I'm all in favor of property rights in this case too. In fact, I think it could also be a benefit to those bar/restuarant owners who decide to ban smoking in their establishment, and focus on that segment of the market.
Having said that, I'll leave before the fit hits the shan.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg caught hell for imposing this on New York City bars and restaurants. Jim Kerr on NYC 104.3 this morning was mocking Bloomberg saying that conversations between members of the opposite sex in bars will now be banned due to that causing unwanted pregnancies, dim lighting will be replaced by kleig lights due to emotional trauma caused by waking up next to a fugly person in the morning, and discussions of religion and politics will be banned in bars in hopes of curbing violence.
I can understand banning smoking in restaurants, because even when I was smoking, I didn't like to smoke, or have other people at my table smoking while I was eating. But come on, alcohol and tobacco GO together - heck, there's a US department that governs Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I can see having specialty bars that cater to the non-smoking population, but many people I know that label themselves non-smokers do smoke when they've had a few drinks. (Back In Black)
Delissandra Splitshadow - Marauder of Clan X
Grandmaster Poisoner (250), Master Potter (191), Grandmaster Lush (200)
I am a non-smoker, I hate smoking, and I still think that the NY ban on smoking in bars is stupid. It's a damn BAR. It's not like you are going in a health club and you have a bunch of people lighting up next to the treadmill. I'm going in there to drink myself silly, a little second-hand smoke really isn't my biggest concern of the night. Yeah, it's nicer not to have to breath it, but I think if bar owners wanted to make their bars non-smoking, that's fine. Their bar, they do what they want with it. A state-wide ban on smoking in BARS is stupid.
Out here in San Diego I sometimes forget how the rest of the country runs. It seems odd to even consider being in a bar and not having at least a couple of people say "I'm going outside for a smoke" and then leaving without paying their tab. - Nymm
Prexus, Deceiver, 1 ea.
Where I live smoking is banned from pretty much everything but bars. Which I am thankful for. There is one bar, that doesn't allow smoking, and for awhile there was a big @#%$ fit, because the owner decided he didn't want to allow smoking.
Send a letter to your health department telling them to wait for the legislators. No ban like that can be imposed by a county health office without sufficient legislative backing. The bar owners can take them to court, and probably win. "I see a dark sail, on the horizon. Set under a black cloud, that hides the sun. Bring me my broadsword, and clear undestanding. Bring me my cross of gold, as a talisman. Bless with a hard heart, those who surround me. Bless the women and children, who firm our hands. Put our backs to the north wind, hold fast by the river. Sweet memories to drive us on, of the motherland. Bring me my broadsword."-Jethro Tull
Quote:There is a push in a county nearby me to ban smoking in all bars, among other locations? Why do people feel they need to impose on individuals?
I could ask the smokers the same thing.
They're imposing on my personal air space **I DON'T SMOKE** yet they continue to foul my air. Dazzler Twodirks High Speed Quisinart for Hire
Guildleader of the Blades of Honor.
Monsters Slain, Pockets Picked, Corpses Dragged, and more.
No job too small, no fee too large
Card Carrying Member of The Safehouse.
Classes are not that out of balance -AbsorEQ
Buy a six pack and stay home then, or go out on the bloody veranda. Smoking and alcohol consumption have gone hand in hand since day one. You do more damage to yourself walking downtown in a major city than you do sitting in a bar where some people smoke.
Before the bans in california, it was optional to allow smoking or not. Many restaurants and bars were non-smoking, many were smoking. People in L.A. got to vote on whether I could smoke in a bar in friggin' Sacramento or not. They won. Businesses closed right and left. Restaurants shut down, bars closed.
Some say "that's not bad. Less drunks on the road." These businesses closing had an impact on local economies. When it was an owner's option, I had to, depending on what I wanted to eat, go 15 miles to get to one that had a smoking section. I didn't mind. That was my choice. If a non-smoker wanted a non-smoking one, same thing. Choice. Now, there's no choice. That's a denial of freedoms. Legislate out what is legal?
Get down to brass tacks here. Smoking is legal for those over the age of 18. Instead of making it illegal, they are legislating it into being illegal to do ANYWHERE. Why? Because the american people, as a culture, really are stupid enough to be so narrow-sighted they don't see that they are allowing precedents to be set to having other freedoms removed. When you waive rights, you set up precedents to be allowed to take away other rights and freedoms, all disguised as "for the good of all". If you want to make it illegal, make it illegal. Don't make excercising a legal right illegal (which is what smoking bans are...making a legal act illegal without making the substance itself illegal). It's like gun laws. owning a gun is legal, yet they are legislating the @#%$ out of it to the point that antique weapons collectors are having historical pieces ripped out of their collections and destroyed.
One of these days, when you can't even look at someone without Big Brother arresting you for possible future emotional assault, people will wonder where it started, and who to blame... If thinking that isn't also against the law. The smoking bans already took one other right of a business owner away from them... "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." That right is GONE where smoking is banned in public places. It fell on the heels of the anti-smoking laws.
In Davis, CA, it has gone even further... Smoking is illegal EVERYWHERE except in your house, in your private car, or in your backyard. EVERYWHERE. You can't even step outside the bar to have a smoke. Smoking in public is illegal. Fast on the heels of that extended law was this one... It is illegal to ride your skateboard anywhere except an approved skateboard park. That's right, you can't ride your skateboard even in your own driveway...It's illegal. There's more, but this is enough. The laws passed after the short-sighted californians voted to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, were done WITHOUT voting. Precedent was set that we are willing to give up our rights "for the good of the many" as it were... So the extended smoking ban and the skateboarding bans were done WITHOUT a vote. And it's legal. Thank you. They don't affect me as I would never live in Davis... But thank you all for setting up the gov't with the ability to take ALL our rights away, as they see fit, "for our own good"...
If you don't drink, and you don't smoke, then you don't need to be in a bar just for the express purpose of sticking your finger in the eye of every smoker and scream for your right to breathe free air anywhere. That's what I freaking hate about smoking-nazis. They often get pretenious about stuff that they usually aren't even involved in, near, or partaking of.
It's like choosing to go to a heavy metal concert, and bitching because your ears @#%$ hurt!!!!!!!!!
Non-smoker in my house: God it's smokey in here, I can't stand that @#%$. Can't you guys take it outside or something?
Me: You don't smoke? What the @#%$ are you doing in my house in the first place you moron.
Non-smoker standing by smokers hanging out, coughing, and looking perturbed.
Me: Want a cigarette, dumbass?
Or the people that used to walk by the old smoking lounges in the airport, stop, and pointedly cough at all of us like we really gave a @#%$. God, to put a whole pack of lit smokes out in their eyes. Edited by: Nenjin at: 12/31/03 1:42 pm
Quote:They're imposing on my personal air space **I DON'T SMOKE** yet they continue to foul my air.
Do you honestly believe that in a country with an economy based off of the the burning of noxious gases and fumes to create carbon monoxide that cigarrette smoke makes a difference?
I will grant you that for non-smokers (and in some cases, smokers alike) the smell is unpleasant, but give me a break, every day that you start your car you are releasing more carbon monoxide into the air than any group of smokers could even dream to accomplish. Smoking cigarrettes has an extremely minute effect on outdoor pollutants, so small that it probably could not even be measured in comparison to the millions of other noxious fumes that are released into the air by cars, mining facilities, factories, etc. etc. etc.
That being said, there is no evidence to support that second hand smoke has any kind of measurable effect on non-smokers either. Reports from the surgeon general regarding the case only state estimates, which can be wholly thrown out the window as it's almost impossible to test the subject. What with the hundreds of other things you breathe into your lungs on a daily basis do you honestly think that it is possible to measure the effect that second hand smoke from cigarrettes alone has on a persons lungs? I'd assure you that the effects from second-hand smoke would be extremely minimal considering the environment that we all live in.
Further, if we can agree that the only argument against the subject is the effect that it has on your sense of smell then perhaps you should be looking at the thousands of other scents that may offend people over the course of the day. Perhaps we should ban public bathrooms or ban fertilization of crops with manure, these are not pleasant smells either, far less pleasant to the common population than the smell of smoke from a cigarette. Marauder Arakasi
Deceiver - Tunare
Gale of Destruction
Smoking hardly is the reason why people go to bars - even smokers. What special right do you think you have to make those around you who don't smoke to feel uncomfortable?
Non-smokers are the majority, so don't you think it is perfectly reasonable for them to ask that public places are by default smoke-free? After all, it is only the smokers who physically impose on others. I have no problem with bars having areas where people can smoke but by and large establishments should be smoke-free. Kopper
The government and especially not the pissing voters should be involved in smoking bans. Just the owners of the chains, franchises, etc.
I smoke like a freight train, and I should have the right to kill myself slowly while I eat my tandoori or drink my scotch. If you dont like it, why dont you go to a place that doesnt allow smoking? Theres plenty of them.
Mmmm that's a grey area too. I think people put those signs (we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone) after the civil rights movement happened, so the racist restaurant owners could throw out black people without having to say it was because they are black.
But then if you have some hoodlums walk in, or bums, or lawyers, for instance, I think they would be right to throw them out at will
I simply laugh at the self-righteous nonsense of non-smokers who claim it's imposing on THEIR air. Look, it's the bar owners property, not yours. It should be his right whether he wants to allow it or not, plain and simple.
If you don't want to have to breathe it, you have a CHOICE not to frequent his place of business. No one is forcing you to go in there and breathe in air you don't want to.
If a bar owner, or restaurant owner for that matter, chooses to allow smoking, then he runs the risk of losing the business of people who don't want to frequent his establishment because of it. They will choose to spend their money at an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. That should be enough. We have way too many laws and regulations that simply aren't needed.
Zagarus, you say it should be banned because the majority of people feel that way, so why not let supply and demand and economics work it out if that's the case? Let's say Bar A allows smoking, Bar B bans it, and Bar C has a seperate smoking section. Go to Bar B. If the majority of people do as you do, and they do a booming business because of it, then others will follow suit. If Bar A goes out of business because the majority of people won't frequent it, then that's the owner's decision and fault - it's not YOUR call to make how he runs his business. Conversly, if he does enough business to survive and eek out a small profit with his smaller base of clients and chooses to continue to allow it, how does it harm you? You're not frequenting his establishment, so mind your own business.
The bottom line is people can vote with where they choose to spend their money. Laws aren't needed to force this on anyone. Edited by: Kuurus at: 1/1/04 8:50 am
The question is, can I walk into a bar, get a drink, see someone start smoking, then sue him and the bar for endangering my health. Lets make that a legitimate legal suit and see how long smoking lasts in public places.
Why not perform an even greater service for society by standing on the sidewalk and then filing a suit against every driver who passes for endangering your health with their exhaust? Let's make that a legitimate legal suit and see how long driving lasts in public places. Or are exhaust fumes not an issue you feel the need to tackle because you drive and would like to continue doing so?
That's fine Gyorg, as long as I am allowed to pick any random motorist and sue them for doing the same thing. Or an industrial production company like the one 6 miles from my grandparents house that has belched out toxic smoke for almost 20 years now.
Point being, there are lots of things people do every day that make your life shorter. Smoking happens to be one of the most visible, and the one people happen to enjoy the most. If people can sue bars or individuals for damaging their health, the bar for civil cases will fall to a shred of evidence, which is what alot of anti-smokers want you to believe anyways. It would idiocy of the first order.
And public property =/= private property folks. Public property is owned by the state and or city/county. It is only public by viture of the fact people choose go there and owners decide to let them in. And you do still have the right to refuse service to anyone, no one has the right to come on to your property, business or otherwise, and demand to be dealt with. Except the gov't, of course.
If you can turn smoking cigarettes into something that produces some good, or powers some form of transportation, or has any sort of positive impact other than satisfying someone's addiction, your more than welcome to.
I figure it this way. Sucking directly on an exhaust pipe will kill you. Breathing it's fumes for more than 20 minutes will kill you. The use of cars over the world pollutes and contaminates citys and our atmosphere. We tolerate that because it's useful.
What do cigarettes do? Reduce your life expectancy by 20 years? If YOU smoke them all the time? No one has to sit in a smoky bar, office, car, subway station, restraunt, every single day. 2nd hand smoke, unless you are someone who doesn't smoke in a smoking household, doesn't kill you, or even marginally effect you.
I want to ban farting and talking in restaurants and bars. Those things offend my sense of smell and all that loud noise damages my ears.
BAN FARTING AND TALKING!!!
When all you non-smoking Nazis look at it this way, your arguments just seem silly.... Oh wait, they already are.
Salyvan Ticklefingers and Gaenaria - A dangerous toy. This toy is being made for the extreme priority the good looks. The little part which suffocates when the sharp part which gets hurt is swallowed is contained generously. Only the person who can take responsibility by itself is to play.Edited by: Salyvan at: 1/1/04 4:52 pm
If I have to share the roads with people who have DUI's and DWI's then nonsmokers can share my air. It should be up to the owner of the establishment to allow smoking or not. As far as in bars If you dont care about your liver do you really expect me to care about your lungs.
In USA today i am shocked that any bar/resturant owner is alowing smokeing, the simple reason is that we all know that 20 years from now one of his current employee will sue his ass claiming that working is smokeing place had couse him health problem.
Other then that i agree the smoke ban have gone way to far, work place sure, resturant mybe, bars NO WAY.
BTW the things i smoke are not legel anywhare in USA so i am not affected directly by the ban.
Beasthealer druid 65
Quote:If you can turn smoking cigarettes into something that produces some good, or powers some form of transportation, or has any sort of positive impact other than satisfying someone's addiction, your more than welcome to.
The tobacco industry has fueled the American economy since well before this country was founded.
Today it does not fuel the economy with the impact that it used to, however there are quite a lot of taxes imposed on cigarettes, cigarette companies, etc. etc. etc. Would you like to start paying more taxes because the government bans smoking or because people just simply stop?
Tobacco has served it's purpose for many years, since before the founding of the States, regardless of what ill effects it may or may not have on it's users.
Honestly, if you want to make that argument, you could also make it for thousands of other things that are not only legal, but legal in public places. For example: alchohol provides no "Good" (in the abstract form of the word), it does not fuel any major kind of transportation (not the kind that you drink, anyway), it has absolutely no redeeming societal benefit, and it only serves to kill not only thousands of its users each year, but thousands of innocents as well (also, the numbers for deaths related to alchohol can be verified) and it also brings harm to countless other people as well. When was the last time you heard of someone committing spousal abuse because they smoked two packs of smokes in a day?...
And this drug is allowed in places where smoking is no longer allowed (public places, such as bars, restaurants, etc.), a drug that hampers the mind and causes tremendous harm. Smoking does neither of these on anywhere near the same level that alchohol does, yet alchohol is a perfectly legal addictive substance.
Just an example, and don't get me wrong, I don't care if people drink or not, but it is a vice, nonetheless, just as smoking, and a much more harmful one. Marauder Arakasi
Deceiver - Tunare
Gale of Destruction
My appartment complex banned loud noise. I also believe the police prosecute people who annoy their neighbors with it.
As for video games, we aren't talking about people hurting themselves or, for that matter, banning them from doing anything entirely.
As for alcohol, we tried to get rid of it. Plus, multiple studies have shown it can be beneficial in small quantities. Still waiting on the "smoking 1 cigarette a day helps stave off cancer" study. And alcohol does not hurt every person involved with it. Smoking and being around smokers hurts every person in at least a small way.
As for cigarettes fueling the economy because we tax them? If meth labs, week farms, and crack houses were legal, would we let "they bring in taxes" justify their continued existance? Everything legal helps support the economy. That doesn't mean it supplies some benefit. Even bad things can earn taxes.
Honestly people, if you are going to defend through analogies, they need to be ones that are not fundamentally different from the comparison situation.
Quote:As for video games, we aren't talking about people hurting themselves or, for that matter, banning them from doing anything entirely.
Nope, we are talking about banning people from playing in video arcades because someone might walk in, be forced to listen to loud noises and watch flashing screens, therefore damaging their eyes and ears.
Is the concept of not going into a bar that allows smoking if it really bothers you so hard to understand? Apart from the employee thing, I can't see any difference between this and someone smoking in their own home. A bar may be open to the public, but if it is privately owned it is not a public place.
Luckily it matters little what these people think, since under the law bars - privately owned or not - are considered public places and as such, what happens in them will eventually be decided by the public. Since the public is gradually swinging towards smoke-free environment, that is what eventually will happen and the outcasts of society will just have to find some musky dark cavern where to practice their addiction and if we are lucky, choke to death.
This, of course, unless something drastic happens in people's attitudes. However, since the percentage of smokers each generation is declining and the attitudes towards it being socially acceptable are becoming more strict each year, that is unlikely to happen. No, I'm not providing you sources.
Fortunately most people - from my experience - are considerate enough already to ask whether they can and move bit farther away when they do smoke amongst people who do not - even in bars. Unfortunately there are always the idiots who do not. What some smokers don't realize is that it is not the other people who need to accommodate to their smoking, but they who need to accommodate others - even in places where it is allowed.
Then again, common courtesy and decency in today's world isn't exactly highly praised commodity. Kopper
What a pleasant attitude there Zagarus. Someone dares to disagree with you, so they should choke to death.
I actually agree with you in a way - about the matter of smoking in bars being decided by the public. Difference being, I think they should decide with their wallets, not try to change the law to suit them.
What's wrong, did a smoker kick sand (blow smoke?) in your face when you were younger?
Quote:Luckily it matters little what these people think, since under the law bars - privately owned or not - are considered public places and as such, what happens in them will eventually be decided by the public.
So violation of property rights by the government is a good thing?
I guess its true. Democracy is little more than two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.