban because there are people who actually disagree with me and it impacts me more on a day to day basis.

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 12:39:46 PM

Quote from: Cerevant on September 14, 2006, 12:28:40 PM
What pisses me off is that you are all so upset about taking away your right to smoke, but don't give a shtein (well, ok - Dio does) that the federal government is eroding your personal right to privacy and free speech. Hey, if it doesn't affect me personally (yet) then what does it matter, right?

If you're throwing me into the group of people who don't care about our privacy and free speach rights being eroded you're wrong. I am very aware of that and very farging pissed off. But it's more fun to talk about the smoking ban because there are people who actually disagree with me and it impacts me more on a day to day basis.

My apologies to you and others who I may have mislabled.  I'm just going on a general impression of the level of outrage in this thread compared to the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" threads.

BTW, to whomever was considering leaving the country - you don't want to go north of the border.  The province of Ontario passed a law made it illegal to smoke in any workplace, including bars and restaurants.  It amazingly enough includes the homes of in-home child care providers.

Freedom is lame anyway.  Word life fascism!

I'd just like to say that I hate Mayor Street but that I'm very much in favor of the smoking ban. And for those of you who do like to smoke at bars, there will be designated areas outside that you can walk your drunk asses out to for a smoke. Cali. has had this rule in effect for half a decade and its worked out extremely well.

I don't smoke at bars and I hate this law.

1.) One problem I have with this kind of law centers on the arbitrary definition of what harms people.  I don't dispute that cigarette smoke is bad for you.  News flash...life is bad for you.  Lots of things we do have the unintended consequence of being harmful to others.

How far do you want to take this?

• Anyone who isn't a foreman on a giant worksite that drives an SUV instead of a normal passenger car is uncessesarily filling the air with extremely harmful gasses.  I'm breathing those gasses and it affects my health.  There is no better reason than personal choice for people to drive these pollution machines, which are hurting me.
  Solution?  Ban SUVs.
• I can prove that obese people are hurting me.  I subsidize their suicidal gluttony, which in turn reduces MY ability to provide for and protect myself.  If being forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy decisions isn't harmful to me, then what is it?
  Solution? Ban overeating.
• The neighbor's barking dog, car horns blaring at stop lights, air brakes bellowing downhill, loud stereos (and a billion other unnessecary nuisances) hurt my ears and stress my mental health.  [Or is mental health not really "health?]
  Solution?  Ban noise!
• The chemicals emanating from the particle board and carpeting in my office are not good for my health.  Nor are the cleaning chemicals the janitors use.
  Solution? Ban carpeting!
• Your alcoholism is hurts me; I end up paying for your hospital visits, etc.  Ban drinking.

A common foil to my argument is that we can't help driving SUVs, eating ourselves to death, honking when the light turns green, laying DuPont soaked carpeting, or drinking too much.  I reject this point on the grounds that none of these are any less necessary than smoking.  You can get around without an SUV, without eating McDonalds every day, just as well as anyone can get along without smoking.  But you choose not to. 

Another counter argument is that second hand smoke (despite it's name) is a direct harm to others, whereas the example I give are indirect.  Says who??  SUV smoke is plenty direct.  The non stop cacophony of the people outside the bar DIRECTLY robs me of sleep and raises my blood pressure.  The hospital bills for fatty fatty directly limit my capacity to maintain my own health; is that not tantamount to direct injury??

We're headed down a slippery slope with laws like these.  It's lousy.

2.  The other problem I have centers around the sanctimonious attitude anti-smokers flaunt.  Whining bitches need a beat down for that alone.

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 02:33:56 PM
blah blah blah,

great point, great point, great point

[li]Your alcoholism is hurts me; I end up paying for your hospital visits, etc.  Ban drinking.[/li]
[/list]
Whoa, let's not get carried away here.

great point, great point, great point

blah blah blah.

all yous can shove your mumble jumble bullshtein up your ass....all that matters here is that i dont want people smoking around me period...i dont care where it is... bars are now one less place that can happen and im extremely happy for that

Yeah, we know.  You're all for liberty, so long as you get to define it.  Holla!

No he's just being selfish. Which is fine. I live 99.9% of my life concerned only with things as they effect me.

My issue is not with simpletons who just 'don't want to smell yucky'. My problem is with people trying to make decisions for me.

I'm an adult, and beyond that I'm smarter than all but a small percentage of the people on the planet. When laws are passed taking away my right to make decisions for myself in the interest of the public good I become irate. I don't even smoke. But if I want to smoke a cig, shoot some heroine or snort gunpowder I should farging be allowed to to it. Especially at an establishment that is already serving health-imparing drugs.

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 10:49:35 AM
Another step closer to my departure from this country. I can't wait until someone tells me I can't speak too loudly at a bar for fear of injuring someone's delicate ears.

You know a bill like that would never get passed, but if you want to "depart" then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation dipshtein.

I got an idea. This country has too many bans and we are losing our rights as citizens. Let's open up the boarders and legalize drunk driving.

Freedom!

That sounds like my heaven.

Has everyone forgotten that this country was founded on the notion of open borders and inclusion? What the farg is wrong with you people?

is there smoking in new orleans bars??

Is there stripping in brothels?

Quote from: Bunkley78 on September 14, 2006, 04:02:31 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 10:49:35 AM
Another step closer to my departure from this country. I can't wait until someone tells me I can't speak too loudly at a bar for fear of injuring someone's delicate ears.

You know a bill like that would never get passed, but if you want to "depart" then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I love the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument.  It's about the most hypocritical statement a person can make in the "land of the free."   My problem doesn't really involve people who complain about the way this country is run, my problem resides with people who complain about the way this country is run but don't lift a finger to try and change it.   

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 03:27:55 PM
I'm an adult, and beyond that I'm smarter than all but a small percentage of the people on the planet. When laws are passed taking away my right to make decisions for myself in the interest of the public good I become irate. I don't even smoke. But if I want to smoke a cig, shoot some heroine or snort gunpowder I should farging be allowed to to it. Especially at an establishment that is already serving health-imparing drugs.

I think there's got to be some room for some compromise.  When you live in an organized society then there's going to be rules and laws governing what you can and cannot do.  Speed limits are law.  When you see a speed limit sign do you feel like the guvment is taking away your right to decide how fast you can drive?  Do you do 50 in a 25 mph zone just to thumb your nose at the evil establishment who oppressing your right to choose what's safe or not safe for yourself?  Not every law can be about what's best for you.  In most cases, it's about what's best for the majority.  The hope (at least for me) is that in a democracy, the laws best reflect what the people are asking for.  Wishful thinking, I know.  In that particular case though, the non-smokers bitched louder and more often than the smokers did.  Therefore, they get a law passed. 

Don't get me wrong, because I'm not trying to give you some "rah-rah, uncle sam knows best and you should simply obey" speech, because that's about the last thing I would tell anyone to do.  But to get pissed off, especially over a law that doesn't even affect you simply for the fact that you feel the guvment pumping is iron fist of tyranny is, well, it's kind of stupid to be honest with ya. 

I'm a smoker and I'm not exactly thrilled to see this law pass.  But as an American, I am glad to see that a group of people were able to effect change through proposed legislation.  I'm especially glad to see that they were able to effect that change considering they were going up against "Big Tobacco" who we all know has no problem lining lawmaker's pockets. 

Sure, there are quite a few laws out there that I think you (or anyone else) has a reason to bitch about because they are nothing more than the guvment imposing it's will on us.  But I don't think this particular law is one of them. 

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 14, 2006, 04:34:21 PM
Is there stripping in brothels?

No.  You must shag the flesh peddlers fully clothed. 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 04:43:48 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 14, 2006, 04:34:21 PM
Is there stripping in brothels?

No.  You must shag the flesh peddlers fully clothed. 

That policy is as ridiculous as making people drink without cigarettes.

in NO tho you can drink on the street...seems to me that would be the perfect place to have no smoking in bars

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 04:40:08 PM

I love the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument.  It's about the most hypocritical statement a person can make in the "land of the free."   My problem doesn't really involve people who complain about the way this country is run, my problem resides with people who complain about the way this country is run but don't lift a finger to try and change it. 

:-D He said it was one step closer to his departure. It was him that said it, all I said was if you are going to leave then see ya.

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 02:33:56 PM
[li]I can prove that obese people are hurting me.  I subsidize their suicidal gluttony, which in turn reduces MY ability to provide for and protect myself.  If being forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy decisions isn't harmful to me, then what is it?
Solution? Ban overeating.[/li]

fatasses are killing themselves much faster than smokers.

it is quite common to see a 95 year old man who has smoked for 80 years going about his daily business. however, when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 14, 2006, 04:47:56 PM
in NO tho you can drink on the street...seems to me that would be the perfect place to have no smoking in bars

I think they should ban drinking from bars and smoking from the street.  That would be fun.

Quote from: Bunkley78 on September 14, 2006, 04:48:58 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 04:40:08 PM

I love the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument. It's about the most hypocritical statement a person can make in the "land of the free." My problem doesn't really involve people who complain about the way this country is run, my problem resides with people who complain about the way this country is run but don't lift a finger to try and change it.

:-D He said it was one step closer to his departure. It was him that said it, all I said was if you are going to leave then see ya.

Clarify:  Your statement reminded me of the "if you don't like it then leave" argument.   My mistake.......I got interupted about 3 times at work while trying to type out that entire post.  There was a point I was getting at before one of my interruptions and now I don't remember what it is.  Oh well.  :-\

*sigh*  Guess I'll repeat myself too...

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 02:33:56 PM
Anyone who isn't a foreman on a giant worksite that drives an SUV instead of a normal passenger car is uncessesarily filling the air with extremely harmful gasses.

Guess what - the emissions standards for SUVs aren't any different than for passenger cars.  Guess we should get rid of emissions testing & catalytic converters in the name of freedom...

QuoteI can prove that obese people are hurting me.  I subsidize their suicidal gluttony, which in turn reduces MY ability to provide for and protect myself.  If being forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy decisions isn't harmful to me, then what is it?
Solution? Ban overeating.

I'm not sure where you are getting this - the US social health system is pretty weak.  I guess if you are talking about insurance rates, don't think for a second that the overeaters aren't paying more than you, unless you are part of a large group plan which lowers your rates too.

Oh, and like smokers don't have medical costs...

QuoteThe neighbor's barking dog, car horns blaring at stop lights, air brakes bellowing downhill, loud stereos (and a billion other unnessecary nuisances) hurt my ears and stress my mental health.  [Or is mental health not really "health?]
Solution?  Ban noise!

Done. (http://www.phila.gov/health/units/ams/pdf/Noise1.pdf#search=%22philadelphia%20noise%20ordinance%22)

QuoteThe chemicals emanating from the particle board and carpeting in my office are not good for my health.

You think.  If they are shown to be harmful, they will have to be removed.  Ever hear of OSHA?

QuoteNor are the cleaning chemicals the janitors use.

Workplace safety laws require that all employees know what hazardous chemicals they are exposed to and how to handle them safely (or know where to get this information).  Doesn't your company have a safety manual?

QuoteSolution? Ban carpeting!

Well, if you mean poison carpeting, I agree.

QuoteYour alcoholism is hurts me; I end up paying for your hospital visits, etc.  Ban drinking.

Again with the insurance bit - look, if you don't like sharing costs and playing the numbers, just pay cash for your healthcare.

when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

im still searching for elderly gays...its like gays started being born around the time microwaves were invented

Quote from: Wingspan on September 14, 2006, 04:50:36 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 02:33:56 PM
[li]I can prove that obese people are hurting me.  I subsidize their suicidal gluttony, which in turn reduces MY ability to provide for and protect myself.  If being forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy decisions isn't harmful to me, then what is it?
Solution? Ban overeating.[/li]

fatasses are killing themselves much faster than smokers.

it is quite common to see a 95 year old man who has smoked for 80 years going about his daily business. however, when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

I see elderly fat people all the time.  But I define elderly as anyone over 40.  However, I don't know if I've ever met anyone over the age of say......80 who also happened to be fat. 

Quote from: Cerevant on September 14, 2006, 04:54:20 PM
*sigh* Guess I'll repeat myself too...

Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2006, 02:33:56 PM
Anyone who isn't a foreman on a giant worksite that drives an SUV instead of a normal passenger car is uncessesarily filling the air with extremely harmful gasses.

Guess what - the emissions standards for SUVs aren't any different than for passenger cars. Guess we should get rid of emissions testing & catalytic converters in the name of freedom...

QuoteI can prove that obese people are hurting me. I subsidize their suicidal gluttony, which in turn reduces MY ability to provide for and protect myself. If being forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy decisions isn't harmful to me, then what is it?
Solution? Ban overeating.

I'm not sure where you are getting this - the US social health system is pretty weak. I guess if you are talking about insurance rates, don't think for a second that the overeaters aren't paying more than you, unless you are part of a large group plan which lowers your rates too.

Oh, and like smokers don't have medical costs...

QuoteThe neighbor's barking dog, car horns blaring at stop lights, air brakes bellowing downhill, loud stereos (and a billion other unnessecary nuisances) hurt my ears and stress my mental health. [Or is mental health not really "health?]
Solution? Ban noise!

Done. (http://www.phila.gov/health/units/ams/pdf/Noise1.pdf#search=%22philadelphia%20noise%20ordinance%22)

QuoteThe chemicals emanating from the particle board and carpeting in my office are not good for my health.

You think. If they are shown to be harmful, they will have to be removed. Ever hear of OSHA?

QuoteNor are the cleaning chemicals the janitors use.

Workplace safety laws require that all employees know what hazardous chemicals they are exposed to and how to handle them safely (or know where to get this information). Doesn't your company have a safety manual?

QuoteSolution? Ban carpeting!

Well, if you mean poison carpeting, I agree.

QuoteYour alcoholism is hurts me; I end up paying for your hospital visits, etc. Ban drinking.

Again with the insurance bit - look, if you don't like sharing costs and playing the numbers, just pay cash for your healthcare.

You make some decent points.  But what about obese, alcoholic, smoking janitors who drive SUV's and have loud barking dogs?  What's you solution for them?  Can we at least ban them? 

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 14, 2006, 04:55:16 PM
when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

im still searching for elderly gays...its like gays started being born around the time microwaves were invented

Either people truly aren't "born gay" and it's just a change in the culture of acceptance...

...or all the old homos already died of AIDS.


I tried to make the above post as offensive as possible.  How'd I do?

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 14, 2006, 05:03:26 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 14, 2006, 04:55:16 PM
when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

im still searching for elderly gays...its like gays started being born around the time microwaves were invented

Either people truly aren't "born gay" and it's just a change in the culture of acceptance...

...or all the old homos already died of AIDS.


I tried to make the above post as offensive as possible. How'd I do?

I'm not sure.  Let's wait to see if MDS is offended.   

I appreciate Sarge's take on this more than the other's I've read. But laws like this will never sit right with me.

Laws about speeding and murder and theft and all of that are in place to maintain order in a society. I'm not an anarchist. A highway system without any sort of speedlimit could dissolve into dangerous chaos very easily.

A law to limit where people can smoke doesn't have the goal of order in mind, it has the goal of appeasing a bunch of whiney bitches. Whiney bitches who don't want people to be able to do something that they find disagreeable. And that's bullshtein.

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 05:07:38 PM
A law to limit where people can smoke doesn't have the goal of order in mind, it has the goal of appeasing a bunch of whiney bitches. Whiney bitches who don't want people to be able to do something that they find disagreeable. And that's bullshtein.

I see where you're coming from and can agree with you to a certain extent.  But you can only kick a screaming baby so many times before you realize it won't shut up.  Then you have to give it a bottle.  Or a push down the stairs. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 14, 2006, 04:55:16 PM
when is the last time you saw an elderly fat person?

im still searching for elderly gays...its like gays started being born around the time microwaves were invented

Try Miami.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 05:14:00 PM
you can only kick a screaming baby so many times before you realize it won't shut up. Then you have to give it a bottle. Or a push down the stairs.

I think you know my preference...

Continue kicking?

Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2006, 05:57:45 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 05:14:00 PM
you can only kick a screaming baby so many times before you realize it won't shut up. Then you have to give it a bottle. Or a push down the stairs.

I think you know my preference...

Burn it?

Rip its prostetic leg off and beat it with it?

Yes.

i think one law we can all get behind is the slow and painful extermination of people who start a message board post with *sigh*

Who the hell gives a baby a prostetic leg?  It can't even walk yet. 

Quote from: SunMo on September 14, 2006, 06:11:28 PM
i think one law we can all get behind is the slow and painful extermination of people who start a message board post with "nm"

fixed. 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 06:12:15 PM
Who the hell gives a baby a prostetic leg?  It can't even walk yet. 

Who wants to talk about when Junior learned to hop?

Quote from: General_Failure on September 14, 2006, 06:13:44 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 14, 2006, 06:12:15 PM
Who the hell gives a baby a prostetic leg? It can't even walk yet.

Who wants to talk about when Junior learned to hop?

Ninjas. 

You don't want to kick a ninja baby. Especially if its alone.

We are still allowed to smoke next to one legged ninja babies aren't we? 

If you ask first, sure.

Cool.  Just wanted to make sure all of my freedoms weren't being stripped away in one day. 


Plus, I wanted to help get this thread back on track. 

I'm a non-smoker and a non-drinker. but I still want to hang out in a bar.  I want alcohol banned from bars...

But seriously:

This seems to me like something that should have been solved in the marketplace.  Like IGY, I can't stand going to places that has smokers- I just hate the smell of smoke.  Whenever I encounter a place like that for more than a few minutes, I have to shower and completely change to get rid of the smell.  I don't believe it is in the people's interest for the government to impose universal standards on businesses.  I would never frequent a restaurant that reeks of smoke. but that isn't a reason for the government to step in.

Right now there are an estimated 48 million Americans who smoke (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/19/1728_50390.htm).  That would be less than 20% of the American population, and about 25% of the adult population.  That would mean that there are over 140 million non-smoking adults.  I would say that the demand for a non-smoking bar would be enough that someone would try the concept without legislating that ALL bars become smoke-free.  The demand for smoke-free restaurants should be enough that many would be made that way without government interference.

Establishments (restaurants and bars) that wish to cater to smokers should be free to do so, with the understanding that they'll lose the business of many non-smokers that do not wish to be exposed to the stench of smoke, but they'll enjoy more business from thankful smokers that would have the freedom to light up.  Taverns that go smokeless would get more customers among non-smokers, but could also lose the business of smokers.  Eventually, either a balance would be reached, or the wishes of the customers would bear out through supply and demand, without the interference of the government.

Quote from: Cerevant on September 14, 2006, 12:28:40 PM
Also keep in mind that the real strength behind these bans are not protection of the public - as you say, the public can choose to go or not go.  The emphasis of these bans is typically a matter of workplace safety - the waitstaff & bartenders affected by the choices of the patrons.  There is extensive legal and worker relations history to show that "if you don't like it, work somewhere else" is not a valid answer to workplace safety issues.

I'd like to see that extensive history. I've known plenty of waiters and waitresses over the years and none of them were forced into it at gunpoint. The friends I've had who work in smoky bars were aware of the potential tradeoff between their lung health and their compensation for the job. There are plenty of jobs that unskilled people can do that don't require this tradeoff. Perhaps those jobs wouldn't pay as much, but that's the idea: combat pay is higher than regular soldier pay too. People are compensated more for higher risk jobs than lower risk jobs because there are a greater supply of workers willing to do lower risk jobs.

If someone doesn't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, maybe they should look into careers other than bartender or waitress. I also know loads of people who managed to get through life somehow avoiding frequent occupational exposure to secondhand smoke; maybe the folks desperately trying to avoid the smoke can ask my friends how they did it.

It looks like just another step backward in the failed War on Some Drugs to this non-smoker.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on September 14, 2006, 07:15:51 PM
Right now there are an estimated 48 million Americans who smoke (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/19/1728_50390.htm). That would be less than 20% of the American population, and about 25% of the adult population. That would mean that there are over 140 million non-smoking adults. I would say that the demand for a non-smoking bar would be enough that someone would try the concept without legislating that ALL bars become smoke-free. The demand for smoke-free restaurants should be enough that many would be made that way without government interference.

Establishments (restaurants and bars) that wish to cater to smokers should be free to do so, with the understanding that they'll lose the business of many non-smokers that do not wish to be exposed to the stench of smoke, but they'll enjoy more business from thankful smokers that would have the freedom to light up. Taverns that go smokeless would get more customers among non-smokers, but could also lose the business of smokers. Eventually, either a balance would be reached, or the wishes of the customers would bear out through supply and demand, without the interference of the government.

Good stuff man.  I like the idea.  And if something like that were to happen, I still think both smoking and non-smoking establishments would still see a fair share of business from the other "demographic". 

If I go out with my usual group of friends, we're about split down the middle with smokers and non-smokers.  I know that my non smoking friends don't like the smokey atmosphere in some bars and clubs but they deal with it.  Now, if we had our choice between a smokey bar and a non smokey bar, I would have no problem going to spend a few hours in their health bar and then a few in my cancer pit.  Or even going out one night to a bar of their choice and then we all go to a bar of my choice the next night.  Whatever. 

So I really don't think that either type of bar/resturant would see a dramatic change in business because even though non smokers out number smokers about 3 to 1, damn near every non smoker out there has a friend who smokes and at some point or another, they'll go hang out in a smokey bar with their smoking friends who were nice enough to hang out with them in a non smoking place.   

Quote from: QB Eagles on September 14, 2006, 07:45:35 PM
I'd like to see that extensive history. I've known plenty of waiters and waitresses over the years and none of them were forced into it at gunpoint.

You miss my point - there is extensive history of other hazardous substances, dangerous machinery, etc. being banned/controlled for the purposes of workplace safety.  This is just a new example.

Let the mofos wear oxygen masks.

this is truly a crock of shtein and can only lead to worse restrictions. what will the lawyers think of next? here's a thought, leave it up to the damn business owners. i don't like smoke either, even though i do it. vehicles and everything that comes with it produce more harm to humanity than cigarettes. you don't see law makers passing mandatory laws for cleaner vehicles or alternative fuels do you? whats more important a select few people or the entire world? cut me a break.

Fargin smoker crybabies...get over yourselves.  Noone wants your lung disease and early death.

vehicles and everything that comes with it produce more harm to humanity than cigarettes

NO

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 15, 2006, 10:07:18 AM
vehicles and everything that comes with it produce more harm to humanity than cigarettes

NO

Maybe if you were stuck in a bar or restaurant with a running car they are.

Also, vehicles are a necessity, smoking isn't.

i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Its also their choice to do so, nobody is shoving food or drinks down their throats. 'People' have no choice but to breath smoke in when they're in a bar.

Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 15, 2006, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Its also their choice to do so, nobody is shoving food or drinks down their throats. 'People' have no choice but to breath smoke in when they're in a bar.

yeah i know. who wants to be inconvienced while downing tequilla shots while drinking vodka's and red bull. it's a travesty. a crying shame. their overdosing on cologne is something i would rather not smell either. can we ban that?

This thread makes me want to start smoking again. 

Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 15, 2006, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Its also their choice to do so, nobody is shoving food or drinks down their throats. 'People' have no choice but to breath smoke in when they're in a bar.

Sure they do.  They could stop breathing.  Problem(s) solved. 

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 15, 2006, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Its also their choice to do so, nobody is shoving food or drinks down their throats. 'People' have no choice but to breath smoke in when they're in a bar.

yeah i know. who wants to be inconvienced while downing tequilla shots while drinking vodka's and red bull. it's a travesty. a crying shame. their overdosing on cologne is something i would rather not smell either. can we ban that?

Is it that much of an 'inconvenience' to walk 10 feet outside to smoke a cigarrette?

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 15, 2006, 10:07:18 AM
vehicles and everything that comes with it produce more harm to humanity than cigarettes

NO

think about the war we are in. think about our dependency for oil. think about all the emissions that are eating away at our ozone. think about it! certain vehicles are not a necessity, they are vanity and gluttony. 

The ozone is fine...that was fixed when the world decided to lay off the chloro-fleuro-carbons.  the pollution from gas guzzling cars is filling the air with CO2, which traps heat and causes warming of the globe.

most American cars are grossly wasteful.  immorally wasteful.  Don't for a second believe that smokers pose a greater threat to public health than gas combustion automobiles.

Quote from: Diomedes on September 15, 2006, 10:49:28 AM
Don't for a second believe that smokers pose a greater threat to public health than gas combustion automobiles.

I'm agreeing with Dio so much in this thread that I almost want to stab myself.

Stab me instead.  With a lit cigarette to my lips.  Mmm...Kools, now with 20% more nicotine than 5 years ago!!

Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 15, 2006, 10:42:44 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 15, 2006, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
i love it, people want healthy smoke free bars and restaurants so they can drink their livers to hell and stuff their face with a baked potato with extra sour cream.

Its also their choice to do so, nobody is shoving food or drinks down their throats. 'People' have no choice but to breath smoke in when they're in a bar.

yeah i know. who wants to be inconvienced while downing tequilla shots while drinking vodka's and red bull. it's a travesty. a crying shame. their overdosing on cologne is something i would rather not smell either. can we ban that?

Is it that much of an 'inconvenience' to walk 10 feet outside to smoke a cigarrette?

no more of an inconvience than a non smoker to walk 10 feet away from a lit cigarette.

I'm reminded of the toilet seat argument.

bitches want us to put the farging thing down all the time, but won't for a second consider lifting the seat

best solution is two bathrooms.

Quote from: Wingspan on September 15, 2006, 10:59:21 AM

no more of an inconvience than a non smoker to walk 10 feet away from a lit cigarette.

That does a lot of good when its in a confined space and there are smokers everywhere.

Quote from: Diomedes on September 15, 2006, 10:55:18 AM
Stab me instead.  With a lit cigarette to my lips.  Mmm...Kools, now with 20% more nicotine than 5 years ago!!

Yeah, I was reading about the rising amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

Most nicotine of any mass-produced brand?  NEWPORT.

Kools and Marlboro reds right behind, iirc.

The cigarette companies are racists (not kidding).

so is the government....


Fresh out of school cause I was a high school grad
gots to get a job cuz I was a high school dad
Wish I got paid like I was rappin' to the nation
but thats not likely, so here's my application
Pass it to the man at AT&T
Cuz when I was in school I got the a. e. e.
But there's no SC for this youngsta
I didn't have no money so now I have to hunch the
Back like a slave, thats what be happenin
but whitey says there's no room for the African
Always knew that I would boycott, jeez
but welcome to McDonalds can I take your order please
Gotta sell ya food that might give you cancer
cuz my baby doesn't take no for an answer
Now I pay taxes that you never give me back
what about diapers, bottles, and similac
Do I gotta go sell me a whole lotta crack
for decent shelter and clothes on my back?
Or should I just wait for help from Bush
or Jesse Jackson, and operation Push
If you ask me the whole thing needs a douche
a massengil what the hell cracker sale in the neighborhood
To the whorehouse bitches,
Miss parker, little joe or Todd Bridges
Or anybody that he know
so I got me a bird, better known as a kilo
Now everybody know I went from po' to a stillupfront's mom that got dough
So now you put the feds against me
cause I couldn't follow the plan of the presidency
I'm never givin' love again
Cuz blacks are too fargin broke to be republican
Now I remember I used to be cool
till I stopped fillin' out my W-2
Now senators are gettin' hired
and your plan against the ghetto backfired
So now you got a pep talk
but sorry, this is our only room to walk
we don't want a drug push
cause a bird in the hand is worth more than the Bush

Quote from: Diomedes on September 15, 2006, 10:38:00 AM
This thread makes me want to start smoking again.

You're telling me.

we even have a no smoking tailgate at eagle games

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/richbo/shakira_ass.jpg)

You have a no-smoking tailgate?  How prissy.  But hey, thanks for the heads up;  I'll be sure to avoid it and we'll all no doubt be happier for it.

If only non-smokers weren't too wrapped up in their own righteousness to show a similar consideration.

you wouldnt want to spoil the taste of mimosa's

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 15, 2006, 01:23:25 PM
we even have a no smoking tailgate at eagle games

Now thats a bit excessive.

They don't let you smoke in hospitals anymore either.  Lame.  If it wasn't for smokers, hopitals wouldn't do quite so much business. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 15, 2006, 01:23:25 PM
we even have a no smoking tailgate at eagle games

that would explain the girly drinks. are there buff black guys in short shorts fanning you off as you drink girly drinks with umbrellas?

Quote from: rjs246 on May 26, 2005, 02:25:12 PM
Give me a break. I hate anti-smoking laws. And I don't even smoke. Idiots.

Well, you idiot, you don't smoke for a reason, I'll assume that it is because of your HEALTH. 

                  I honestly don't understand THE MIND of a SMOKER.   You spend hundreds of dollars on cigarettes, and WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT?!    Would it be taste, would that be THE BIG REASON?    How does SMOKE taste, anyway....really?    Could any smoker really say, "WOW, this SMOKE, that I'm taking into my lungs, that causes me to COUGH MY LUNGS OUT, every morning, which prevents me from running around with my kids, IS WORTH TAKING A RISK ON MY LIFE?   You know, it's been proven that cigarettes cause cancer, to include 2nd hand smoking, would it be accurate to say that A SMOKER IS SUICIDAL?   Would it be accurate to say that a smoker should be brought up on charges of CHILD ABUSE, if they smoke in the house, around children?   Something to think about...huh? :poison

Welcome to the board. 

Now go play in the back of a cement truck. 

Just when you think you've seen everything, this board delivers something new.

What a polesmoker.

I think he tried to upload his avatar into his personal text box. 

Pure.  Genious. 

man whats with all the new people? they are all psycho.

That's what we said about you.  We were right, too.

ttbbaatoof! zing!#!!$%%

LMFAO

what ever happened to having the choice to go to a place that allows smoking or to a place that doesn't, seems pretty simple actually. 

Quote from: SunMo on September 15, 2006, 06:32:30 PM
what ever happened to having the choice to go to a place that allows smoking or to a place that doesn't, seems pretty simple actually. 

Because any business, recognizing how much cooler smokers are than non, would not ban smoking without government intervention.

Another thing I've noticed is that some concerts have music playing very loudly. It can't be good for the people who work at concert venues to be exposed to those decibel levels so often. So I hereby propose a new law stipulating that concerts and clubs may not play music loud enough to be have any detectable effects on the hearing ability of anyone who attends them every night.

Quote from: Tomahawk on September 16, 2006, 04:01:43 PM

Quote from: SunMo on September 15, 2006, 06:32:30 PM
what ever happened to having the choice to go to a place that allows smoking or to a place that doesn't, seems pretty simple actually. 

Because any business, recognizing how much cooler smokers are than non, would not ban smoking without government intervention.

I'm not buying that. Black people are way cooler than white people, and yet a lot of places banned black people for years.

Nobody ever told bar owners that they couldn't smoke because of who their parents were.

Ban to take effect starting Monday, I figured they'd wait till the New Year:

QuotePhiladelphia smoking ban begins MondayBy Natalie Pompilio
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
A law that bans cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants will go into effect on Monday, Philadelphia officials said today.

The legislation - passed by City Council in June but not signed by Mayor Street until September - prohibits smoking in all city workplaces, including galleries, sports facilities, restaurants and most bars. People who smoke in these places and business operators who allow smoking can be fined up to $300.

The law will be enforced by the city's Health Department and two new inspectors have been hired for this purpose, City Solicitor Romulo Diaz said. First time violators will be let off with a warning.

Members of the public who know of smoking violations can make a call to the Health Department at 215-685-7495 or send an email to healthdept@phila.gov.

Complaints received during normal working hours will be addressed immediately, Diaz said. Complaints received during non-working hours - like a Friday or Saturday night - will be serviced on the next business day. Diaz said inspectors would also be making spot checks on businesses during non-working hours.

To inform the public of the law, the city plans to have fact sheets available to businesses and residents by next Friday, Diaz said. The city will initiate a public service announcement campaign in October.

Diaz acknowledged that the legislation had several internal inconsistencies and needed some clarifications. City Council will address some of these issues when they take up a companion bill on Wednesday. That bill could also change the law's effective date to Jan. 8, 2007.

perfect timing as i will be in philly for three out of the next five weekends

have fun on the sidewalks cancer givers

eat shtein and die, weakling

classic

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 23, 2006, 11:37:58 AM
perfect timing as i will be in philly for three out of the next five weekends

have fun on the sidewalks cancer givers

:-D  :yay

Quote from: Bunkley78 on September 23, 2006, 05:55:03 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 23, 2006, 11:37:58 AM
perfect timing as i will be in philly for three out of the next five weekends

have fun on the sidewalks cancer givers

:-D  :yay

You have nothing to contribute.  Please ban yourself.  That is incredibly accurate.

Welcome back to Government Intrusion 101 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIET_TRANS_FAT_BAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-26-18-13-07)

Unbelieveable.

You know, other countries seem to be perfectly capable of functioning and being healthy without laws banning the ingredients to food. Americans are fat because a)we're rich and b)because we're rich we've become lazy as shtein. Banning fat isn't going to change that. We'll find new and amazing ways of expanding our fat asses. We're resilient like that. Put a hurdle in front of us and we'll find a way around it. It's what makes America great.

Can we get a ban on corn syrup?

Smoking is stupid, unhealthy, and a waste of money.

Go kill your lungs outside, I'm busy trying to breathe O2 while I'm eating. Delaware's had this ban in place since last May, and I love it.

Stop whining. If smoking's that important to you, then it shouldn't be a problem to walk outside and do it.

Quote from: Munson on September 27, 2006, 01:49:38 AM
Smoking is stupid, unhealthy, and a waste of money.

Lots of things are stupid, unhealthy and a waste of money. Beer, SUVs, $60 steaks from Mortons. Are you going to cheer and strut and get up on your high horse when the government outlaws all of those?

Idiot. I don't smoke and I hate this law. It sets a presedence that says its ok for a government to dictate to its people how they should live. That individual rights can be pushed aside when people whine enough about how smelly their clothes are.

You want the government mandating how you should live your life? No, you just want them to mandate how others live theirs. As soon as one of these 'for your own good' laws affects you you'll be singing a different tune. Of course you're probably too stupid to even recognize those laws and by the time your miniscule brain realizes what's happening it will be too late. Some of us have foresight and understand cause and effect. Clearly you, and every other whiney assfarg who complains about people smoking and applauds these laws, don't.

Not that I'm surprised by your simplistic outlook here. You've proven time and again that the notion of cause and effect escapes you. But I like taking these little opportunities to point out your idiocy and ridicule you accordingly.

Beer, SUV's, and steak aren't effecting the health of those around you, and creating a general annoyance to large amounts of people, are they?
Or the fact that drinking in moderation won't kill your liver or brain cells, and infact it has been proven to even be healthy, but smoking "in moderation" will still put tar on your lungs and unhealthy smoke into the air that others around you are breathing in.

But I guess that isn't important.

Not to mention the fact that smoking is the most annoying, gross, unhealthy thing a person can do. Like I said, if it's so important for the people who smoke to smoke, then they can step outside the door and continue thier quest to catch some Cancer.

My mom has been smoking since I was little, and it kills me that one day I'll probably be burrying her much sooner then she ever should have been burried because of lung, throat, or some sort of other cancer related to smoking. My grandmother has already died of lung cancer, she was a smoker for many years. I too will probably one day have cancer, thanks in large part to 2nd hand smoke. Yippie for smoking! Slow suicide! 8)

And yeah, it gets annoying when people smell your clothes and ask if you're a smoker. And that's just from being in the same house as my mom, she doesn't even smoke around me anymore. But my clothes still smell like smoke.

Why should I have to put up with that when I'm out and about? Smoking is stupid, it doesn't "calm you down" by any means, and niccotine is the most addicting substance not injected with a needle. It would not bother me in the slightest if they ever just got rid of smoking completely. Of course they never will because the government makes too much of a profit on killing its people slowly.

You can cry about the government controlling life all yo uwant....but I think there's a huge difference between smoking cancer sticks, and something like 1984.

You want to smoke? Fine. Don't do it indoors and effect all the people around you.

You want to get into semantics with me? Fine.

Quote from: Munson on September 27, 2006, 04:39:10 AM
Beer, SUV's, and steak aren't effecting the health of those around you, and creating a general annoyance to large amounts of people, are they?

Alcohol related illnesses including cirrhosis, heart disease and cancer are among the leading causes of death in the western world. The cost of fighting these diseases has directly led to the ridiculous costs of health insurance. That is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban alcohol.

SUVs cause an absurd amount of air pollution which contributes to poor respiratory health and depletes the ozone layer further contributing to the risk of skin cancer. They use up gasoline and therefore a large amount of natural resources. This affects the health of those around you and is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban automobiles.

Red meat contributes to high blood pressure, heart disease and colon cancer, again impacting the cost of health care/insurance. In addition the unnaturally large amount of cattle in the world produces a very high output of methane into the air causing poor air quality in those areas and contributing to respiratory problems. This affects the health of those arround you and is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban beef.

Quote
Or the fact that drinking in moderation won't kill your liver or brain cells, and infact it has been proven to even be healthy, but smoking "in moderation" will still put tar on your lungs and unhealthy smoke into the air that others around you are breathing in.

But I guess that isn't important.

Great point! How many people do you know who drink for their health? A lot, I bet. I bet hardly anyone you know drinks alcohol to get drunk. Strictly health related. Strictly.

Quote
Not to mention the fact that smoking is the most annoying, gross, unhealthy thing a person can do. Like I said, if it's so important for the people who smoke to smoke, then they can step outside the door and continue thier quest to catch some Cancer.

Oh, well if something is annoying we should definitely make it illegal. I think that picking one's nose is annoying and gross. Similarly burping, spitting and farting all all exceedingly gross and annoying. We should set up certain areas where these behaviors are allowed and make them illegal everywhere else. Good idea, Stalin.

Quote
My mom has been smoking since I was little, and it kills me that one day I'll probably be burrying her much sooner then she ever should have been burried because of lung, throat, or some sort of other cancer related to smoking. My grandmother has already died of lung cancer, she was a smoker for many years. I too will probably one day have cancer, thanks in large part to 2nd hand smoke. Yippie for smoking! Slow suicide!

Life, all life, in every form, leads to one inevitable end. Death. I'm sorry that your grandmother died of cancer but guess what, everyone dies. How and when are basically irrelevant. Why force your whiney attitudes about what is annoying in the form of ridiculous and gratuitous laws upon everyone in the mean time? Oh right, because you're an idiot.

Quote
And yeah, it gets annoying when people smell your clothes and ask if you're a smoker. And that's just from being in the same house as my mom, she doesn't even smoke around me anymore. But my clothes still smell like smoke.

Why should I have to put up with that when I'm out and about? Smoking is stupid, it doesn't "calm you down" by any means, and niccotine is the most addicting substance not injected with a needle. It would not bother me in the slightest if they ever just got rid of smoking completely. Of course they never will because the government makes too much of a profit on killing its people slowly.

Again it's all about things that annoy you. Why should anyone give a rats ass about what annoys you, let alone pass a law limiting people's right to choose how they treat their own bodies, based on your list of annoyances? I'll bet there are lots of things that annoy you. I'll bet you'd be annoyed if I sat over you and sqeezed a wet fart onto your face, but there's no law against that. Better start a petition! Laws were not meant to be created to make your whiney life annoyance-free.

Quote
You can cry about the government controlling life all yo uwant....but I think there's a huge difference between smoking cancer sticks, and something like 1984.

Wrong. These are the necessary first steps to a situation EXACTLY like 1984. Small things first. Big things later. Just ask Hitler.

Quote
You want to smoke? Fine. Don't do it indoors and effect all the people around you.

You lose.

You lose.

actually you lose because soon smoking will be banned nationwide in all public spaces

hopefully one day it will be illegal to smoke at all....there would be nothing better than to see all the tobacco companies go bankrupt in my lifetime..they are some of the most despicable people on the planet

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2006, 08:12:25 AM
hopefully one day it will be illegal to smoke at all....there would be nothing better than to see all the tobacco companies go bankrupt in my lifetime..they are some of the most despicable people on the planet

That's great in theory.  But honestly, do you think that the government would draw the line at our personal liberties at smoking if they were able to do that?

At some point as Americans, we have to push back on this.

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 27, 2006, 08:23:13 AM
At some point as Americans, we have to push back on this.

Why? I think it's great that civil liberties are slowly but surely being stripped away. I mean, anything to make my clothes smell clean after I've been at a dirty bar all night.

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2006, 08:12:25 AMactually you lose because soon smoking will be banned nationwide in all public spaces

hopefully one day it will be illegal to smoke at all....there would be nothing better than to see all the tobacco companies go bankrupt in my lifetime..they are some of the most despicable people on the planet

Nothing makes me want to start smoking again as much as the tripe you spew, igy.  Your fascistic, weak minded gloating over government incursion into private life galls me.  Really, it does.  I'd like to drop by your parents house and smoke a pack of Kools in your bedroom while you're at the record shop pretending to be black, just so I can see you cry when your blanky smells bad.

boo hoo...i cant smoke in a bar or restaurant

your personal liberty is to be able to smoke...not smoke wherever and whenever you want...just like you cant play a boom box on the subway or in a movie theater...but you can play it

when the govt bans smoking then come crying to me...until then save your energy for something that really matters

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2006, 09:08:29 AM
when the govt bans smoking then come crying to me...until then save your energy for something that really matters

it will never happen. the tobacco companies "donate" millions to politicians on both sides. they dont want to lose that money. that and tobacco is one of the highest employing industries in this country...along with some of the biggest export $.

10000's would go unemployed, and the economy would deteriorate.

Plus, imagine how much more farged Social Security would be without the smokers dying young?

personal liberty order of importance chart:

1. smoking in restaurants and bars
2. freedom of speech
3. seperation of church and state

I can do without cigarettes, but I need me sum cigars

Quote from: rjs246 on September 27, 2006, 05:44:40 AM
You want to get into semantics with me? Fine.

Quote from: Munson on September 27, 2006, 04:39:10 AM
Beer, SUV's, and steak aren't effecting the health of those around you, and creating a general annoyance to large amounts of people, are they?

Alcohol related illnesses including cirrhosis, heart disease and cancer are among the leading causes of death in the western world. The cost of fighting these diseases has directly led to the ridiculous costs of health insurance. That is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban alcohol.

SUVs cause an absurd amount of air pollution which contributes to poor respiratory health and depletes the ozone layer further contributing to the risk of skin cancer. They use up gasoline and therefore a large amount of natural resources. This affects the health of those around you and is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban automobiles.

Red meat contributes to high blood pressure, heart disease and colon cancer, again impacting the cost of health care/insurance. In addition the unnaturally large amount of cattle in the world produces a very high output of methane into the air causing poor air quality in those areas and contributing to respiratory problems. This affects the health of those arround you and is a general annoyance to large amounts of people. Ban beef.

Quote
Or the fact that drinking in moderation won't kill your liver or brain cells, and infact it has been proven to even be healthy, but smoking "in moderation" will still put tar on your lungs and unhealthy smoke into the air that others around you are breathing in.

But I guess that isn't important.

Great point! How many people do you know who drink for their health? A lot, I bet. I bet hardly anyone you know drinks alcohol to get drunk. Strictly health related. Strictly.

Quote
Not to mention the fact that smoking is the most annoying, gross, unhealthy thing a person can do. Like I said, if it's so important for the people who smoke to smoke, then they can step outside the door and continue thier quest to catch some Cancer.

Oh, well if something is annoying we should definitely make it illegal. I think that picking one's nose is annoying and gross. Similarly burping, spitting and farting all all exceedingly gross and annoying. We should set up certain areas where these behaviors are allowed and make them illegal everywhere else. Good idea, Stalin.

Quote
My mom has been smoking since I was little, and it kills me that one day I'll probably be burrying her much sooner then she ever should have been burried because of lung, throat, or some sort of other cancer related to smoking. My grandmother has already died of lung cancer, she was a smoker for many years. I too will probably one day have cancer, thanks in large part to 2nd hand smoke. Yippie for smoking! Slow suicide!

Life, all life, in every form, leads to one inevitable end. Death. I'm sorry that your grandmother died of cancer but guess what, everyone dies. How and when are basically irrelevant. Why force your whiney attitudes about what is annoying in the form of ridiculous and gratuitous laws upon everyone in the mean time? Oh right, because you're an idiot.

Quote
And yeah, it gets annoying when people smell your clothes and ask if you're a smoker. And that's just from being in the same house as my mom, she doesn't even smoke around me anymore. But my clothes still smell like smoke.

Why should I have to put up with that when I'm out and about? Smoking is stupid, it doesn't "calm you down" by any means, and niccotine is the most addicting substance not injected with a needle. It would not bother me in the slightest if they ever just got rid of smoking completely. Of course they never will because the government makes too much of a profit on killing its people slowly.

Again it's all about things that annoy you. Why should anyone give a rats ass about what annoys you, let alone pass a law limiting people's right to choose how they treat their own bodies, based on your list of annoyances? I'll bet there are lots of things that annoy you. I'll bet you'd be annoyed if I sat over you and sqeezed a wet fart onto your face, but there's no law against that. Better start a petition! Laws were not meant to be created to make your whiney life annoyance-free.

Quote
You can cry about the government controlling life all yo uwant....but I think there's a huge difference between smoking cancer sticks, and something like 1984.

Wrong. These are the necessary first steps to a situation EXACTLY like 1984. Small things first. Big things later. Just ask Hitler.

Quote
You want to smoke? Fine. Don't do it indoors and effect all the people around you.

You lose.

Let me see if I can digest your post in order.

First of all, people who are HEAVY drinkers aquire those problems. Alcoholics are considered ill, and are given help when identified. We even have programs for them. Heart disease and cancer....hmm, what causes more cancer...smoking or alcohol? Not to mention that sitting at a bar drinking some beer isn't effecting the health of OTHER rPEOPLE AROUND YOU. Unless you get drunk and drive, but that's what stupid people do.

SUV's spill co2 into the air, trapping heat and contributiing to global warming. Driving them does NOT effect the immediate health or the air the people around you are breathing. If it matters, I hate SUV's, and I hate people that drive them, because I consider them one of the main causes for gas prices being so high. But driving SUV's does not effect my immediate health, and I don't have to stand or eat next to running SUV's.

Once again, eating red meat does not effect the health or the air of the people around you, does it? Are you seriously failing to see this connection? Stop comparing apples and oranges.

RJS, considering a lot of my family comes from Italy, I actually do know quite of a lot of people who drink a glass of wine or two a night. Which is said to be healthy for one's heart. Like I said, drinking alcohol, in moderation, is not bad for you. Smoking, at any amount, is not only bad for you, but it's bad for the people around you breahting in your smoke. THAT's why smoking is banned indoors, as it should be.

Blah blah blah burping, farting, picking your nose does not effect your health or the health of others, let alone the air quality. Farting will make it smell just as bad though. But you fail to see the difference between general human behaviors and smoking, and how it effects health.

Smoking. Causes. Cancer. It is suicide in its slowest form, and just because YOU choose that lifestyle doesn't mean that others around you should have to suffer when going out for a meal, or for a drink at the bar. If smoking a cigarette is that important, if continuing to kill yourself is that imporant, then go outside where it will not effect the whole goddamn room of people.

And I think it annoys more then just me, because I know I alone wouldn't have been able to get this law passed.

RJS, a ban to smoking indoors will not lead to 1984. The most it will lead to is a ban of smoking period. But as I've already stated, that will never happen, as tobacco is too profitable.

I don't really think taking away a person's ability to kill the other people around them is going to lead to supression of freedom of speech.

Munson, forget the smoking stuff... Just tell us you didn't miss an opportunity to bone this broad (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b49/_shiver/DSC03192_00.jpg), so we know you're not gay.

Too.
Many.
Words.

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2006, 08:12:25 AM
hopefully one day it will be illegal to smoke at all....there would be nothing better than to see all the tobacco companies go bankrupt in my lifetime..they are some of the most despicable people on the planet

Probably not more despicable than the people who would take over the industry if it were made illegal: international drug cartels, terrorists, and gangs. The tobacco companies are selling a product that kills people; in your world, the product would still be killing people, only now the people selling it would be killing plenty of other people directly as well.

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 27, 2006, 03:41:31 PM
Munson, forget the smoking stuff... Just tell us you didn't miss an opportunity to bone this broad (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b49/_shiver/DSC03192_00.jpg), so we know you're not gay.

:-D
Pretty much every weekend.

And I made her stop smoking the occassional cig the way she did before we started dating.

Smoking=teh gay.

Quote from: QB Eagles on September 27, 2006, 10:04:32 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2006, 08:12:25 AM
hopefully one day it will be illegal to smoke at all....there would be nothing better than to see all the tobacco companies go bankrupt in my lifetime..they are some of the most despicable people on the planet

Probably not more despicable than the people who would take over the industry if it were made illegal: international drug cartels, terrorists, and gangs. The tobacco companies are selling a product that kills people; in your world, the product would still be killing people, only now the people selling it would be killing plenty of other people directly as well.

Which is part of the reason why it will never be banned completely, and part of the reason why the alcohol ban never worked. As much as I would love to see tobocco wiped off the face of the earth, I know it would be a zesty situation if they made it illegal.

But we all know that the government and politicians make way too much money off of cigs and Big Tobacco to ever ban it anyway.
Sell cancer to the people to make money. Gotta love it.

That's my cancer you're talking about there and I have every right to bring myself that much closer to getting it without having to walk outside. 

True, but you don't ahve every right to impose your cancer on those around you in a confined area.
:)

Then maybe you should walk outside.  Make sure you take a deep breath everytime a semi or bus rolls by.   

Quote from: Munson on September 28, 2006, 12:23:26 AM
And I made her stop smoking the occassional cig the way she did before we started dating.

Women only need cigarettes when they don't have pole.  That is incredibly accurate.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 28, 2006, 06:23:03 AM
Then maybe you should walk outside.  Make sure you take a deep breath everytime a semi or bus rolls by.   

The guy on the barstool drinking a beer and watching the game isn't effecting anybody but himself.

The guy on the barstool drinking a beer and watching the game and smokign a cigarette is effecing himself, the two people next to him, and pretty much anyone in the immediate area/room.

Right, the guy effecting no one else should go outside. ::)

None of you live there. You walk outside if he's bothering you. Or cry to the bartender, who gave him an ashtray.

So everyone in the bar not smoking should walk outside so the guy who is smoking can enjoy his drag?


No. His smoking is effecting everyone in the room. If he wants his tar that bad, he can go outside and do it.

Does he have an ashtray? If he's got one, the owner is fine with him smoking. Anyone bothered by it should go outside.

the owner and the guy with the cigarette can both burn in hell

It was banned inside for a purpose. It effects and is hamrful to everyone around the person smoking. IF the person wants to do harm to himself, fine. Doesn't mean everyone in the room should have to deal with it. And now they won't.  :yay

It was banned because too many farging people want to whine about it instead of not going places where people smoke. Or, leaving when people do smoke. You act like you don't have a choice in this hypothetical. I wasn't aware that you were handcuffed to the bar.

Why should a person who doesn't smoke have to be subjected to it when they go out to the bar? That's the point. They shouldn't.

It's not like smokers are being "subjected" to the clean air of the bar when they go out.

Let's ban jukeboxes, karaoke, and alcohol too. I shouldn't be subjected to those when I go into a bar. And god help them if there's a bowl of pretzels!

Those are all general services that people go to the bar for. They don't go to the bar to breathe in smoke and get some cancer. If a person goes to a bar/club on karaoke night, they're obviously there because they want to point and laugh at the drunk idiots singing. They go to a bar to drink some beer and eat some pretzels. They're not there because they want to breathe in smoke.

I'll say it again. Smoking effects everyone around you and everyone in the room, generally. If it's that important for you to tar your lungs up, you can walk 10 steps, go out hte door, and light up all you want. You're not bothering or effecting anyone out there.


Now, perhaps there should be some sort of ammendment to this law where some places can be smokers places and some places can be non-smokers. But until (if) that happens, you can't smoke inside, and the world (or, at least Philly) is a better, healthier place for it. You can no longer give your cancer off to anyone else. Oh woe is all the smokers.  :'(

Is Munson even of legal drinking age yet?  If so, for how long?

One really can't speak informedly about this issue unless they've been to many, many bars under many, many circumstances.

Whats it matter, the fact is 1 in 6 of us on the board will get cancer anyway
^{I really have no idea how many of you will get it, but im first  :paranoid}

i am looking forward to the crybaby non smokers complaining about all the entrances to bars and restaurants are crowded by smokers next to the front door.

thats gonna be sweet.

Quote from: FFatPatt on September 28, 2006, 04:05:16 PM
Is Munson even of legal drinking age yet?  If so, for how long?

One really can't speak informedly about this issue unless they've been to many, many bars under many, many circumstances.

Well I'm using the bar as an example, but a restaurant is just as good of one. People go to a restaurant to eat and be with friends/family/whoever...not get cancer.

I do work at Stanley's though, so I'm in the bar quite a lot. Not that it matters, Delaware's had this smoking indoors ban going since laast may.  :) :yay

i am looking forward to the crybaby non smokers complaining about all the entrances to bars and restaurants are crowded by smokers next to the front door.

actually it is pretty annoying

i would never complain tho as i am more than grateful that they are out of the bars

now people can go spend money getting fat and lazy and not have to worry about anyone blowing smoke on their triple bacon cheeseburger.

^^^^
word to gawd

Munson, Delaware has had the no smoking thing since november 2004

like my grandfather says...you always see 90+ year olds  smoking. you never see 90+ year olds that are 100lbs overweight.

smokers live longer than fatties.

my granfather used to say that he smoked so he could coat his longs with tar that would keep all the diseases out.....then he died of lung cancer


he also used to say the worst part of having sex with a six year old is getting the blood out of the clown suit

Quote from: ice grillin you on September 28, 2006, 04:41:55 PM
he also used to say the worst part of having sex with a six year old is getting the blood out of the clown suit

You are 1/4 him.  Congrats.

QuoteSeptember 28, 2006

Dear Samantha:

This message is to advise you that the newly enacted City Ordinance prohibiting smoking in Philadelphia public places and workplaces, including sports facilities, will go into effect at Lincoln Financial Field starting with the Eagles vs. Packers game on Monday, October 2, 2006.

By terms of the ordinance, SMOKING IS PROHIBITED IN ALL AREAS of the stadium. Smoking is permitted only in designated areas outside the stadium. The designated areas are: the HeadHouse Plaza, outside the West Gate across from Section 101, outside the south side of the stadium across from Section 110, and outside each Club and Suite entrance (Club and Suite guests only). Fans who wish to smoke during the course of the game will be directed to those areas.

Violators of the smoking policy are subject to citation (up to $300) and will be in violation of the Code of Conduct which may result in ejection from the stadium and potential revocation of tickets.

We appreciate your cooperation in our effort to abide by the newly enacted smoking ban.

Sincerely,
Philadelphia Eagles

Sorry if this was already posted.

Hello Samantha.

Its not a secret what my name is....its been on the main site, with the rest of the staff, for years.  ::)

I was just saying hello.

ignore feature.

Please God.

ITs all I want for Chrismukkah.

Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 28, 2006, 07:04:03 PM
ignore feature.

Please God.

ITs all I want for Chrismukkah.

You should adopt an african-american baby and then you will have all the bases covered.  :yay

Quote from: Munson on September 28, 2006, 03:42:00 PM
So everyone in the bar not smoking should walk outside so the guy who is smoking can enjoy his drag?


No. His smoking is effecting everyone in the room. If he wants his tar that bad, he can go outside and do it.

You know what?  You've won me over.  You are absolutely right my friend.  I was thinking about it and I totally understand what you're saying.  It's not fair for someone to have to inhale my second hand smoke when all they're tying to do is get a bite to eat or enjoy a cocktail with a few friends after work.  And it's really not that big of an inconvenience for me to get up from the bar, leave my drink unattended and go outside for a few for a quick puff.  People should not be forced to deal with other people's annoying and disgusting habits.

BTW.  I really hate stupid people so could you do me a favor and post outside the board.  It's making me sick. 

Warmest Regards,

Sarge

Quote from: Wingspan on September 28, 2006, 04:18:27 PM
like my grandfather says...you always see 90+ year olds  smoking. you never see 90+ year olds that are 100lbs overweight.

smokers live longer than fatties.

You never see 6'4" 90-year-olds, either.  They're all 5'5" or less.

I'm screwed no matter what I do.

You'll shrink, don't worry.

Quote from: General_Failure on September 28, 2006, 07:58:02 PM
You'll shrink, don't worry.

Does that mean that someday I'll be as short as you?

Unless you die from lung cancer, you'll get to be as short as PG.

They just passed a smoking ban here in Allegheny County, then the state of Pennsylvania stepped in and put the kibosh on it because it could harm the business of the crooked casinos the state government wants to build here.

Ah, government in action.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 28, 2006, 07:24:09 PM

Quote from: Munson on September 28, 2006, 03:42:00 PM
So everyone in the bar not smoking should walk outside so the guy who is smoking can enjoy his drag?


No. His smoking is effecting everyone in the room. If he wants his tar that bad, he can go outside and do it.

You know what?  You've won me over.  You are absolutely right my friend.  I was thinking about it and I totally understand what you're saying.  It's not fair for someone to have to inhale my second hand smoke when all they're tying to do is get a bite to eat or enjoy a cocktail with a few friends after work. And it's really not that big of an inconvenience for me to get up from the bar, leave my drink unattended and go outside for a few for a quick puff.  People should not be forced to deal with other people's annoying and disgusting habits.

BTW.  I really hate stupid people so could you do me a favor and post outside the board.  It's making me sick. 

Warmest Regards,

Sarge

You went to the bar to drink. You payed for the drink. Finish the drink before you go outside to smoke. If it's that important, tell the bartender "hey, i'm goin outside for a quick smoke before I finish the beer that I came here for and payed for, because smoking is more important to me. I'll be right back."

I'm glad we see eye to eye on eye on everything else. :evil :D

You're a douche. And worse you cannot accept the fact that you are wrong so you keep posting the same shtein over and over and over again. Your ONE point does not override the MANY points that the rest of us have made to prove you wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself little boy. Maybe you can go sut the sleeves off of some more of your shirts to pass the time.

Or I can just buy em that way, like I usually do. Don't want to waste a good T by cutting off the sleeves.

All of your "many points" havn't proved why this law shouldn't be in effect. So, please continue trying. Er, whining.


Waaaaaaaaaah, waaaaah.  :-D

Your use of smilies only further proves that you should be swung by your ankles against the nearest rock.

In all your tough guy glory, you still havn't picked up on the fact that whenever I'm talking to you, I always find away to fit a smiley in there, just to piss you off and get more reaction out of you.

Funny, I thought you would have been smart enough to realize that by now. I guess I gave you too much credit.  :=)

PS-That law's still in effect. I think I win.

We can discuss this again when the world turning into 1984 comes true.

Oops, it already IS 1984. But you're too stupid to see it happening. Stop clowning yourself. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/congress.eavesdropping.ap/index.html)

By the way being called a tough guy by a dude who posts pictures of himself wearing cutoff sleeves and talks about 'slapping' someone around over the internet is rather entertaining. It's called hypocrisy. Look it up.

I also posted a picture of myself in a tux, and in my work uniform.

So not only am I a tough guy, but I'm an upper class rich guy!
Or it could be those are the few good pictures I have of myself on the computer. But no, no way... :boo

And this thread isn't about phone tapping and the NSA, Enemy of the State, whatever you want to talk about....which I think is bad, by the way...It's about smoking indoors and creating unhealthy enviroments in a place where people go to eat/drink, not breathe in smoke. And it is a good idea to keep smoking outside, where it belongs.

Quote from: Munson on September 29, 2006, 01:25:03 AM
And this thread isn't about phone tapping and the NSA, Enemy of the State, whatever you want to talk about...

Yes it is, dumbass. That's the whole point. Why else would I care about a smoking law? I don't smoke. I like the fact that my clothes don't smell like ass when I leave a bar as much as the next guy. I want to avoid health problems and live long enough to see you and your idiotic opinions grow up and realize what these laws mean. But both of those issues are far less important than what laws like this represent.

Banning smoking in public places or forcing business owners to keep people from smoking in their establishments is a civil liberty stripped from tax-paying adults capable of making their own decisions. Wiretapping US citizens is obviously a much bigger line to cross, but stopping the government from passing the 'little' laws that revoke our liberties sends a message that we won't be told how to live and won't let the government control us. Instead you and others like you gleefully accept these laws in the interest of being able to wear the same shirt twice without washing it. These little laws eventually lead to a government brazen enough to actually begin spying on its own citizens without cause and pass a law that makes such an activity legal.

Little things first. Big things second. They are absolutely related.

The point of this law is that a person smoking in a restaurant/bar doesn't just effect the person smoking. It effects ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND the person smoking. THAT is why this law was passed, not to take away civil liberties.

If you want to talk about laws effecting the way people choose to live thier lives, then talk about the "Click it or Ticket" law. Whether or not you choose to wear your seatbelt in the car is your pesonal choice, and it does not effect anyone else but yourself. It is absurd that there is a law that charges you money for choosing to be less-safe should you be in a car accident. THAT is something that is your personal choice, and it effects only you. That is your choice.

Smokers do not have the right to impose thier life style onto everyone else in the room. Which is why this law was made. And we're back to the beggining of the post.

FTR, I'm pretty sure that not wearing your seatbelt will not contribue to giving the person next to you in the car cancer. Smoking, however, will.

Are you seeing the difference yet? Would you like me to type slower?

Quote from: Munson on September 29, 2006, 05:17:23 AM
The point of this law is that a person smoking in a restaurant/bar doesn't just effect the person smoking. It effects ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND the person smoking. THAT is why this law was passed, not to take away civil liberties.

Jackass. I know WHY the law was passed. That doesn't keep it from also taking away civil liberties. They are not mutually exclusive. You're just saying the same thing over and over and over again like always. Stop.

If. You. Don't. Want. To. Be. Around. Smokers. Don't. Go. To. Bars. That. Allow. Smoking.

You have a choice here. You don't have to press your idiotic beliefs onto others.

And by the way, I agree with your seatbelt rant.

That doesn't keep it from also taking away civil liberties

its actually giving civil liberties...i now have the liberty to go to ANY bar or restaurant and enjoy my food and drink in a smoke free enviroment...before the law i could only do that at non smoking establishments

That argument holds no water, but you know that and you're not trying to contribute anything to the debate so here is a picture of a baby getting punched by a Russian police officer.

(http://static.flickr.com/30/50330713_6c72dab5dc_m.jpg)

Quote from: rjs246 on September 29, 2006, 07:03:45 AM
That argument holds no water, but you know that and you're not trying to contribute anything to the debate so here is a picture of a baby getting punched by a Russian police officer.

(http://static.flickr.com/30/50330713_6c72dab5dc_m.jpg)

:-D  How did you find that pic RJS

phattymatt found it years ago when it actually happened. I randomly did a search on it recently and it took me a surprisingly long time to find it, but I finally typed in the right search words and there it was. I love that picture.

Proof positive that cops are the same everywhere.  Baby punchers.

New Avatar time  8)

Remember when the government banned lead from paint and gasoline, even though it infringed on the rights of the paint companies and oil companies to make a profit?

Yeah, that worked out horribly.

Quote from: Wingspan on September 28, 2006, 04:12:22 PM
i am looking forward to the crybaby non smokers complaining about all the entrances to bars and restaurants are crowded by smokers next to the front door.

thats gonna be sweet.

In Denver, the law says you can't smoke within 30 feet of a building entrance, and there are designated smoking areas 30 feet from the doors to each "public" building (bars, restaurants, etc), complete with ashtrays.  No complaining from the people going in and out of those places, and the air inside is clean and fresh.

Paint with lead in it taste sweeter  :sly

seatbelt laws basically led to the end of civilization as we knew it

If less people wore them, we wouldnt have overpopulation.  Excellent point IGY

And man do I crave the taste of DDT on my apples and oranges.  Dook, that shiz was DOPE!

Yeah, not being allowed to smoke indoors and give everyone cancer is totally leading us towards the end of the Constituion. Seriously.

Cigarette smoke is not guaranteed to give you cancer. Besides, everything is a friggin' carcinogen.

True. But it definately doesn't help.

from delcotimes paper

QuoteIt's illegal to smoke in public places in Philadelphia, including sports facilities, starting this Monday so it might be a good time to stop smoking. Violators can be fined up to $300 -- isn't that what a pack of cigarettes costs these days? Offenders also can be ejected from the stadium and have their tickets revoked .

PG posted something about that a few pages back.  Except it was more specific and informative. 

i hope more start smoking, and get their tickets revoked so we can get some movement in the phantom waiting list.

The Phantoms have a waiting list? :paranoid

Yes.  But no one can find it because it's a phantom waiting list.  :paranoid

Belmont, CA first city to ban smoking completely (http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988)

Once they're done with smoking, watch them ban blow jobs.  farging commies.

Maybe Munson can move there.   California is a ridiculous state, i cant wait until it sinks into the pacific.

Quote from: FFatPatt on November 16, 2006, 08:33:51 AM
Belmont, CA first city to ban smoking completely (http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988)

Once they're done with smoking, watch them ban blow jobs.  farging commies.

That's ridiculous, especially considering weeds practically legal there.

I'd be fine if weed was legal but regular tobacco cigarettes were outlawed.  Fair trade.

im down with that too...shtein legalize coke while youre at it

cigarettes are so friggin nasty and should die

This country was founded on tobacco.  Its BS that you cant smoke in your own car/home.  If i wanted to live under Commie/Toltarian  rule North Korea would be the hot spot. 

you should be allowed to smoke in your home or car...unless im visiting or riding

Quote from: FFatPatt on November 16, 2006, 08:33:51 AM
Belmont, CA first city to ban smoking completely (http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988)

Once they're done with smoking, watch them ban blow jobs. farging commies.

Quote"We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal," said Councilman Dave Warden. "What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved?

Shut the farg up!  So what if someone lives to be 75 or 80 instead of croaking at 70.  Adding an extra 5 or 10 years on someone's life accomplishes nothing.  Except:

1.  They can draw social security that much longer.
2.  They can receive gov't assistance that much longer.
3.  They take up space that much longer.
4.  They can get behind the wheel of a car that much longer.
5.  They inconvenience their kids and other family members to take care of them that much longer.
6.  They are a drain on the economy that much longer.

Imagine if we didn't save all these lives.  Imagine how much extra funding schools could receive with the added tax dollars.  Imagine how many car accidents would be avoided.  Imagine how much easier it would be to find a nice little apartment on the upper east side. 

Quit trying to keep people alive.  If someone lives to be 100, fine.  But if more people would kick the bucket around 70 rather than 80 I think everyone will be better off for it.

Yeah, the argument that smokers cost everyone more than non-smokers due to medical costs is a load of shtein.

Everyone gets cancer, you don't have to smoke to get it.
Dying is expensive, and everyone dies.
Being old is expensive, and non-smokers live longer. 

It's a lie that smoking costs society more money than not smoking.  The smoker dies at 72 and it costs a lot of money.  The non smoker dies at 84, and it costs a lot of money.  Not to mention the 12 extra years of decrepit old age, which costs society a lot of money.

also, whining weaklings need to die.

I watched Thank You For Smoking last night.  Hilarious, in a kind of way.  Sad, in other ways.

Put it in the movie thread then.  Putz. 

Cancer seems to be in the genes. My grandfather and his brother had super genes.  They both were never sick until they hit 77 years old.  Smoked and drank every day, my grandfathers uncle drank a bottle of jim beam every day, and 2 packs of lucky strikes.  My grandfather smoked 1-2 packs of benson and hedges every day.  No cancer, just alzheimers.   

I just dont understand how people there can stand by and allow this?

How can people stand by and allow your grandfather and great uncle to smoke, drink and otherwise enjoy life?  I'm with you...why weren't they put in jail or raped or something?

Quote from: FFatPatt on November 16, 2006, 08:33:51 AM
Once they're done with smoking, watch them ban blow jobs.  farging commies.

It already was illegal in 10 states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#State_laws_at_time_of_2003_Supreme_Court_decision) until 2003 (and may still be).  10 conservative states, I might add...

QuoteA sodomy law is a law which defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy — and its synonyms buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act, deviant sexual intercourse and a range of similar euphemisms — is rarely spelled out in the legislation, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. While in theory this may include heterosexual oral sex and anal sex, masturbation and bestiality, in practice such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men, particularly anal sex.[/url]

Those laws are probably extremely old.......like 200 years.  It's amazing how many laws that were written over 100 years ago that are still in effect, even though they aren't enforced and should be cancelled. 

Hell, the military still has sodomy laws and I've seen people get charged and convicted of violating them.  Typically, it's during cases involving adultry (and yes, the military still prosecutes people for adultry).  Anywho, additional counts of sodomy will be charged for any sexual act committed in anything other than the missionary position. 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on November 16, 2006, 10:12:01 AM
Those laws are probably extremely old.......like 200 years.  It's amazing how many laws that were written over 100 years ago that are still in effect, even though they aren't enforced and should be cancelled.

Actually, they were being enforced, resulting in the 2003 supreme court decision to overturn those laws.  I misread the article, believing that the laws targeting homosexuals were determined to be unconstitutional, but it appears to have overturned all sodomy laws.

i witnessed a guy being taken out by security (like 10 security people) in handcuffs at the linc for smoking. 

Quote from: MURP on November 16, 2006, 10:30:01 AM
i witnessed a guy being taken out by security (like 10 security people) in handcuffs at the linc for smoking. 

Handcuffed for smoking, or for resisting being ejected for smoking?  Somehow I think it is the latter...

probably

Quote from: Sgt PSN on November 16, 2006, 10:12:01 AM
Those laws are probably extremely old.......like 200 years.  It's amazing how many laws that were written over 100 years ago that are still in effect, even though they aren't enforced and should be cancelled. 

Hell, the military still has sodomy laws and I've seen people get charged and convicted of violating them.  Typically, it's during cases involving adultry (and yes, the military still prosecutes people for adultry).  Anywho, additional counts of sodomy will be charged for any sexual act committed in anything other than the missionary position. 

How does the judge know what happened?  Unless it's a case of spouse walking in on the other spouse in the act of sodomy?  And even then, it would still be a case of he said/she said.

I never understood that while I was in.

Quote from: Cerevant on November 16, 2006, 10:50:16 AMSomehow I think it is the latter...

He likely talked back, so they called in the goons, who no doubt handled the situation with utmost professionalism.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on November 16, 2006, 09:07:50 AM
This country was founded on tobacco.  Its BS that you cant smoke in your own car/home.  If i wanted to live under Commie/Toltarian  rule North Korea would be the hot spot. 

Totalitarian

I just saw that on the History Channel the other day - tobacco funded the American Revolution. It's bullshtein they don't want to let me smoke outside.

So are the penalties for smoking were forbidden just fines?

Death.  Then they mail your corpse to Chuggie. 

QuoteMichigan — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty =(15 years)

I really did not need another reason to hate that god forsaken state.

HAIL!  to those motherfargers...
HAIL!  to those big corksuckers...
HAIL! HAIL!  to Michigan, the cesspool of the west!

HAIL!  to those fornicators...
HAIL!  to those masturbators...
HAIL! HAIL!  to Michigan, the cesspool of the west!

S-T-A-T-E... farg YOU.

^ What The...   :-D

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on November 16, 2006, 08:37:15 AM
Maybe Munson can move there.   California is a ridiculous state, i cant wait until it sinks into the pacific.

Waah waaah. Quit whining.


I'm loving every minute of this thread. :yay

country was built on slavery too

LETS TAKE IT BACK TO THE OLD SCHOOL!!

just because you don't see chains, ships, and auctioning blocks, don't think that slavery doesn't exist in this country

massa found betta ways than whips and chains.

Quote from: SunMo on November 17, 2006, 09:19:23 AM
just because you don't see chains, ships, and auctioning blocks, don't think that slavery doesn't exist in this country

Pro athletes are slaves.  Warren Sapp says so. 

I think SunMo was referring to his child rearing techniques.

both are correct

yay maryland!!!

Md. Senate Passes State Smoking Ban

By John Wagner and Ovetta Wiggins
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A01

Maryland lawmakers voted yesterday to ban smoking in bars and restaurants statewide, express "profound regret" for the state's role in the slave trade and deny parole to child rapists in a burst of activity as they confronted a key deadline for moving legislation.

A 33 to 13 vote in the Senate all but ensured that next year Maryland will join at least 18 states and the District, which have similar prohibitions designed to protect workers and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Lawmakers must reconcile several differences with a bill passed Saturday by the House of Delegates before sending it to Gov. Martin O'Malley (D). The governor has said he will sign a statewide smoking ban, despite concerns about exemptions allowed in the legislation. Both versions of the bill would allow counties to enforce stricter bans if they elected to do so.

The legislation has been opposed by the restaurant industry's lobby, but Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery), its lead sponsor, called Senate passage "a victory for public health."

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 27, 2007, 03:21:07 PM
yay maryland!

Md. Senate Passes State Smoking Ban

By John Wagner and Ovetta Wiggins
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A01

Maryland lawmakers voted yesterday to ban smoking in bars and restaurants statewide,express "profound regret" for the state's role in the slave trade and deny parole to child rapists in a burst of activity as they confronted a key deadline for moving legislation.

A 33 to 13 vote in the Senate all but ensured that next year Maryland will join at least 18 states and the District, which have similar prohibitions designed to protect workers and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Lawmakers must reconcile several differences with a bill passed Saturday by the House of Delegates before sending it to Gov. Martin O'Malley (D). The governor has said he will sign a statewide smoking ban, despite concerns about exemptions allowed in the legislation. Both versions of the bill would allow counties to enforce stricter bans if they elected to do so.

The legislation has been opposed by the restaurant industry's lobby, but Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery), its lead sponsor, called Senate passage "a victory for public health."

I spit Pepsi all over my keyboard when I read that.

First they came for my transfats and I sat silent.

Then they came for my cigarettes, and again, I sat silent.

Finally they came for my beer in a can - well, enough's enough, damn it!

smoke-easies in Phila

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20070326_Stu_Bykofsky___Smoke-easys_ignore_the_tobacco_ban.html

QuoteStu Bykofsky | 'Smoke-easys' ignore the tobacco ban
I'M SIPPING A Blue Moon ale in a Philadelphia bar, Janis Joplin is wailing about Bobby McGee and I'm thinking a smoke would go great about now.

I take out one of Baby Cakes' Parliament Lights and fire it up.

I'm smoking in a bar in Philadelphia and nobody says, "Boo!"

There are 20 other people, smokers and nonsmokers, hanging out, enjoying themselves, not doing any harm to anyone (except maybe themselves). The bar is spacious, the NCAA is on the TV screens, beer pennants hang from the ceiling, and through the large windows I see rain falling.

The owner is sitting at the bar chewing nicotine gum. He's a former smoker.

Also a former cop.

"I'm an irresponsible bar-owner," he says with a smile.

Despite the smoking ban - because of it, actually - Philadelphia now has "smoke-easies," a play on "speakeasies" that came to us with the Prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition was enacted in 1920, repealed in 1933 and largely ignored in between. I'm surprised at how many Americans meekly obey smoking bans.

This is about Philadelphians who don't.

For reasons even the dimmest Nicotine Nazi would understand, I'm not naming names or giving locations of the "smoke-easies" I found.

Why do the owners risk fines?

I'll call the proprietor Joe Friday, to honor his former trade. His smoke-easy is within walking distance of one of Philadelphia's universities.

"It's my bar, it's my four walls, cigarettes are legal," he says. "Why can't I allow my customers to smoke?"

Six months before he opened, "a beautiful-looking restaurant, [he names it, I won't], opened a few blocks from here. They never allowed smoking. That is their right," he says, leaving unspoken his belief that it's his right to permit it.

A Health Department inspector dropped in not long ago. No one was smoking, but he asked why Friday had ashtrays on the bar. Friday told him they were heirlooms, something like that.

The law requires bar managers to enforce the ban by telling patrons they can't smoke, but they are cautioned not to take any action other than to call the Health Department to report smokers.

The Health Department has a hotline to report smoking in bars. (If you want the number, look it up yourself, snitch.)

Friday says no patron ever complained to him, "but we did have a complaint to a barmaid."

He tells his employees to say, "We don't condone it," but tells me: "We can't enforce [the ban]. It's not our job."

Just 1.91 MapQuested miles away is another bar, smaller, more Irish, catering more to neighborhood residents. The owner - I'll call him Seamus - is a smoker.

As in the first, NCAA is on the TV, but no jukebox is playing. The dozen customers are singing Broadway show tunes beneath a ceiling glowing with Christmas lights.

It's that kind of a place.

Unlike Friday, he's been written up by Health.

Who ratted him out?

Health inspectors won't ever say, but Seamus says, "It's either a neighbor, a competitor or sometimes a customer, but it's usually your competitors."

Seamus tries "to adhere to the letter of the law" and tells customers, "You cannot smoke in here." If they do, "there's nothing within my legal authority to tell you not to smoke," he says.

Seamus' father was a cop for 35 years, but "I'm not in that business. I'm in the entertainment business," he says.

"I have military men come in here, they're just back from Iraq. If anyone, they have the right to smoke, you know," Seamus says.

He wouldn't stop them, even if he could.

I'm sure there are other smoke-easys around town where owners don't enforce the law, due to philosophy or maybe lethargy.

Some owners will apply for a waiver to the ban available to bars that do 80 percent or more of their gross in alcohol, 20 percent or less in food.

Anti-ban activist Michael J. McFadden estimates that 500 Philly bars might squeeze through the loophole "for the sake of their smoking staff and customers" and also to avoid complaints from neighbors when smokers are forced to stand outside and smoke late at night.

(Local "free-choice" activists coordinate through McFadden's linked Web sites at www.antibrains.com.)

Joe Friday will file for a waiver. "If there's a legal way out, I'll go that way. I don't like being vulnerable," he says. Seamus serves too much food to qualify.

Once these waivers come through, Philly will have Smoking Ban Lite.

Smokers will have some bars, nonsmokers will have many bars and everyone will be happy - except for the Nicotine Nazis who can't stand reasonable compromise.

btw...like it couldn't be found out right away what bar this guy owns/where it is.  how many ex cops own bars?  how many are less than two miles from an Irish pub?  do the math...locals must know the bar just from the info provided alone without digging at all.

Its probably this place near Frankford and Cottman, that fits the criteria and I know they don't enforce the smoking ban.

i smoked in two diff places this past weekend in philly, no problems

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 23, 2007, 03:06:36 PM
ive never been known as a worldy or very smart person and i dont pretend to be...

word

better to be a clean smelling idiot tho than a smoke infested genius

how would you know?

because i hate cigarettes more than anything in life

yeah, that's why you wouldn't know the difference between being an prissy idiot and a smelly genius.

I luv me some smokes.  Seriously, it was a matter of time and the second that Omally won office everyone knew smoking was done in MD.  I smoke, i don't think in bars it should be mandatory as it seems they set up the law.

yeah, that's why you wouldn't know the difference between being an prissy idiot and a smelly genius.

all i know is you brought us good luck...dio moves into town and BAM no more smoking

all praise due dio

No one hates cigarettes more than me and even I think smoking bans in bars are re-farging-tarded.

I will say, though, that several years down the line bars have adjusted nicely here in Florida because the state had the common sense to allow a specific type of bar to have smoking while disallowing it in others.  It's all based on the amount of food you sell as a percentage of your gross sales.

It was a compromise that saved thousands of establishments throughout the state, and for once, the state made a good move.

Philly should consider doing the same.

philly does do the same

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on March 27, 2007, 07:31:39 PM
I luv me some smokes.  Seriously, it was a matter of time and the second that Omally won office everyone knew smoking was done in MD.  I smoke, i don't think in bars it should be mandatory as it seems they set up the law.

don't kid yourself into thinking this passes because of O'Malley.  Any other candidate would have passed it, too.

According to the article the waivers haven't come through yet.

I want to smoke again.  It's been four and a half years.   I deserve another couple years on by this point, right?

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on March 27, 2007, 07:35:30 PM
No one hates cigarettes more than me and even I think smoking bans in bars are re-farging-tarded.

I will say, though, that several years down the line bars have adjusted nicely here in Florida because the state had the common sense to allow a specific type of bar to have smoking while disallowing it in others.  It's all based on the amount of food you sell as a percentage of your gross sales.

It was a compromise that saved thousands of establishments throughout the state, and for once, the state made a good move.

Philly should consider doing the same.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 27, 2007, 03:30:15 PM
smoke-easies in Phila

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20070326_Stu_Bykofsky___Smoke-easys_ignore_the_tobacco_ban.html

QuoteSome owners will apply for a waiver to the ban available to bars that do 80 percent or more of their gross in alcohol, 20 percent or less in food.

As long as more than 20% of a bar's revenue doesn't come from food then smoking is allowed. 

I want to smoke again.  It's been four and a half years.   I deserve another couple years on by this point, right?


unhealthy carcinogens in massive quantities couldn't happen to a better guy...

tell me about it

In related nanny state news, a dipshtein PA state rep (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp) wants to prevent anyone from driving unless they blow a breath sample first... and the limit is well below the legal limit at .025 percent, so good luck trying to drive after one beer.

Has no chance of passing, but that was once true of smoking bans also...

I hope he gets hit by a drunk driver

Yeah...that's gonna be about as popular to other lawmakers as a bill to establish a reasonable limit to the age at which you can drive at all.

"icehole.  we have business to do."

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 23, 2007, 03:06:36 PM
ive never been known as a worldy or very smart person and i dont pretend to be...

holla

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 27, 2007, 07:23:09 PM
because i hate cigarettes more than anything in life

even white people?

yeah...ill take a non smoking cracker (provided hes not (http://www.philaflava.com/forum/images/smiles/dcracistemo0mp.gif)) over a cancer stick weilding brotha

Such high standards you hold people to. Good to know you've got your priorities in order.

what cracker isn't (http://www.philaflava.com/forum/images/smiles/dcracistemo0mp.gif) (except you, of course)?

excellent point mr. dio

The UK jumps on the bandwagon of idiocy. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/01/smoking.ban.reut/index.html)

Here's my favorite quote...

QuoteThe legislation is designed to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke at work, which doctors estimate kills more than 600 people a year.

For comparison's sake:
United Kingdom — Population: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.) (http://www.google.com/search?q=UK+population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

So .001 percent of the population dies of second hand smoke every year. TIME FOR LEGISLATION!

So they know for sure it was second hand smoke, or was it lung cancer? I don't see them outlawing lung cancer. You can get that without people blowing smoke at you. Insert your own joke about the article here.

waaaaah

boo hoo i cant have smoke with my food and drink

if you want carcinogens with your eats then down your burger or beer and go out side and have a stick...its very simple

Your whining just saved .001 percent of your life. Congrats.

Meanwhile your whining got nothing done. Sweet.


Now go outside and "calm your nerves".

CA towns seek more intrusive bans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-03-smoking-bans_N.htm?csp=34)

Discuss.

Quote from: FastFreddie on October 04, 2007, 12:15:47 PM
CA towns seek more intrusive bans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-03-smoking-bans_N.htm?csp=34)

Discuss.

What bullshtein.  This goes way above and beyond smoking.  This is a complete and total invasion of privacy.  The only person who can dictate whether or not a person can smoke inside an apartment/condo/townhome/etc is the landlord.  Get the government out of my farging house.   

I've changed my mind. I think I want the government to rescue me from myself and tell me what to do. Things seem to be going far too predictably for me while I've been in charge of my life. Work work, drink drink, farg drink farg. Boring. Let's spice this farger up. Maybe I'll get drafted. Or maybe I'll be told that broccoli is now illegal to consume within fifty feet of a crying baby for fear of unpleasant gas. Maybe I'll be forced to eat only government sanctioned vitamin bars for three weeks a year.

The possibilities are endless! Up with intrusion! Down with privacy and choice!

Atta boy.  Resistance is futile.

Done deal (http://www.nbc11.com/news/14307719/detail.html)

Bogus. 

that law is almost as dumb as not banning smoking in restaurants and bars

Wow.  Asinine.  Orwellian, even.

Some of us were saying that a little futher upstream on this slippery slope. 

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- It's last call tonight for smoking in bars and restaurants in Maryland. At midnight the state's smoking ban takes effect.

The ban will mean that patrons won't be allowed to light up in any indoor areas of bars or private clubs such as the American Legion as long as employees are present.

The ban will not affect outdoor seating areas or clubs with no employees. Bar owners could be fined for allowing smoking after tonight.

Bars that argue the ban will hurt business will be allowed to apply for limited waivers from the state -- but they'll have to ban smoking first to prove that business suffered.

Already three Maryland counties and the District of Columbia do not allow smoking in bars

Thank god.

Social conservativism at its finest.

actual its liberals who fight for this kind of stuff...the stuff that protects people from harm

one of the fundemental differences btwn liberals and conservatives is that liberals care about people other than themselves

and thats word to bleeding hearts

I agree that it's liberals who push for this more, but that's because many more Republicans from "red states" are bought and sold by tobacco lobbies, not because it fits with the rest of their platform.

Telling people where they can and cannot participate in a legal activity like smoking a cigarette is a socially conservative stance, no matter which side of the aisle has taken up the cause.

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 08:33:02 AM
Telling people where they can and cannot participate in a legal activity like smoking a cigarette is a socially conservative stance, no matter which side of the aisle has taken up the cause.

couldnt disagree more.....there are tons of laws that tell people where legal practices can or cant take place...its what govt is for and usually it works...just because govt makes a law like this doesnt make it a police state...

can and do they go to far?...absolutely...but this is hardly one of those instances...like illegal wiretapping for example....that would be a social conservative stance to support that

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 08:44:44 AM
couldnt disagree more.....there are tons of laws that tell people where legal practices can or cant take place...its what govt is for and usually it works...just because govt makes a law like this doesnt make it a police state...

Naturally, you don't want to associate yourself with being socially conservative, but at the heart of totalitarianism and socialism is a government that dictates the lives of people financially and morally, and that's what you're for.

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 08:49:15 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 08:44:44 AM
couldnt disagree more.....there are tons of laws that tell people where legal practices can or cant take place...its what govt is for and usually it works...just because govt makes a law like this doesnt make it a police state...

but at the heart of totalitarianism and socialism is a government that dictates the lives of people financially and morally

yeah but what does that have to do with anything?

you can have a govt that makes laws to limit certain individual freedoms for the benefit of the larger population and not be a totalitarian state...drinking and driving for example are both legal practices however drinking while driving is not

you can disagree with the smoking ban and at the same time not think that we live in a communist state

We don't live in a communist state... yet.


BTW, the drinking/driving example is probably the best argument you've ever put forth on this specific issue.  That said, I still think individual watering holes should be able to dictate their own policy, and the Maryland law allows that if they prove they're losing money from the law.

It's a small loophole, but it is a smart one.

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 08:49:15 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 08:44:44 AM
couldnt disagree more.....there are tons of laws that tell people where legal practices can or cant take place...its what govt is for and usually it works...just because govt makes a law like this doesnt make it a police state...

Naturally, you don't want to associate yourself with being socially conservative, but at the heart of totalitarianism and socialism is a government that dictates the lives of people financially and morally, and that's what you're for.

I don't think that FF is suggesting that we currently live in a totalitarian state. He's simply pointing out that this is how we start down the road to get there. And he's right.

well i disagree that just because theres a smoking ban put in place means we are headed for the gulag

but i absolutely leave open the possibility that the govt can overstep its bounds and when that happens im on board to fight it...i just just think its a huge leap from an individual state enacting a smoking ban to a police state


the abortion issue is infintely more important than a restaurant/bar smoking ban and im as pro choice as you can get yet if r v w was abolished as outraged as id be i still wouldnt think we were headed for communism....

we maybe a little

I get your point, and it's perfectly reasonable. I'm just far more paranoid about it and don't like the trends I'm seeing...

These things don't usually happen suddenly. They usually happen in small doses over time until one day big brother runs things and the people are left scratching their heads... the funny thing is that over the past decade or so, there actually have been BIG steps towards totalitarianism. The suspension/weakening of habeas corpus and congressionally approved wire-taping and internal spying being the biggest examples. The smoking ban is a much smaller example of the same thing, but make no mistake, it is the same thing.

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 08:55:08 AM
drinking and driving for example are both legal practices however drinking while driving is not

you can disagree with the smoking ban and at the same time not think that we live in a communist state

Drinking and driving is also an immidiate threat on property and lives.  If you choose to drink and drive, you are not only risking your life but the lives and property of everyone in your path.  Not to mention that when you drink and drive you are doing so on public roads that are maintained by tax dollars.  Therefore, gov't has an obligation to keep those roads safe. 

If you choose to smoke in a bar, you are only endangering yourself and those who choose to occupy that space with you.  

One thing I think that's total bs about the law in MD is this (other than the whole thing to begin with):

Quote
The ban will mean that patrons won't be allowed to light up in any indoor areas of bars or private clubs such as the American Legion as long as employees are present.

Private clubs typically require some sort of application and paid membership to enter.  To include them in the ban is rediculous.  

Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 31, 2008, 09:19:57 AM
Drinking and driving is also an immidiate threat on property and lives.  If you choose to drink and drive, you are not only risking your life but the lives and property of everyone in your path.  Not to mention that when you drink and drive you are doing so on public roads that are maintained by tax dollars.  Therefore, gov't has an obligation to keep those roads safe.   

so only immediate threats to people count?

and things like second hand smoke and lead based paint dont?

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:09:20 AM
the abortion issue is infintely more important than a restaurant/bar smoking ban and im as pro choice as you can get yet if r v w was abolished as outraged as id be i still wouldnt think we were headed for communism....

we maybe a little

The idea of abortion bothers me morally.  I'm not going to lie on that.  But wasting the courts' and governments' time by attempting to push through a repeal of a 30-year-old law is a recipe for failure.  Roe v Wade must continue to hold.  We have more important things to worry about than debating the morality of terminating unwanted pregnancies.

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:25:10 AM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 31, 2008, 09:19:57 AM
Drinking and driving is also an immidiate threat on property and lives.  If you choose to drink and drive, you are not only risking your life but the lives and property of everyone in your path.  Not to mention that when you drink and drive you are doing so on public roads that are maintained by tax dollars.  Therefore, gov't has an obligation to keep those roads safe.   

so only immediate threats to people count?

and things like second hand smoke and lead based paint dont?

I like how you quote the stuff you want to argue against but leave out the stuff that counters your argument.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 31, 2008, 09:19:57 AM
If you choose to smoke in a bar, you are only endangering yourself and those who choose to occupy that space with you. 

As a non smoker, you have a choice whether or not to go into an establishment that allows smoking.  So if the 2nd hand smoke bothers you or gives you the black lung, don't blame me for lighting one up.  Blame yourself for standing next to me. 

There's plenty of fresh air outside so take your pink lungs out there if you want to take a deep breath and leave my corner bar with toxic air alone. 

your only argument is that "im a smoker and dont wanna be inconvienanced"...and to be honest thats your best argument....the rest is just spin...

my belief is that your inconvienanced argument gets trumped by other peoples health argument

but the great thing is we both win because red states will never ban smoking in bars

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:40:51 AM
but the great thing is we both win because red states will never ban smoking in bars

The whole state isn't non-smoking, but every Kansas town in the KC area is non-smoking.  I can only imagine it's just a matter of time until the whole state follows suit.


And my argument isn't that I don't want to be inconvenienced and have to go outside to smoke.  My argument is that the gov't has no right to tell a person how to run a private business. 

Also, if a bar owner really wanted to make some nice profits, he'd turn his bar to non smoking automatically.  Once the word spreads that he doesn't allow smoking, all of the non smoking customers will start going there.  He would have the entire market cornered for non smoking beer drinkers. 

public bars and restaurants arent private

i agree if its truly a private club then they should be able to do what they want

but the public at large should be able to go out and eat and drink where they want without having to suck in chemicals that kill you

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
public bars and restaurants arent private

They are open to the public but they are privately owned.  That's what I was talking about dookie. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
but the public at large should be able to go out and eat and drink where they want without having to suck in chemicals that kill you

Funny thing is, that even as a smoker, I'm not really all that bent out of shape about resturant type places not allowing smoking.  I don't smoke while I eat so I could care less if I'm allowed to smoke inside a resturant.

It's the bar/pool hall/night club that I want to smoke in. 

The town I live in (in Kansas) went non-smoking on Jan 2.  The expection is private clubs.  So every place in town that either has a cover charge or memberships is exempt from that rule.  So all of the night clubs in town are still smoking and most of the bars have started charging a $1 annual membership fee to get around the law. 

But there are a few places that have decided to make themselves completely non smoking and business does not seem to be affected by it.  Sure, they've lost their smoking customers but they've gained a lot of new ones in non smokers. 

I still think it should be up to the individual bars if they want to allow smoking, and if they do, they be required to install smokeeaters or whatever would be necessary to meet some set standards.  Restaurants i have no problem with no smoking, it only makes sense, and i dont want to smell a pall mall when i'm eating a steak. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
public bars and restaurants arent private

i agree if its truly a private club then they should be able to do what they want

but the public at large should be able to go out and eat and drink where they want without having to suck in chemicals that kill you

That's the thing. Bars and restaurants are NOT public property. They are privately owned, which the public is invited to enter.

If they were public property, then their sidewalks should be covered by the city cleanup crew...and the waiters and bartenders would be state employees.

In other words IGY is looking out for the right of the masses versus the right of the individual. It's called Socialism, or in it's more extreme manifestations, Communism. The rights of the individual goes out the window in order for the masses to be 'protected' from the individual's actions.

Quote from: Wingspan on January 31, 2008, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
public bars and restaurants arent private

i agree if its truly a private club then they should be able to do what they want

but the public at large should be able to go out and eat and drink where they want without having to suck in chemicals that kill you

That's the thing. Bars and restaurants are NOT public property. They are privately owned, which the public is invited to enter.

If they were public property, then their sidewalks should be covered by the city cleanup crew...and the waiters and bartenders would be state employees.

i mean if you built the restaurant in your back yard its probably on private land but i would venture to guess that 95% of public restaurants and bars in the country are not on privately owned land....at least in blue states which is really all i care about it...so i guess if you wanna go to smokey bars and restaurants move to south dakota

I'll go to deadwood you corksucker whore
(http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/deadwood.jpg)

not to mention you are confusing private property with commercial property which still hold specific rules and regulations. Any smoking ban opponents will always fight this argument as a property rights issue

When someone opens their doors to the public to do business they are subject to a plethora of regulations and restrictions, which can and do change.

Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
In other words IGY is looking out for the right of the masses versus the right of the individual. It's called Socialism, or in it's more extreme manifestations, Communism. The rights of the individual goes out the window in order for the masses to be 'protected' from the individual's actions.

Government is good!

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on January 31, 2008, 10:08:57 AM
I'll got to deadwood you corksucker whore

Indeed.

Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
In other words IGY is looking out for the right of the masses versus the right of the individual. It's called Socialism, or in it's more extreme manifestations, Communism. The rights of the individual goes out the window in order for the masses to be 'protected' from the individual's actions.

well this goes back to caring about others...and if we had more bleeding hearts such as myself who care about how their own actions affected others we wouldnt have to make laws like this...but until people stop being selfish pricks some things have to be done...smoke your shtein outside where it doesnt hurt anyone

No. It isn't my job to keep you from inhaling smoke. Nor is it the government's job. It's your job. Don't go to bars where people smoke if you don't want to. Bleeding heart politics are insulting to basic human independence.

This argument is getting me all hot.  Am I the only one posting with no clothes on right now?  And smoking? 

my cork is smoking. Does that count?

Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 31, 2008, 10:19:09 AM
This argument is getting me all hot.  Am I the only one posting with no clothes on right now?  And smoking? 

If you were in a bar, you'd be the champion.

Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2008, 10:20:40 AM
my cork is smoking. Does that count?

No.  You probably just got shot in the dick.    

5 points to me for not getting involved in this argument...again

Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2008, 10:13:43 AM
No. It isn't my job to keep you from inhaling smoke. Nor is it the government's job. It's your job. Don't go to bars where people smoke if you don't want to. Bleeding heart politics are insulting to basic human independence.

if you dont have no smoking laws 99% of bars will be smoking...then what do i do?

theres also the people that work there...a huge section of the service industry should not have to work in a place that can kill you...no different than making factory workers have to work in an asbestos filled building...it why chemical plants have governmental standards

public safeguards are all over our society...this is nothing new....you just happen to be a smoker or ex smoker so you take this personally

Quote from: SunMo on January 31, 2008, 10:23:10 AM
5 points to me for not getting involved in this argument...again

Infinity points to me for not being you......for always.  

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:23:40 AM

Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2008, 10:13:43 AM
No. It isn't my job to keep you from inhaling smoke. Nor is it the government's job. It's your job. Don't go to bars where people smoke if you don't want to. Bleeding heart politics are insulting to basic human independence.

if you dont have no smoking laws 99% of bars will be smoking...then what do i do?

theres also the people that work there...a huge section of the service industry should not have to work in a place that can kill you...no different than making factory workers have to work in an asbestos filled building...it why chemical plants have governmental standards

public safeguards are all over our society...this is nothing new....you just happen to be a smoker or ex smoker so you take this personally

The employee angle is the only defensible argument you've provided as far as I'm concerned. So good job of making a good point.

And the reason I take it personally is because this is just another example of the government sticking its nose into people's business where it isn't needed. It seems to me that they get bored and try to pass laws 'for our own good' to justify their existence. People have been going to smoke-filled bars for over a century. And somehow, despite the evils of smoke-filled bars, the human population lives longer and longer the more time goes on. It's an unnecessary, intrusive law, and that's what gets me all fired up about it.

5% of people who smoke get lung cancer.  it's all a big myth.

The other 95% get emphysema?

Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 31, 2008, 10:24:55 AM

Quote from: SunMo on January 31, 2008, 10:23:10 AM
5 points to me for not getting involved in this argument...again

Infinity points to me for not being you......for always. 

souderton >>>>>>kansas city

Quote from: phattymatty on January 31, 2008, 10:29:39 AM
5% of people who smoke get lung cancer.  it's all a big myth.

Shut yer yap-hole, pill head.

Everything in Pennsylvania is "blue state".  There are no dumb racist hicks in Pennsylvania.

Likewise, there are no do-gooder liberals in Kansas or North Carolina.

The KKK hardly even exists in PA.

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 10:32:20 AM
The other 95% get emphysema?

90

5% throat cancer

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Everything in Pennsylvania is "blue state".  There are no dumb racist hicks in Pennsylvania.

luckily philadelphia controls what the rest of the state does...hence blue state

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:08:14 AM

Quote from: Wingspan on January 31, 2008, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
public bars and restaurants arent private

i agree if its truly a private club then they should be able to do what they want

but the public at large should be able to go out and eat and drink where they want without having to suck in chemicals that kill you

That's the thing. Bars and restaurants are NOT public property. They are privately owned, which the public is invited to enter.

If they were public property, then their sidewalks should be covered by the city cleanup crew...and the waiters and bartenders would be state employees.

i mean if you built the restaurant in your back yard its probably on private land but i would venture to guess that 95% of public restaurants and bars in the country are not on privately owned land....

What? Your ventured guess would be dead wrong, in any colored state.

Every square inch of land not owned by the gov't (State parks, national parks, municipal buildings, posts offices, streets...etc) is considered private property.

so the actual land in big cities is owned by individuals?...not the structures but for example chestnut street in philly is privately owned by someone?

He included streets as an example of government property...

right which is my point...the bar that the govt passed the smoking law for sits on govt property

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:40:37 AM

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Everything in Pennsylvania is "blue state".  There are no dumb racist hicks in Pennsylvania.

luckily philadelphia controls what the rest of the state does...hence blue state

Don't worry.  There are plenty of dumb racists in Philly too.

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:50:47 AM
right which is my point...the bar that the govt passed the smoking law for sits on govt property

I don't know any bar that is actually in the middle of chestnut street.

We should build one... with hilarious results!

Quote from: FastFreddie on January 31, 2008, 10:54:26 AM
We should build one... with hilarious results!

in a city of over four million people i would think so

Quote from: Wingspan on January 31, 2008, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:50:47 AM
right which is my point...the bar that the govt passed the smoking law for sits on govt property

I don't know any bar that is actually in the middle of chestnut street.

right...which was my original question...the land along chestnut street is not owned by the city?

Quote from: Wingspan on January 31, 2008, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 31, 2008, 10:50:47 AM
right which is my point...the bar that the govt passed the smoking law for sits on govt property

I don't know any bar that is actually in the middle of chestnut street.

right...which was my original question...the land along chestnut street is not owned by the city?
[/quote]

No. the city owns and maintains the street...as in the asphalt, from curb to curb. While the city maintains rules to follow for sidewalk width...etc...(not unlike a HOA) the buildings and structures are all privately owned. (except in the examples listed above)

my question is who owns the land that sansom st oyster house or le bec fin sits on...take your guard down for a minute im not trying to make a point...im asking a simple question

The city does not own that land.

Quoteim not trying to make a point...im asking a simple question

holy shtein

Virginia is also voting in these bans this year.  Another loss for individual freedom.

Go tobacco.

(http://www.igotissues.com/photos/uncategorized/big_smoker.jpg)

Just FYI, per usual when this thread gets bumped, I went out and bought a pack of smokes yesterday. Up until November I had gone 4+ months without a cigarette and then only had one or two a week until yesterday. Now it is farging ON.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 01, 2008, 01:25:54 PM
(http://www.igotissues.com/photos/uncategorized/big_smoker.jpg)

a normal scene for the onlookers?

Quote from: rjs246 on February 01, 2008, 01:32:23 PM
Just FYI, per usual when this thread gets bumped, I went out and bought a pack of smokes yesterday. Up until November I had gone 4+ months without a cigarette and then only had one or two a week until yesterday. Now it is farging ON.

Go to Maryland and show those fargers you won't have your personal liberty farged with.  Make pit stops in NYC and Philly.

Just like in Philly, the Maryland law was enacted for occupational health and safety reasons, not to protect your silly asses from burdening the health care system.

i know, because bartenders have such specific skills, they can only do that job...how would they make a living otherwise

Yes! SunMo chimes in!

Quote from: rjs246 on February 01, 2008, 01:32:23 PM
Just FYI, per usual when this thread gets bumped, I went out and bought a pack of smokes yesterday. Up until November I had gone 4+ months without a cigarette and then only had one or two a week until yesterday. Now it is farging ON.

from the way you stand on this issue i would have never guessed you were EVER a smoker

because only smokers or former smokers could possibly disagree with the ban.

kinda like only non smokers could ever support it.

it's a nice clean cut world for vigy, all black and white

im sure theres some never smokers who really are against it the law....but 99% of the individual rights people could care less about individual rights...its just a cover to say i should be able to give cancer to anyone anywhere i want

its just not that important of an issue to rail against unless you are or have been a smoker

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 02, 2008, 09:42:02 AM
99% of the individual rights people could care less about individual rights...

This clearly doesn't describe me, but I actually agree with you. Most people stand up for individual freedoms only when they are feeling personally inconvenienced in some way. People enjoy the convenience of their 9 to 5 lives too much to be bothered with what they believe in.

I, on the other hand, drive the ladyfriend and all of you nuts with my soapboxing. I'm getting shtein done in this world I tell ya.

Quote from: SunMo on February 01, 2008, 06:35:54 PM
i know, because bartenders have such specific skills, they can only do that job...how would they make a living otherwise

There is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

And the dangers of second-hand smoke are well documented, and really not disputed by anyone by Philip Morris.

Really, it's just lucky for smokers that the EPA took a pass during the Clinton administration.  They were considering declaring cigarette smoke an environmental hazard, by all accounts.

The world is an environmental hazard.  Jesus Christ what a bunch of nancy bitches people are.

says the guy that sold his soul to the girl he would never marry

Weak.

Milquetoast, even.

Quote from: Cerevant on February 02, 2008, 01:19:41 PM


There is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

ahhahahahhaahahahahahahahah

you are a stupid farg aren't you

bartender doesn't even rank in the top 10

Quote from: SunMo on February 03, 2008, 12:54:34 AM

Quote from: Cerevant on February 02, 2008, 01:19:41 PM


There is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

ahhahahahhaahahahahahahahah

you are a stupid farg aren't you

bartender doesn't even rank in the top 10

Examples?  BTW, the key word is "unmitigated".  Go look that up before you start talking out your ass again.

Your inability to use the quote functionality aside, every type of mining is far more dangerous health-wise, construction in many of its forms is dangerous, police officers, fire fighters, armed forces personnel... the list goes on and on and on of jobs that are more dangerous to one's health and well-being than bartender.

Canadian bartenders needlessly die every day.

derr, i's dun't know what unmitigated means...someone explain it to me?


i'll let this condescending douche tell some guy standing  on 6" wide piece of steel 50 feet in the air that bartenders face more "unmitigated" danger than he does... hahahahha, man that makes me laugh

i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 03, 2008, 01:04:29 PM
i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

Lotta good that did the miners in Utah.  ;)

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 03, 2008, 01:04:29 PM
i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

Ding!

Ever hear of a hard hat?  Safety glasses? Safety lines? Hearing protection? These things are not optional.  They are designed to keep employees from getting injured.

Hazardous waste cleanup?  Tyvek suits and respirators.  We won't allow employees to breathe anything that could give them cancer.  Sound familiar?

Did you know the design of mining equipment is subject to design requirements similar to those for equipment used in nuclear power plants?

Think maybe the office building you work in has no asbestos, or that it has been contained?

OSHA and other federal and local laws protect people from their employers and the environments they work in.  Bars are no different.

None of that is what you said. But good job letting IGY make your point for you.

Anyway, the obvious point that I'm making is that all of those jobs are still dangerous (OSHA measures or not) and people still choose to do them. Just like being a bartender.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 03, 2008, 06:12:16 PM
None of that is what you said. But good job letting IGY make your point for you.

That is exactly what I said, but I guess SunMo is not the only one who doesn't know what "unmitigated" means.

The smoking ban is no more a personal rights issue than mandatory hard hats or asbestos removal in offices is.  The law says that you can smoke in a private club - just as long as no one is being paid to be there.  End of story.

I'm actually starting to realize that you don't know what unmitigated means. You seem to think that it is synonymous with 'unregulated' but it isn't. So, really, you're just clowning yourself more and more the more you hammer at it.

dictionary.com is a good resource, in case you want to learn something tonight.

lol...i realized he was a naive douche about 4 posts ago and gave up

No you idiots......unmitigated is Canadian for unregulated.  English isn't the only language out there, ya know.  Stupid Americans. 

farging morons...have to spoon feed every farging detail to you.

Hard hats mitigate the risk of skull damage and brain injury due to impact from a falling object.
Removing asbestos from a building mitigates the risk of getting cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers.
Banning smoking in the workplace mitigates the risk of getting cancer or emphysema from inhaling second-hand smoke.

It is well established that industries, unions, local and federal government entities take an active role in mitigating the risks inherent in given jobs and/or workplace environments.  The requirements that come from these activities serve to protect the workers from external factors.  This is done through corporate policy, union contracts, local and federal law. 

This is not a violation of your personal freedom.  Banning smoking in the home?  Maybe so, but what about the kids who have no choice but to live there?  Banning smoking in apartment buildings?  Maybe so, but what's the difference between a smoking policy and a "no pets" or "no barbecue grills" policy?

If the damn smokers would just stop exhaling, these problems would be much simpler to solve.  Why don't you all just go drink yourselves stupid?  Oh, wait...then you'd be whining about your right to piss on the floor in restaurants.

yeah, and those bars...they don't do anything to MITIGATE cigarette smoke.  it leaves the smoker's mouth and goes right into the bartender's lungs.  it's a shame they haven't invented things like vents, windows, smoke eaters or anything like that to MITIGATE the hazard of cigarette smoke

farging douche.

Your main argument is that it's part of the government's job to protect bartenders, waitstaff, and customers from inhaling second-hand smoke.  All the rest of it is unrelated fluff.  The counter-argument that the workers choose the job and the customers choose where they eat and drink is extremely valid, whether you personally agree or not.

Quote from: SunMo on February 04, 2008, 01:10:51 PM
yeah, and those bars...they don't do anything to MITIGATE cigarette smoke.  it leaves the smoker's mouth and goes right into the bartender's lungs.  it's a shame they haven't invented things like vents, windows, smoke eaters or anything like that to MITIGATE the hazard of cigarette smoke

Of course there are levels of risk mitigation.  The level of mitigation required is a function of the level of tolerable risk.  Tolerable risk is a function of the likelihood of consequences, and the potential cost of the consequences (in dollars, negative publicity, etc), and the cost of the mitigation. (Guess what I do for a living (http://www.cfse.org))  Think Fight Club - does it cost more to do a recall or to settle the inevitable lawsuits? 

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 04, 2008, 01:11:40 PM
workers choose the job and the customers choose where they eat and drink is extremely valid, whether you personally agree or not.

You are just claiming that the worker/consumer has a different level of tolerable risk than the employer / lawmaker.  Unfortunately for the worker, they don't get to make that call.  I don't care if you don't want to wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle to work, but your are going to put a hard hat on when you get here.

And what is the consequence that employers / lawmakers are so worried about?  Yep...you guessed it (http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke+lawsuit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

Yeah, those poor bartenders and waitresses are subject to second-hand smoke against their will, while miners and high-voltage electricians have all the safety precautions in the world.

C'mon, hippie.  Even you should be able to recognize that your argument is overreaching.

Quote from: Cerevant on February 04, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
Of course there are levels of risk mitigation. 

QuoteThere is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

Quote from: SunMo on February 04, 2008, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Cerevant on February 04, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
Of course there are levels of risk mitigation. 

QuoteThere is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

You need to stop making an ass out of yourself.  Unmitigated means no mitigation.  Levels of mitigation indicate that there is still some mitigation.

you can't quote...but i'm making an ass of myself?

and i'm merely pointing out your inconsistency...

when i first brought up the point of bartenders...you said it was an unmitigated health risk, unmitigated means no mitigation as you awesomely defined a word by using the word in the definition.  then i pointed out levels of mitigation for a bartender and you agreed that there are some levels of mitigation...if that is true, it is obviously not an unmitigated profession

There are no unmitigated dangers in the world of bartending. None. Cerevant here keeps trying to make the same inaccurate point and every time he does it gets sadder and sadder.

Anti-smoking advocates/activists make my brain hurt. The world is full of injustices. Find something else to harp on.

Risk to the employee: second hand smoke exposure increases risk of cancer two-fold
Consequences to the employer: $500,000 lawsuit award (http://www.gasp.org/etssuit.html)

The employer made a decision to allow smoking in the establishment, a court of law found a link to the damaging of someone's health, and they awarded money for it.

What are you trying to prove, except that the system was working before the government decided to "help out" and enact bans all over the place?

that if your a bartender...you can sue too

I work in bars from time to time and I'd love a smoking ban personally. It gets in your clothes and everything you bring in the place. farg people and their damn rights. It's all about me!  :P

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 07:49:34 AM
What are you trying to prove,

That it is a occupational health and safety issue, not a civil liberties issue.  That there is precedent for restricting the behavior of employees while at work, and controlling the environment where they work to reduce risk.  That there is precedent for the enacting of laws to enforce OH&S standards to level the playing field between employers.

There are a lot of precedents the U.S. government has set.  Many of them are more wrong than right.

and many of them are more right than wrong....i like the abolishment of slavery...one of my personal favorites

Right, and for many years before that, the government's precedent was to look the other way while humans were tortured and abused for profit and convenience.

An argument based on government precedent is not only tenuous, but non-existent.

Related question:  Do you believe that smoking should be allowed by employees in office buildings or other establishments where there's no risk of contamination (food, manufacturing, etc)?

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 09:50:03 AM
Right, and for many years before that, the government's precedent was to look the other way while humans were tortured and abused for profit and convenience.

An argument based on government precedent is not only tenuous, but non-existent.

so because slavery was once legal lessens the actions of the govt to abolish it?

your anti govt rants are getting more and more mcveighish and honestly are starting to scare me

What boggles my mind is that I've given sound economic reasons to support the ban and he's still against it.  Nicotine must be a cruel mistress.

I believe that is absolutely a decision that can and should be made by the owner of the building.

Most owners would choose not to allow it for many reasons, just like many restaurants are choosing not to allow it.  This is not a place where we need more government dollars spent.

the best part about Cerevant's supposed crusade for the bartenders is that 97% of the people he's trying to protect with this ban are smoking right there with the people at the bar...it's one of the reasons they work there, they want to work at a job that they can smoke at.

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 09:56:31 AM
I believe that is absolutely a decision that can and should be made by the owner of the building.

yes.

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 09:56:31 AM
Most owners would choose not to allow it for many reasons, just like many restaurants are choosing not to allow it. 

Um, but isn't it a violation of civil liberties to restrict these things?

QuoteThis is not a place where we need more government dollars spent.

I believe that the legislation of safety standards (whether OH&S or otherwise) benefits businesses by leveling the playing field.  If it was left to the business owner (which it is, in most cases) the business owner would have to evaluate if it was competitively to their advantage to implement the standard. 

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 10:21:53 AM

Um, but isn't it a violation of civil liberties to restrict these things?

it's obvious with a statement like this, you don't understand what civil liberties are, and how they apply

i wish i could have slaves, damn Lincoln

As an ex-smoker, its ironic and hysterical at the same the time because the overall and always goal of a smoker is to quit...unless you want to die.  Yeah you guys like it after a meal, when you drink and after sex with small dogs now, but deep down in your subconscious it makes you sick and you want to quit.  Now there is a law put in place to try and help reduce the intake of cigarettes and keep you and others healthy, and the smokers are against it...yeah makes sense

Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 10:21:53 AM
Um, but isn't it a violation of civil liberties to restrict these things?

Nice try.  The private owner of the building expects the voluntary tenants to accept certain regulations as part of the legal agreement on tenancy.  If there were no difference between the government forcing the private sector to make unnecessary rules and the private sector making their own rules, there wouldn't be two sides of the aisle in the U.S. Congress.

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 10:21:53 AM
I believe that the legislation of safety standards (whether OH&S or otherwise) benefits businesses by leveling the playing field.  If it was left to the business owner (which it is, in most cases) the business owner would have to evaluate if it was competitively to their advantage to implement the standard. 

So, by reducing the choices the business owner can make to grow their business, you are saving them what?  Time?  Culpability?  You're reaching.  The fewer choices private businesses make, the closer you get to authoritarian/totalitarian/communist government.

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 10:33:01 AM
Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

i'm not a smoker and i'm against this because i hate the government telling us what to do.  seat belts even...i think you're dumb not to wear one...but i think it's farging retarded to have a law forcing you to wear one...personal choice, it's a beautiful thing

but you go ahead and be a good little sheep.

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 10:33:01 AM
As an ex-smoker, its ironic and hysterical at the same the time because the overall and always goal of a smoker is to quit...unless you want to die.  Yeah you guys like it after a meal, when you drink and after sex with small dogs now, but deep down in your subconscious it makes you sick and you want to quit.  Now there is a law put in place to try and help reduce the intake of cigarettes and keep you and others healthy, and the smokers are against it...yeah makes sense

Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

Quitting never was and never will be my ultimate goal. Being left alone to do as I will is my ultimate goal. And the government IS trying to take over the world, whether I'm paranoid or not.

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 10:38:59 AM
i'm not a smoker and i'm against this because i hate the government telling us what to do.  seat belts even...i think you're dumb not to wear one...but i think it's farging retarded to have a law forcing you to wear one...personal choice, it's a beautiful thing

but you go ahead and be a good little sheep.

Amen.

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 10:38:59 AM

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 10:33:01 AM
Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

i'm not a smoker and i'm against this because i hate the government telling us what to do.  seat belts even...i think you're dumb not to wear one...but i think it's farging retarded to have a law forcing you to wear one...personal choice, it's a beautiful thing

but you go ahead and be a good little sheep.

I agree with the seat belt being retarded...and the fact Im fined for it is even more. Your not affecting anyone else's life but your own.

When it comes to smoking and you cant see the reasoning behind it, you got other issues to take care of? Hey, gov't is by far not perfect, but there comes a time when they need to step in and personal choice gets put to the side for various out-of-control reasons. If your going to be anti just to be anti..now whos' the sheep?

i'm not being anti just to be anti...i just think that a privately owned business should be able to choose their own smoking policy

i go to many restaurants and that are non-smoking throughout, and they are always well attended, and i go to bars that allow smoking and there are both smokers and non-smokers that go there...it just doesn't seem to be that big of an issue if you left it up to the individual establishments

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 10:38:59 AM
i'm not a smoker and i'm against this because i hate the government telling us what to do.  seat belts even...i think you're dumb not to wear one...but i think it's farging retarded to have a law forcing you to wear one...personal choice, it's a beautiful thing

horrible analogy...not wearing a seat belt directly hurts no one but yourself....seat belt laws are indeed idiotic as are motorcycle helmet laws but neither have anything in common with smoking laws in restaurants/bars

and the govt is not telling anyone what to do in the case of smoking laws...its telling the people where they can do something...same as you cant openly drink alcohol anywhere you want or ride a bike wherever you want or build a fire wherever you want...


the key thing to remember here is that smokers ARE STILL ALLOWED TO SMOKE...youd think smokers would care more about things like the outrageous taxes that the govt puts on cigarettes instead of the fact that they have to walk ten feet outside a bar to smoke

i'm pretty sure the argument isn't with individuals being able to smoke, it's with restaurant/bar owners not being allowed to let their patrons smoke if they want to. 

bars also arent allowed to serve alcohol whenever they want...or show porn on their tv's...they are also required to have their customers be clothed...food handlers are required to wash their hands after going to the bathroom...food in general is legaly required to be protected....there are tons of good sensible laws that public establishments must follow for the good of the population at large

My issue is with regulating the behavior of consenting adults in any way. People have a choice to go to a smokey bar or not. Life will go on if IGY chooses to never set foot in a bar again because he doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke or is concerned with the health risks involved with second hand smoke. I get sunburned easily and even though I enjoy doing shtein outside I avoid the sun in the summer when I can because I'm at high risk for skin cancer. I could choose to slather myself in suntan lotion and have fun at the beach and brave the elements anyway, but I don't. That's my choice. Why is it any different for a farging bar? Of all places on Earth a bar should be allowed to cater to any legal thing that a consenting adult wants to do. The government isn't here to save us from our choices. It's here to ensure that we have the right to make that choice.

If you don't like smoke, stop going to bars that allow smoking. The world will not end if you never go to a bar again.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 11:44:16 AM
My issue is with regulating the behavior of consenting adults in any way. People have a choice to go to a smokey bar or not. Life will go on if IGY chooses to never set foot in a bar again because he doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke or is concerned with the health risks involved with second hand smoke. I get sunburned easily and even though I enjoy doing shtein outside I avoid the sun in the summer when I can because I'm at high risk for skin cancer. I could choose to slather myself in suntan lotion and have fun at the beach and brave the elements anyway, but I don't. That's my choice. Why is it any different for a farging bar? Of all places on Earth a bar should be allowed to cater to any legal thing that a consenting adult wants to do. The government isn't here to save us from our choices. It's here to ensure that we have the right to make that choice.

If you don't like smoke, stop going to bars that allow smoking. The world will not end if you never go to a bar again.

its not about igy...its about the people who work in restaurants and the general population at large

you care more where someone can smoke a cancer stick than where someone can comfortable choose to make a living?...for real?


if it were about me id be railing on about how bars should be able to serve alcohol whenever the hell they want...but as much as i like to go out and drink i dont think thats the best for society

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 10:33:01 AM
Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

Look at the big picture?  Ok, let's look at the big picture.

Today the government tells all privately owned business owners that they cannot allow smoking in their privately owned establishment.  

Tomorrow the government tells home owners that they can't smoke in the privacy of their own home.

Next week the government tells me what to wear to work.  

The week after that the government tells me what color to paint my house.

Next month the government makes OnStar^TM mandaotry on all vehicles that they always know where I am.

3 months from now the government is regulating the amount of bacon I can eat in a day/week/month.

Next year the government tells me I can't own a gun because now that smoking in public is illegal and cancer isn't a problem, gun shots wounds are the leading cause of death.  

2 years from now everyone's phone calls, emails and spending habits are tracked and studied to determine who is a threat to society.

5 years from now US mail must be sent in see-through, plastic packaging.  No more discrete shipping methods for Chuggie's new "jack hammer."  

15 years from now my first grandchild is born and immediate has a computer chip shoved up it's ass that tell the gov't where he/she is at all times, what his/her vital signs are, body temperature, thoughts, dreams, etc, etc.  

Once you start allowing the government to start violating civil liberties and rights, you are opening up Pandora's Box and 10 years from now when it snowballs out of control you'll be standing around one day thinking "What the farg?"

i think you use the employees as an easier argument for a personal agenda...you would rather there be no smokers at a bar when you are there.

as far as the employees go, they don't have to work there...you know the inherit risk/reward ratio or any job you take before you take it.  some jobs have a higher risk than others...bartending and waitressing in a bar has a low risk compared to other real jobs, yet people still work them.  if you really care about employees under terrible working conditions there are much bigger battles to fight.

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 11:48:50 AM
you care more where someone can smoke a cancer stick than where someone can comfortable choose to make a living?...for real?

Those people have a choice to work at a restaurant or a bar that doesn't allow smoking. They have a choice to find a different profession or live in their parents' basements. They have the choice to work as painters at an auto-body shop and inhale fumes all day, or become police officers and get shot at, or become firefighters and run into flaming buildings, or be cowboys, or computer programmers or any farging thing on earth, much of which is way more dangerous than serving drinks at a bar.

So yes, I'm more concerned with a consenting adult's right to take part in a legal activity than I am about the plight of an overly health conscious bus boy.

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 11:53:04 AM
as far as the employees go, they don't have to work there

again you believe that its more important to be able to choose to smoke in a bar than it is to choose where you would like to work....i think being able to work where you want is more important than being able to smoke where you want

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 11:53:04 AM
i think you use the employees as an easier argument for a personal agenda...you would rather there be no smokers at a bar when you are there.

if it were a personal agenda like i said id be pushing for no public drinking laws...but even tho they would make my life better i dont believe in them...just as i believe their should be certain public smoking laws

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 11:56:53 AM
Those people have a choice to work at a restaurant or a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

what if they prefer a place of work that suits them better...its near public transportation and they dont have a car...its close to home or near their kids babysitter...what if their bar offers a 401k and another doesnt...what if they just plain love their place of employment?...all that versus having to walk ten feet to smoke a cigarette and you choose the 10 foot walk as being more important than a persons job?

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 11:56:53 AM
So yes, I'm more concerned with a consenting adult's right to take part in a legal activity whenever and wherever i want regardless of the harm it causes to others.

fixed

because remember this law STILL ALLOWS YOU TO SMOKE CIGARETTES

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 11:57:43 AM
again you believe that its more important to be able to choose to smoke in a bar than it is to choose where you would like to work....

no, i think both choices are equally important... 

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 12:01:42 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 11:56:53 AM
Those people have a choice to work at a restaurant or a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

what if they prefer a place of work that suits them better...its near public transportation and they dont have a car...its close to home or near their kids babysitter...what if their bar offers a 401k and another doesnt...what if they just plain love their place of employment?...all that versus having to walk ten feet to smoke a cigarette and you choose the 10 foot walk as being more important than a persons job?

I've traded location and convenience for better pay and benefits before. Life is all about choices. If avoiding smoke is more important to you than how much money you make or where you work, fantastic! You have a choice to make. The government doesn't need to gold-plate every intersection.

Whatever. I'm never going to convince you and you're never going to convince me.

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 11:04:17 AM

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 10:38:59 AM

Quote from: reese125 on February 05, 2008, 10:33:01 AM
Smokers need to look at the big health picture, put the civil liberties baton down and stop being narrow-minded. The gov't is not trying to take over the world. Its a figment of your paranoid imagination

i'm not a smoker and i'm against this because i hate the government telling us what to do.  seat belts even...i think you're dumb not to wear one...but i think it's farging retarded to have a law forcing you to wear one...personal choice, it's a beautiful thing

but you go ahead and be a good little sheep.

I agree with the seat belt being retarded...and the fact Im fined for it is even more. Your not affecting anyone else's life but your own.

Not true at all actually. The seat-belt laws are not in place to protect the idiot who doesn't wear one. They are in place to protect the other driver from the idiot who will still refuse to wear one.

Scenario:

You get into an accident, everyone sober. The other guy was not wearing a seat belt, you were. The other guy dies, and it is determined that wearing a seat-belt would have saved his life.

With no seat-belt law: You can be charged with vehicular manslaughter at worst (if the accident is your fault), or at least be hit with wrongful death charges/suits for years.

With a seat-belt law: The guy who did not wear the belt is at fault for his own death, regardless of the accident cause (all partys being sober) due to his neglect to obey the seat-belt law.

That's stupid. If a driver is at fault and someone dies they should be charged. If that driver is not at fault they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Seatbelt plays no part in it one way or another.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 12:36:26 PM
Seatbelt plays no part in it one way or another.

?????

Wingspan is saying that it's less likely that someone will die if they are wearing a seatbelt (der) and if they aren't wearing a seatbelt and they die than the at-fault driver faces a lighter charge.

I was saying that if the at-fault driver kills someone then they should be charged whether that person was wearing a seatbelt or not. I'm also saying that if you're a woman and can't drive and cause an accident you should have to deal with the consquences whether that person was wearing a seatbelt or not. If they weren't and they died. Sucks for you and it sucks for them, but it's your fault not theirs and you should have to deal with it accordingly.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 11:51:55 AM
Today the government tells all privately owned business owners that they cannot allow smoking in their privately owned establishment.

Public space

QuoteTomorrow the government tells home owners that they can't smoke in the privacy of their own home.

Private space

QuoteNext week the government tells me what to wear to work.

Work space

QuoteThe week after that the government tells me what color to paint my house.

Private space, although home owner associations are infringing...

QuoteNext month the government makes OnStar^TM mandaotry on all vehicles that they always know where I am.

Private space

Quote3 months from now the government is regulating the amount of bacon I can eat in a day/week/month.

Private space

QuoteNext year the government tells me I can't own a gun because now that smoking in public is illegal and cancer isn't a problem, gun shots wounds are the leading cause of death.

Public and private, Gun ownership is already regulated.

Quote2 years from now everyone's phone calls, emails and spending habits are tracked and studied to determine who is a threat to society.

Private space

Quote5 years from now US mail must be sent in see-through, plastic packaging.  No more discrete shipping methods for Chuggie's new "jack hammer."  

This is a gray area, because of the safety of the carriers.  I would argue that the shippers have the right to inspect the contents of a package, but may not record or report the contents unless they violate the law.  I would be very surprised if something like this is not already the case.

Quote15 years from now my first grandchild is born and immediate has a computer chip shoved up it's ass that tell the gov't where he/she is at all times, what his/her vital signs are, body temperature, thoughts, dreams, etc, etc.  

Way private

QuoteOnce you start allowing the government to start violating civil liberties and rights, you are opening up Pandora's Box and 10 years from now when it snowballs out of control you'll be standing around one day thinking "What the farg?"

In a free society, you have the right to do as you please until it infringes on someone else's right to do the same.  Every case I've listed as public or work it is reasonable to have some restrictions to protect the rights of the others who have every right to be in that place.  The government has no place interfering in our private lives.  There are gray areas that are messy to interpret, but I do think in most cases the distinction is cut and dry.

I argued against drug testing in that thread, because I don't believe it is anyone's right to monitor your private activities.  Want me to blow a breathalyzer before I start my shift?  Sure, but don't tell me I can't drink when I get home.

I would never support a ban on smoking in private homes.  I would support negligence/endangerment charges if children become sick due to a parent's smoking.  I would also support denial of health care coverage (private or public) for smokers who contract smoking-related diseases.

I would never support a ban on drinking, and frankly I think trying to control drugs is equally stupid.  However, I have no problem with someone who has been convicted of DUI being thrown in jail.

I would support denial of health care, life insurance, and/or liability claims to those who are injured or die due to their own negligence: no seat belt, no helmet, disabling the safety features of cars, power tools, lawn equipment, etc.  But a person has the absolute right to do those things.

If you want to kill yourself, have a ball.  I'll laugh and submit your ass for a Darwin Award.  I agree that the law shouldn't be used to protect people from themselves.  The law is there to protect people and their property from the actions of others.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 04, 2008, 05:34:54 PM
This is one of those things where I personally don't care if the gov't has my palm prints, finger prints or ass prints.  At the same time, I think it's wrong to force it upon the nation.  I wouldn't mind sacrificing that liberty but certainly understand why not everyone feels the same way. 

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
I would support denial of health care, life insurance, and/or liability claims to those who are injured or die due to their own negligence: no seat belt, no helmet, disabling the safety features of cars, power tools, lawn equipment, etc.  But a person has the absolute right to do those things.

If you want to kill yourself, have a ball.  I'll laugh and submit your ass for a Darwin Award.  I agree that the law shouldn't be used to protect people from themselves.  The law is there to protect people and their property from the actions of others.

More hypocrisy here.  Would you deny health care for someone who is obese, but eats at McDonald's every day?  Would someone who develops lung cancer or emphysema from legally smoking cigarettes be ineligible for your plan?  You sure don't sound like a proponent of universal socialized medicine to me.

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 02:20:26 PM
More hypocrisy here.  Would you deny health care for someone who is obese, but eats at McDonald's every day?  Would someone who develops lung cancer or emphysema from legally smoking cigarettes be ineligible for your plan? 

seriously....talk about slippery slopes

Quote from: FastFreddie on February 05, 2008, 02:20:26 PM
More hypocrisy here.

Not hypocrisy.  My views are self consistent, I just don't blindly subscribe to a pre-defined ideology.

QuoteWould you deny health care for someone who is obese, but eats at McDonald's every day?

Tough call.  In part it depends on if the obesity is in part due to some congenital defect.  I would have no problem with making continuing treatment contingent on following a healthy eating plan.

QuoteWould someone who develops lung cancer or emphysema from legally smoking cigarettes be ineligible for your plan?

Yep.  If you want to kill yourself, go for it.  Just don't come asking me to pay when you realize that you made a mistake.  

QuoteYou sure don't sound like a proponent of universal socialized medicine to me.

I'm a moderate.  I'm for doing what makes the most sense.

I am in favor of universal basic health care - but I explained that in another thread.  I do not believe that people who knowingly and willfully harm their own health deserve the same access to care that people who are random victims of disease, genetic disorders, or genuine accidents.

denying a human being health care for any reason is one of the most outrageous things ive ever heard of

and people who use too much salt on their food are ineligible because it contributes to high blood pressure

and people who drink more than an pre-determined weekly average amount of alcohol are ineligible because of liver damage it does

Demolition Man wasn't that far-fetched after all it seems

Is "self consistent" a fancy way to say that your own mind doesn't recognize your own hypocrisy?

what about people at fault in car accidents do they get medical treatment?...hell no they dont....lol


really why have jails anymore since they cost the taxpayer money...committ a crime you get the death penalty 24 hrs after your vedict...


hell if im paying for other peoples mistakes

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 02:36:58 PM
Demolition Man wasn't that far-fetched after all it seems

John Spartan, you are fined 1 credit for violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

Be well.

The obesity scenario got me thinking, and there probably is a middle ground.  Make continuing treatment conditional on managing the condition.  Heart disease?  Keep that BP and cholesterol down.  Liver disease?  No drinky fo you.  

I think a second chance is worthwhile in many cases.  But it sickens me to waste health care dollars on preventable disease/injury.

Another option is to make coverage similar to dental plans - preventative and emergency care is covered 100%  Fillings and crowns?  80%  or even 50%  Give people an incentive to take care of themselves without taking away choice.

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 02:42:53 PM
really why have jails anymore since they cost the taxpayer money...commit a [vicious (ed. by Demon)] crime you get the death penalty 24 hrs after your verdict...

Where do I sign a petition for this one becoming law?

there will be one in hell for you to sign

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 02:06:13 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 04, 2008, 05:34:54 PM
This is one of those things where I personally don't care if the gov't has my palm prints, finger prints or ass prints.  At the same time, I think it's wrong to force it upon the nation.  I wouldn't mind sacrificing that liberty but certainly understand why not everyone feels the same way. 

Your point being?  Or are you just quoting me because I'm awesome?  Just because I'm ok with sacrificing some of my own civil liberties doesn't mean that it's the best thing for the greater good.  I really don't care if the government has all that stuff on me if I voluntarilly give them.  

Quote from: SunMo on February 05, 2008, 02:36:58 PM
Demolition Man wasn't that far-fetched after all it seems

Especially if The Governator becomes President. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 02:51:25 PM
there will be one in hell for you to sign

He can borrow a pen, or a machete, from Sean Taylor.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 02:51:36 PM
Your point being?  Or are you just quoting me because I'm awesome?  Just because I'm ok with sacrificing some of my own civil liberties doesn't mean that it's the best thing for the greater good.  I really don't care if the government has all that stuff on me if I voluntarilly give them.  

i found it funny that youre willing to give up some profound personal privacys yet then listed all the ways banning cigarettes in bars is going to lead to america being a virtual police state

really tho it furthers my point that this primarily is not about rights of business' or individuals but its about smokers vs non smokers

If this is Demolition Man, IGY is Cocteau, and rjs is Edgar Friendly.

Considering that cigerettes are as addicting as heroin how could you possibly deny health care to folks who smoke or even don't take the second chance? The true affliction there is the addiction. The lung cancer and emphazima all just come with it...

I'd concede a second chance, but most smokers today started smoking knowing the health risks.  I would not be opposed to inpatient detox (paid), but someone who persists in spite of their own health?

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 02:56:06 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 02:51:36 PM
Your point being?  Or are you just quoting me because I'm awesome?  Just because I'm ok with sacrificing some of my own civil liberties doesn't mean that it's the best thing for the greater good.  I really don't care if the government has all that stuff on me if I voluntarilly give them.  

i found it funny that youre willing to give up some profound personal privacys yet then listed all the ways banning cigarettes in bars is going to lead to america being a virtual police state

I would give them up individually if it's my decision to.  They're my rights and if I choose to "waive" them then that's my decision.  But it's not my decision to take away your right nor is it the government's right to take them away either.  

Quotereally tho it furthers my point that this primarily is not about rights of business' or individuals but its about smokers vs non smokers

You're still missing the point.  This isn't about smokers vs non-smokers.  It could be about gum chewers and non-gum chewers or dippers and non-dippers or sunflower seed chewers and non.  

If the gov't  decided that they no longer wanted people chewing gum in bars and resturants because people stick their chewed up wads under tables and chairs and unsuspecting customers get it stuck on their hands, clothes, hair, etc.  

I don't chew gum.  And as a non-gum chewer I think it's a detriment to my health to come in contact with someone else's chewed up gum and whatever health risks may be associated with it.  Maybe the person chewing it had bronchitis or something.  So let's tell people they can't chew gum in public, yet privately owned places.  

But that's the difference between smoking and any other scenario: you can't not "share" the smoke with your friends.  Give the gum chewers somewhere to throw away their gum - there are reasonable things you can do to control it.  The analog to smoking would be to say that you have the right to spit out your gum, walk across the room and stuff it up my nose.

i disagree...this issue is primarily split along smoker vs non smoker lines....are there some people like sun who dont smoke but are against the law yupe...just like there are some smokers who realize that their smoke is hurtful to others and are for the law...but really its not even close to a big enough issue on either side to turn it into some sort of personal rights thing

its people who dont wanna go outside to smoke vs people who dont wanna inhale and get stenched up by smoke...its a individual convienance/health issue not an individual (and/or a business) rights issue

this is why everytime its ever come up its passes with little resistence and the business'  lose zero customers and often gain...so really it helps all those involved

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
In a free society, you have the right to do as you please until it infringes on someone else's right to do the same.  Every case I've listed as public or work it is reasonable to have some restrictions to protect the rights of the others who have every right to be in that place.

I think the real problem is that the definition of public place has seriously become skewed over the years.  

City Park = Public Place

Resturant/bar/club that is open to the general public = Private Place

Resturant/bar/club that is not open to the general public = Private Place

You say that in a free society I have the right to do as I wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's right to do the same.  I disagree.  Because by that logic, if you and I are playing a game of Madden in my home and I start smoking, I am infringing upon your right to breathe fresh air.

In a free society, I have the right to do as I wish in public as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's right to do the same.  

So if I'm in a public park smoking a cigarette, then it's reasonable to expect that anyone in my immediate vicinity is going to get some of my 2nd hand smoke.  I am now polluting the air that person is trying to breathe.  

If a business owner wishes to allow smoking inside an establishment that he/she has paid for and you as a non-smoker walk into that establishment then you are willingly putting yourself at risk.  

So basically, if the government wants to tell me that I can't smoke on public property.....property that is owned and maintained by the city/state/fed government, then that's fine with me.  It's their property and they can do what they want with it.  Hell, if it was illegal to smoke on the streets, imagine how much cleaner they'd be without all the cigarette butts all over the place.  I would seriously be ok with that.  

But when the government starts dictating what can and can't happen inside of a privately owned business then it's only a matter of time before they start dictating what happens inside of privately owned homes.  

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 03:36:36 PM
But that's the difference between smoking and any other scenario: you can't not "share" the smoke with your friends.  Give the gum chewers somewhere to throw away their gum - there are reasonable things you can do to control it.  The analog to smoking would be to say that you have the right to spit out your gum, walk across the room and stuff it up my nose.

Gum chewers used to have a reasonable place to put their gum.  It was called an ashtray. 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 03:48:39 PM
If a business owner wishes to allow smoking inside an establishment that he/she has paid for and you as a non-smoker walk into that establishment then you are willingly putting yourself at risk.  

This is the whole reason why I said this was an OH&S issue.  The ban is not for smoking in private establishments - the MD law allows this.  The ban is for smoking in establishments where people are working.  It falls under the other OH&S measures I described already, along with the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, workplace hazardous materials safety management, etc.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 03:48:39 PM

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
In a free society, you have the right to do as you please until it infringes on someone else's right to do the same.  Every case I've listed as public or work it is reasonable to have some restrictions to protect the rights of the others who have every right to be in that place.

City Park = Public Place

Resturant/bar/club that is open to the general public = Private Place

Resturant/bar/club that is not open to the general public = Private Place

im assuming youre saying this is how it should be....because it couldnt be further from the truth...otherwise the local bennigans could refuse to allow blacks or women if they chose...a restaurant that is open to the public has to follow governmental laws on how its run...these laws cover everything from the health of the people in the place to having disabled parking spots outside to the hrs they can serve alcohol to whats on the televisions to whose allowed in...

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 04:02:59 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 03:48:39 PM

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
In a free society, you have the right to do as you please until it infringes on someone else's right to do the same.  Every case I've listed as public or work it is reasonable to have some restrictions to protect the rights of the others who have every right to be in that place.

City Park = Public Place

Resturant/bar/club that is open to the general public = Private Place

Resturant/bar/club that is not open to the general public = Private Place

im assuming youre saying this is how it should be....because it couldnt be further from the truth...otherwise the local bennigans could refuse to allow blacks or women if they chose...a restaurant that is open to the public has to follow governmental laws on how its run...these laws cover everything from the health of the people in the place to having disabled parking spots outside to whats on the televisions to whose allowed in

no...sarge is right.

like 4 pages ago...or whatever...when you asked a dozen different ways. a restaurant or a bar, unless it is the Valley Forge Park Snack Bar, is a private place of business. Open to the general public.

It is not public property. How do you not get this?

And there are racial and sexual anti descrimination laws that would protect a black woman from being refused service. and building codes to maintain a number of handicap spaces.

youre talking about property...im talking about the business itself...you can smoke in the local kiwanis club all you want...in private clubs you can drink 24 hrs a day...this is not the case in public restaurants or workplaces

might as well post this here..

I've been saying this forever, and now some scientists are on my side:  smokers health care burden on society less than that of non smokers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.story05feb05,0,4148359.story

I'm disappointed that obese people are also less of a burden. But at least they die younger.

:(

The option of losing weight and removing one's self from that category is always available... of course we DO love you jolly. Tough to know what to root for here.

Quote from: Cerevant on February 05, 2008, 03:56:04 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 03:48:39 PM
If a business owner wishes to allow smoking inside an establishment that he/she has paid for and you as a non-smoker walk into that establishment then you are willingly putting yourself at risk.  

This is the whole reason why I said this was an OH&S issue.  The ban is not for smoking in private establishments - the MD law allows this.  The ban is for smoking in establishments where people are working.  It falls under the other OH&S measures I described already, along with the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, workplace hazardous materials safety management, etc.

There's a difference between not allowing smoking in a more traditional working environment (office) and in a bar/resturant.  An office is a place of business where work is to be done.  A bar/resturant is a business that is in the business of creating and catering to a social atmosphere.

Office environments are completely different because in many cases, the office space is leased, not owned.  So it may be the property owner's policy to not allow smoking (because of the insurance rates that would probably go with it) where as a bar owner is prepared to absorb any additional costs in insurance or additional ventalation/equipment that would be required in order to cater to smokers.  

There's a saying in any customer service type industry:  The customer is always right.

By telling a bar owner that he can't allow people to smoke inside his establishment is taking away that person's ability to fully satisfy his customers.  

And if you as a non-smoking bartender/waiter/busboy/bathroom attendant choose to work in a place that allows smoking then shame on you for putting yourself at risk. 

Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2008, 05:14:23 PM
The option of losing weight and removing one's self from that category is always available... of course we DO love you jolly. Tough to know what to root for here.

i'm going to die young no matter what...i'm convinced of that.  i'm 97% sure i'm living my own personal Final Destination

You should be WAY drunker if that's the case.

there's always the 3%

Celebratory drinks?

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 04:13:27 PM
youre talking about property...im talking about the business itself...you can smoke in the local kiwanis club all you want...in private clubs you can drink 24 hrs a day...this is not the case in public restaurants or workplaces

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 05, 2008, 03:48:39 PM

I think the real problem is that the definition of public place has seriously become skewed over the years.

City Park = Public Place

Resturant/bar/club that is open to the general public = Private Place

Resturant/bar/club that is not open to the general public = Private Place

What is so hard to understand about the actual difference between public and private?  

Valley Forge National Park = PUBLIC

Dorney Park = PRIVATE park that is open to the public (with cost of admission, or "cover charge")

Knoebles Amusement Park = PRIVATE park that is open to the public (no admission, pay for individual rides)

The gov't can regulate anything it wants to inside of VF Park.  So if they want no smoking in the entire park, so be it.  It's their property.  

The gov't should not be able to tell Dorney Park or Knoeble's that they can't allow smoking.  Not when the government has nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of either place.

It's the exact same thing with a bar or resturant.  It doesn't matter whether or not the place requires paid membership or if it's open to the general public.  It's still PRIVATE PROPERTY.  My house is my own domain.  It's my property and the minute you walk through my front door you have waived your right to breathe smoke-free air.  Same thing goes if I own a bar.  My business, my property, my rules.  Don't like it then get out.  

who the farg goes to knoebles?

You do if you know what it is. 

sorry the private property argument doesnt fly...your home is your home and is considered private...other people cannot enter without your expressed permission...restaurants and bars are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter...instead its assumed since it is open to the public and used by the public and regulated by the government that anyone can enter...im pretty sure ive never had to ask permission to go into any restaurant... thus restaurants and bars are subject to governmental regulations that your home or even private business is not

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 08:14:42 PM
restaurants and bars are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter

You're right.  And it doesn't take a court order for you to decide not to stay in there either if they allow smoking.  So if you don't like the O₂ levels in there, you are free to leave. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 05, 2008, 08:14:42 PM
instead its assumed since it is open to the public and used by the public and regulated by the government that anyone can enter

Even if it's not regulated by the government, anyone can still enter (unless it's members only of course).  Also, the owner of any business reserves the right to refuse service.  So even though the place may be open to the public and used by the public, it's still not public farging propertay.  Ownership/management still has the final say on who gets in and who doesn't.  Maybe the place has a dress code.  Should the government regulate that too? 

Quote from: Diomedes on February 05, 2008, 04:58:55 PM
might as well post this here..

I've been saying this forever, and now some scientists are on my side:  smokers health care burden on society less than that of non smokers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.story05feb05,0,4148359.story

Well farg, an abortion is cheaper than delivery...why wait until they are old enough to smoke?

Quote from: Cerevant on February 06, 2008, 01:53:08 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 05, 2008, 04:58:55 PM
might as well post this here..

I've been saying this forever, and now some scientists are on my side:  smokers health care burden on society less than that of non smokers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.story05feb05,0,4148359.story

Well farg, an abortion is cheaper than delivery...why wait until they are old enough to smoke?

lol if you think Dio is going to oppose this argument. 

I realize that Dio is anti-rugrat, but the logic of this hurts my brain.  All hail the .45 caliber in the mouth universal health care plan.

Oh, and there is something wrong with that article:

QuoteThe researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the highest health costs. But, because the smokers and the obese people died earlier than those of the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

QuoteUltimately, health costs of the thin and healthy group were highest, about $417,000 from age 20 to 56.  The cost of care was $371,000 for obese people and about $326,000 for smokers.

Quote from: Cerevant on February 06, 2008, 02:04:02 PM
All hail the .45 caliber in the mouth universal health care plan.

Now you're appealing to Rusty. 

Are you saying that I should join the ranks of the fat and stop leaching off of society?

You sound like my grandmother.

No, I'm saying you'd like to shoot people in the face. 

Oh, well in that case, carry on.

Who doesnt sarge

I don't care if smokers cost us all more money to treat...freedom isn't free afterall...but insofar as the high cost argument has been regularly advanced by the anti-smoking witchhunt mob, and universally accepted, I enjoy pointing out that it's a dubious one.

I was thinking about this the other day. Isn't denying treatment to people because of they're habits and shtuff a form of Facism?

Wikipedia -
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

I was sitting at the local Moose Lodge last Saturday night, half tanked, and whipped out a cigarillo, fired it up and started puffing away. Forgot all about the ban. The bartender snatched it out of my mouth and dumped it in my beer. She gave me another though. It might be a while till I get used to this thing.

Quote from: Phanatic on February 06, 2008, 06:05:43 PM
I was thinking about this the other day. Isn't denying treatment to people because of they're habits and shtuff a form of Facism?

Wikipedia -
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

But I thought all facists smoked?  I bet W still lights up now and then...

Quote from: Cerevant on February 06, 2008, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: Phanatic on February 06, 2008, 06:05:43 PM
I was thinking about this the other day. Isn't denying treatment to people because of they're habits and shtuff a form of Facism?

Wikipedia -
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

But I thought all facists smoked?  I bet W still lights up now and then...

For some reason, I think he does smoke cigars.  Not sure why I think that, though.

He just seems like that type of jackass.

Condo building bans smoking (http://www.startribune.com/local/15617577.html)

Current owners that smoke will be allowed to continue smoking in their own residences.  Otherwise, this would be an incredible violation of personal freedom.

What's the difference between banning smoking, and not allowing pets or barbecue grills?  What about restrictions on painting your condo, or putting a satellite dish on the roof?

The difference is that the decision was made after smoking residents had purchased their condo.  Therefore, they get grandfathered because the smoking ban wasn't part of their contract.  Same thing goes with dishes, paint, pets, etc.  If I move into a condo or townhome community with some sort of HOA and there's no restriction on dishes so I put one up, then 2 years later they decide they don't want them, I cannot be forced to take mine down.  It simply means that new owners moving into the hood wouldn't be allowed to put them up.  And when I vacate my place, the dish would have to come down to match everyone else.

If a smoker sells his condo, the new owner will not be allowed to smoke inside under the rule.  And I'm fine with that because it's an established policy before moving in.   

This smoking ban is the rule of a HOA.

No shtein.  What's your point? 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 14, 2008, 03:02:14 PM
You know, Cerevant, you are absolutely right.  HOA's can set up all the stupid farging rules they want.

Interesting article in Time. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1727161,00.html?cnn=yes)

QuoteSmokers are much more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmokers — that has been a scientific truism for decades. But what about the 80% of smokers who don't develop lung cancer? Are they just the lucky ones? A trio of new studies suggests that the explanation for why they escape the disease may lie partly in their genes.

I had no idea that 4 out of 5 smokers never get lung cancer. Based on the hoopla, you'd think smokers were nailing their coffins shut, period. Apparently not.

thats just lung cancer but smoking can kill you other ways...emphysema...tumors...throat cancer...heart disease...stroke...ect...

when you smoke deadly carcinogens are going into your whole body not just your lungs

Stroking out is hardly even a health issue these days. I had one last year and I'm strong like bull.

pretty sure that was the shakes

I still try and stroke out atleast thrice daily.

There are some places you shouldn't smoke (http://wcbstv.com/local/jetblue.queens.smoking.2.752480.html).

(http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/29/2008/06/19/175x131/jetbluesmoker.jpg)

Agh!  Skip x Infinity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103027.html?nav=rss_metro

QuoteFirst, smokers had to move outside the building. Then it was 25 feet from the building entrance. Now it has come to this: Starting today, Montgomery College is banning tobacco anywhere on campus -- inside or outside.

The community college is one of a growing number of campuses nationwide taking a hard line on tobacco, signaling a broader cultural shift. No more professors lighting up pipes in their offices, no cigarettes sold in stores, no students chewing tobacco while watching football games.

Reactions from smokers ranged from stunned to furious -- and often unprintable.

"Outside?" gasped Isaac Kim, who's about to start pre-pharmacy classes at the Silver Spring/Takoma Park campus. "Do they have the right to do that?"

But many were delighted when they saw banners trumpeting the rule, which they view as a sign of the positive influence that colleges can have in protecting students and employees from exposure to smoke, promoting healthier habits and encouraging the downward trend in the numbers of young smokers.

"I think it's great," said Monica Brown, a nursing student from Silver Spring. "I don't like the way smoke gets in my hair and my clothes. And I worry about the health risk."

More than 130 campuses nationwide have gone smoke-free, most commonly medical schools and community colleges, reports the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.

more story at link

---

I think I'm going to start smoking again.

This thread bump means that I will have at least 2 butts tomorrow.

it's been about 15 months since i've had a cig

we're being turned into women

at least yous smell good

(http://www.philaflava.com/forum/images/smiles/dcracistemo0mp.gif)

For the record, I think banning chew is going too far - it doesn't hurt/bother anyone else.  You want to put that nasty shtein in your mouth?  Go for it.  Just spit in a cup or something, k?

Quote from: Cerevant on August 04, 2008, 06:39:45 AM
For the record, I think banning chew is going too far - it doesn't hurt/bother anyone else.  You want to put that nasty shtein in your mouth?  Go for it.  Just spit in a cup or something, k?

Respectfully disagree Cerevant.  Even though I am someone who occasionally dips, watching someone do that at the bar, and then leave their spitter on the bar is farging disgusting.  I hate cleaning it up, furthermore customers often complain about having to see that shtein when they eat. 

insessantly spitting...whether via dipping...or otherwise...is a farging disgusting habit.

yup, let's keep adding to list of things people can't do

We need more laws to stop people from doing annoying stuff.


In related news, posting to :CF will be illegal in a couple of years, as will opinions in general and free thought.

There's nothing like bending over to tie your shoe to find that someone's spit is all over your shoelace.

Quote from: Wingspan on August 04, 2008, 01:25:11 PM
There's nothing like bending over to tie your shoe to find that someone's spit is all over your shoelace.

I know right. I'm constantly getting my shoes spit on. It's a real problem in my life. There should be a law...

i agree with the canuck...you wanna put a cancer crater in your own gumline be my guest...as long as it poses no real health threat to others go crazee

Quote from: rjs246 on August 04, 2008, 01:29:30 PM

Quote from: Wingspan on August 04, 2008, 01:25:11 PM
There's nothing like bending over to tie your shoe to find that someone's spit is all over your shoelace.

I know right. I'm constantly getting my shoes spit on. It's a real problem in my life. There should be a law...

Reading is fundamental.

I could care less if there's a law about it. But it's still gross.