gbpfan1231 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 i still don't get that if a bar/restaurant wants to allow smoking inside, it can't do it by law. if i open my own establishment and i want to allow smoking, i should be able to, and if people don't like it, then don't come to my establishment. seems simple ... as long as smokers are courteous or at least try to not douse others, then i have no problem. i've never seen anyone blowing smoke around to bother people intentionally, so people shouldn't try to bother smokers intentionally as well. please do pick up your butts. keep amerika clean. Agree - can't stand the smell of smoke and I thank god that I had the incredible will at age two to kick the habit (see - I was born with the smoking addiction) but I don't think that there should be a law against any establishment that stops them from allowing smoking if they choose to. If people want to eat/drink in a smokey environment let them choose - if someone does not want to work in a smokey environment they don't need to apply at an establishment that allows smoking - seems simple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I have some empathy for a person whose business has been effected. The overall extent of that effect has been debated and may not be clear. I honestly can't imagine it would be much, provided nobody can. I would guess the number of people who are so hell bent on being able to smoke and drink at the exact same time, rather than drink and then go outside to have a smoke, hell bent enough to forfeit the ability to drink in a social setting and just stay at home instead, is not a huge number. Having been in the service industry my whole life, which meant I spent no shortage of time out at bars after work, I didn't see much change when they made the smokers go outside. The same bars were still plenty busy. In general, I get what you're saying, and I'm not going to join the front lines to fight the smoking ban in bars and restaurants, but I also see the other side of it as well. Sort of like the initial topic. I'm not going to run around and tell people not to smoke near me, but I'm not going to fault someone else for doing the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Because non-smokers should be able to work there without worrying about cancer? why? work somewhere else if you don't like it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Um, if I'm on the highway, and following someone who is smoking, then the whole stinky car thing is more than likely a wash, no? What is with the, "other people litter to" deal? Of course, and I don't condone any form of littering. But I have to pay someone specifically to go outside my restaurants and pick up cigarette butts. Every now and then, there's some random trash, but there's always butts. OK, so there's one comparison that I have some empirical evidence to show is rubbish. "But what about people who wear too much perfume?" Sure, they stink as well. And there seems to be about one of them for every 50 smokers. So, your point again? So, I don't know what you guys are trying to prove with this, "we're no worse than anyone else" deal, but it's a weak argument. I don't litter. I don't wear too much cologne, so the "doctor heal thyself" bit doesn't cut it. It doesn't make me any more sympathetic about how put upon you feel by mean people who are less than tactful about how they feel about your habit. Oh, and toronator, I agree. I would not choose to open a place that allowed smoking so I could enjoy the increased market share associated with providing people with a less smelly and toxic eating and drinking environment. However, I do think it should be the choice of the management. Are you accusing me of littering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Is it ok to have dangerous wiring in a bar/restaurant? What about an unsanitary kitchen? The state has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. And it should. You cannot deny that a smoking ban protects the health, safety and welfare of the public and at relatively little costs. Its about as much of a no-brainer use of a police power that there is. I have some empathy for a person whose business has been effected. The overall extent of that effect has been debated and may not be clear. In any event, I have no empathy for persons who claim that they have a "right" to smoke or that a business owner should have the "right" to allow smoking. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we allowed smoking in public places in the first place. It kind of boggles the mind if you think about it. This is the same reason that I feel public restrooms should be banned. Most of them are dirty and filthy, you can catch the flu, crabs, hepatitis, the common cold, TB, dysentery, or a rash, among other things simply by going into one of these restrooms. Not to mention the noxious odors lingering in most of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Are you accusing me of littering? Nope. You played the, "you're driving and creating poisonous fumes" card, and I was simply pointing out that it was a stupid line of reasoning. Considering that basically everyone sharing the highway with me at that point is doing the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Nope. You played the, "you're driving and creating poisonous fumes" card, and I was simply pointing out that it was a stupid line of reasoning. Considering that basically everyone sharing the highway with me at that point is doing the same. You played the my smoking is bad for your lungs card. I responded with the your car is bad for my lungs card. You responded with people litter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If people are smoking outside then what is the effing problem? I dont smoke at all and have no issue with people smoking outside . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Is it ok to have dangerous wiring in a bar/restaurant? What about an unsanitary kitchen? The state has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. And it should. You cannot deny that a smoking ban protects the health, safety and welfare of the public and at relatively little costs. Its about as much of a no-brainer use of a police power that there is. I have some empathy for a person whose business has been effected. The overall extent of that effect has been debated and may not be clear. In any event, I have no empathy for persons who claim that they have a "right" to smoke or that a business owner should have the "right" to allow smoking. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we allowed smoking in public places in the first place. It kind of boggles the mind if you think about it. there is some kind of distinction for me when it is a private business ... not a public place. like your home. i personally believe that banning smoking in private places goes too far, not on the level of faulty wiring or an unsanitary kitchen. the occasional second hand smoke from having a bite and shooting some pool is pretty much a negligible health risk, wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 there is some kind of distinction for me when it is a private business ... not a public place. like your home. i personally believe that banning smoking in private places goes too far, not on the level of faulty wiring or an unsanitary kitchen. the occasional second hand smoke from having a bite and shooting some pool is pretty much a negligible health risk, wouldn't you say? No, second hand smoke, if exposed to it even once, will take 3 years off of your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If people are smoking outside then what is the effing problem? I dont smoke at all and have no issue with people smoking outside . . Because smookers are vile. Just like mooslims. And they make baby Jesus cry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Because smookers are vile. Just like mooslims. And they make baby Jesus cry. If you had have put "gays" in the place of "mooslims" I woulda been on board. But since you said "mooslims", I am deeply offended by your careless, offhanded comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 there is some kind of distinction for me when it is a private business ... not a public place. like your home. i personally believe that banning smoking in private places goes too far, not on the level of faulty wiring or an unsanitary kitchen. the occasional second hand smoke from having a bite and shooting some pool is pretty much a negligible health risk, wouldn't you say? If your private business is open to the public then you must follow laws that are intended to ensure the public's safety. This is why you can't have the fauly wiring or unsanitary kitchen either. I don't think it should be banned from private clubs, such as a members only lodge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 If you had have put "gays" in the place of "mooslims" I woulda been on board. But since you said "mooslims", I am deeply offended :coughcough: by your careless, offhanded comments. Fixed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) You played the my smoking is bad for your lungs card. I responded with the your car is bad for my lungs card. You responded with people litter. Actually, I didn't, I said this... Why, because it stinks. If I'm walking down the street behind someone who is smoking, it stinks. Hell, if I'm driving down the road behind someone who is smoking, it stinks. When my waiters come back in from a smoke break, they effing stink. And then there's all the litter. But, because I realize that we're all on our own path, I'm not going to walk up to you and remind you that your filthy habit is filthy for me as well. That doesn't mean I have to cry one tear for you if someone else does. At which point you made some quip about how you'd take me more seriously if I wasn't driving a polluting car. Which, again, is stupid because everyone on the highway is driving a car, and yet I still somehow manage to notice and not enjoy the smell of someone smoking in the car ahead of mine. So, yes, you were basically saying, "smokers are no worse", just like when DoG tried to imply that "everyone litters, not just smokers". But there are three very, very important points you're missing here. 1) You can only be so courteous as a smoker, because you still stink. And, yes, other people stink, but you literally have to be homeless guy who peed in his pants to smell as much as someone smoking on the street. That chight will follow you halfway down the block. 2) That said, I'm still not the guy who's going to walk up to you and get in your face about it. I'm just going to be the guy going when you or Rovers or Taz go looking around for someone to be outraged that someone had the nerve to tell you that you stink. That's your battle, not mine. 3) Like I said before, this thread was not started by someone whining about smokers, it was started by a smoker whining that people are mean to him because he smokes. That's it, smoke away as far as I'm concerned. I think you smell and my response to that is to either walk faster to get in front of you or go to the other side of the street or something. Either that or just deal with it, like I've also done often. I'm just not sympathetic to the cause of the poor, put-upon smokers in this world who are seemingly helpless in this matter and, yet, are subject to unfair attacks. Because I think that's a load of crap. Edited December 9, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 there is some kind of distinction for me when it is a private business ... not a public place. like your home. i personally believe that banning smoking in private places goes too far, not on the level of faulty wiring or an unsanitary kitchen. the occasional second hand smoke from having a bite and shooting some pool is pretty much a negligible health risk, wouldn't you say? I'm not getting into this other than 'the occasional second hand smoke from having a bite and shooting some pool is pretty much a negligible health risk, wouldn't you say?'. When there was smoking in my bar i would have to blow my nose the next morning to get the black out. ok, I'll get into it a little. I agree that it should be up to the business owner. I do have the choice of where to work. That being said, when smoking was legal in bars here, not one bar (restaurants excluded) within 50 miles was nonsmoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Is it ok to have dangerous wiring in a bar/restaurant? What about an unsanitary kitchen? The state has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. And it should. You cannot deny that a smoking ban protects the health, safety and welfare of the public and at relatively little costs. Its about as much of a no-brainer use of a police power that there is. that right there is prohibition era logic. a liquor ban would certainly protect the health, safety and welfare of the public at little cost. so would a ban on frying foods or cooking with butter. while we're at it, we'd better require speed governors on all cars to make sure nobody ever drives fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 that right there is prohibition era logic. a liquor ban would certainly protect the health, safety and welfare of the public at little cost. so would a ban on frying foods or cooking with butter. while we're at it, we'd better require speed governors on all cars to make sure nobody ever drives fast. Well, in fairness, I believe Furd is talking about the effects of smoking on others. Much of what you're talking about is protecting people from themselves. I don't think Furd is suggesting smoking become illegal, just doing so in public places where others are subjected to your smoke. Something, mind you, that I don't agree with, but it's still not exactly the same as prohibition era logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Well, in fairness, I believe Furd is talking about the effects of smoking on others. Much of what you're talking about is protecting people from themselves. I don't think Furd is suggesting smoking become illegal, just doing so in public places where others are subjected to your smoke. Something, mind you, that I don't agree with, but it's still not exactly the same as prohibition era logic. well, liquor certainly has a "public health and safety" effect on others. how many people are killed or injured in drunk driving accidents each year? most of them are the drunks themselves, but there are still a large number of others who are killed and injured by drunk drivers through no fault of their own, including thousands of children. then tie in how closely related alcohol is to abuse and neglect statistics. anything is a "public health" issue if you want it to be, particularly in these days of increasingly socialized health costs, where even choices that only affect your own health also hit everyone else in the wallet. IMO it's all a really bad excuse to treat people more and more like children. people should be freer to make their own choices and more responsible for the outcomes of those choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 well, liquor certainly has a "public health and safety" effect on others. how many people are killed or injured in drunk driving accidents each year? most of them are the drunks themselves, but there are still a large number of others who are killed and injured by drunk drivers through no fault of their own, including thousands of children. then tie in how closely related alcohol is to abuse and neglect statistics. anything is a "public health" issue if you want it to be, particularly in these days of increasingly socialized health costs, where even choices that only affect your own health also hit everyone else in the wallet. IMO it's all a really bad excuse to treat people more and more like children. people should be freer to make their own choices and more responsible for the outcomes of those choices. The "abuse" of alcohol. Driving while drunk. Those are the threats and those threats are addressed. It is, after all, technically illegal to be drunk in public and absolutely illegal to be buzzed behind the wheel. Smoking, on the other hand, is dangerous to those around you even if you're not doing so to excess. After all, if you're sitting amongst a group of people, all of whom are having the one or two smokes they enjoy that day, you're just as screwed And, again, I'm not even saying that it should be illegal in public places, but I can understand why people draw a line between the two. Yes, "anything" is a public health issue if you want it to be, and you're just the guy to needlessly exaggerate the kinds of things that could be in order to make a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Not valid. Drinking itself does not endanger others. Drinking AND DRIVING does. Smoking endangers others nearby all by itself. The slippery slope thing is weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I know there are statistics on second hand smoke causing x amount of lung cancer each year, etc. that is for prolonged exposure, i.e., living with a smoker. not for the guy passing you on the sidewalk, or the dude you can kinda smell on the other side of the restaurant. working in a smoky bar would increase your risk I am sure, but you know that going in. mostly, people just dislike the smell, and play the stupid "you're giving me cancer" card because they can, not because it has any merit whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The "abuse" of alcohol. Driving while drunk. Those are the threats and those threats are addressed. not very well, given how many people are killed by drunk drivers, how many kids are abused and neglected by drunk parents, and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I know there are statistics on second hand smoke causing x amount of lung cancer each year, etc. that is for prolonged exposure, i.e., living with a smoker. not for the guy passing you on the sidewalk, or the dude you can kinda smell on the other side of the restaurant. working in a smoky bar would increase your risk I am sure, but you know that going in. mostly, people just dislike the smell, and play the stupid "you're giving me cancer" card because they can, not because it has any merit whatsoever. Maybe it's because I'm a few years older than you, but I do vividly recall the days before smoking was illegal in bars. It wasn't a "dude you an kind of smell on the other side of the restaurant". If you went out to bars or clubs, you were inundated by cigarette smoke. Plain and simple. The way you phrased it does work better for your argument, but that's not exactly how it was. And, for the umpteenth time, I'm not calling for it to be illegal, but rather understanding why some would. Also, I may have misread Furd's point, but I thought he was talking about "public places" as in, bars and restaurants, not walking down the street. Mostly because he mentioned places not being allowed to use faulty wiring and such. None the less, that's what I'm talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 here is what the nanny scolds who would use the law to make everyone else behave as they see fit have to say about alcohol Overall, researchers found that about $94.2 billion (42 percent) of the total economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption were borne by federal, state, and local governments while $92.9 billion (41.5 percent) was borne by excessive drinkers and their family members. Government agencies paid most of the health care expenses due to excessive alcohol use (61 percent), while drinkers and their families bore most of the cost of lost productivity (55 percent), primarily in the form of lower household income. Excessive alcohol consumption, including high per–occasion alcohol consumption (binge drinking), and high average daily alcohol consumption is responsible for an average of 79,000 deaths in the United States each year. “It is striking that over three–quarters of the cost of excessive alcohol consumption is due to binge drinking, which is reported by about 15 percent of U.S. adults,” said Robert Brewer, M.D., M.P.H., Alcohol Program Leader at CDC and one of the authors of the report. “Fortunately, there are a number of effective public health strategies that communities can use to reduce binge drinking and related harms, such as increasing the price of alcohol and reducing the number of places that sell and serve it.” and there we go. rather than differentiate between the teetotalers who target smoking with the ones who target booze or the ones who target happy meals, I think we'd do well to recognize that they are all playing the same game and using the same logic....and that society's attempts to temper those harmful behaviors with the law prove to be ineffective and counter-productive pretty much across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.