Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

i understand what he is trying to say. what he has a hard time with is the fact that people don't agree with him.

but why do you think it should be up to the government and not to the private store owner as to what goes on inside their store? no one is forcing anyone to go into any of these businesses.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: toekramp
while i love not stinking when i get home from a bar... it shouldn't be illegal

I agree %100, and I have asthma as well.

while I completely despise people smoking cigarettes and I hate the smell of it and everything, it's just something that a lot of people like to do while drinking alcohol, and when in a club or bar, smoking comes in hand w/the drinking going on as well.

i would rather the places keep the same crowds and stay live and partying, than the clubs/bars becoming empty because people can't smoke in them.

in Bethesda, MD its illegal to smoke in bars now, and I heard it's going to be that way in DC soon. I never really went to Bethesda to go out anyways, but hopefully it doesn't affect the people going out in DC.

that's why going to a bar in bethesda is so much better than going to a bar in, say, fairfax. 1, maryland is way sweeter than virginia... 2, you don't have to deal with smelling like crap when you leave.... 3, you don't need to worry about second-hand smoke... 4, if you've got a friend, girlfriend, or wife who's pregnant, you can bring her out to the bar with you.

also, bars in dc are smoke free, i'm pretty sure... whenever i hit up bars in foggy bottom/georgetown, they're smoke free.

Nah they aren't smoke free in DC, not yet. Trust me, I smelled like crap when I left Chloe in Adams Morgan friday night.

And the bars in bethesda are the worst in the DC Metro area. they suck. and no not just because of the non-smokers ... the bars in that area just suck in general

i like a couple of them, like this one brewery i hit up a few times... i can't remember what it's called, though.

where are you from? i'm from olney.

silver spring, right off 495 at the georgia avenue exit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

WTF is a "public health infringement?" No one is infringing on your rights. You have no rights on someone elses property. If something is happening there that you do not like, your only recourse is to leave. But no... you seek to force private property owners to make you comfortable.

This has been discussed time and time again when someone whines about the lack of freedom of speech on these forums. These forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner gets to control what is said, and not said.

how many times are you going to repeat THE SAME DAMN THING!?!?!
face the fact that some people do not agree with you and nothing you say is going to change that.

I'm waiting for a valid argument against it. I hoping someone can make one if I challenge these notions.

How many times are people going to repeat the same failed argument made over and over in this thread that I and others have shreded? I note you don't ask that question...

you've been given valid arguments. you're just too much of a fvckface to accept them... instead, you use backwards logic and sophism to try and make a counterpoint (which doesn't work... it only makes people realize that you're very ineffective and don't know how to argue/debate a point logically).

amused, these idiots don't and will not ever understand the private property aspect of it. The government has brainwashed them that they are there to prevent themselves from hurting themselves.

why do you resort to name calling? it doesn't further your point of view.

Your bias is simply incredible. He was responding to a post that called me a "fvckface" among other personal insults and you single him out to chastise for name calling???

Why, because the other guy supports your POV?

he called me a dumbass and a stupid ass earlier in this thread. so YEH i am singling him out and with due cause. :|

shove your bias claim Amused, really :|

Awww, does it sting when you get called out for your obvious bias? I mean, come on. the other guy was calling people "fvckfaces" and you get upset over "idiots?"

Get angry all you want... it won't make that any less obvious.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

i understand what he is trying to say. what he has a hard time with is the fact that people don't agree with him.

but why do you think it should be up to the government and not to the private store owner as to what goes on inside their store? no one is forcing anyone to go into any of these businesses.

because inhaling cigarette smoke is a health risk to patrons and employees. the government is looking out for our health by enacting this law. it's on the same level as seat belt laws.
i don't buy the "just go somewhere else then" argument. i should be free to go into any establishment i want to without being exposed to carcinogens.

some people don't like what i have to say on this, but some people will agree. it doesn't make me a dumbass, a stupid ass, ignorant or whatever insult the other side wants to throw because i have this opinion.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

the no shirt/shoes = no service thing has to do with the establishment's image. it's just like requiring a suit at a certain restaurant, like 1789 down in georgetown.

however, smoking publicly in an enclosed area is a HEALTH risk. that's when the government can step in. whenever there's a health issue to more than just the smoker themselves, the government can step in and make the rule, as well they should.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

WTF is a "public health infringement?" No one is infringing on your rights. You have no rights on someone elses property. If something is happening there that you do not like, your only recourse is to leave. But no... you seek to force private property owners to make you comfortable.

This has been discussed time and time again when someone whines about the lack of freedom of speech on these forums. These forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner gets to control what is said, and not said.

how many times are you going to repeat THE SAME DAMN THING!?!?!
face the fact that some people do not agree with you and nothing you say is going to change that.

I'm waiting for a valid argument against it. I hoping someone can make one if I challenge these notions.

How many times are people going to repeat the same failed argument made over and over in this thread that I and others have shreded? I note you don't ask that question...

you've been given valid arguments. you're just too much of a fvckface to accept them... instead, you use backwards logic and sophism to try and make a counterpoint (which doesn't work... it only makes people realize that you're very ineffective and don't know how to argue/debate a point logically).

amused, these idiots don't and will not ever understand the private property aspect of it. The government has brainwashed them that they are there to prevent themselves from hurting themselves.

why do you resort to name calling? it doesn't further your point of view.

Your bias is simply incredible. He was responding to a post that called me a "fvckface" among other personal insults and you single him out to chastise for name calling???

Why, because the other guy supports your POV?

he called me a dumbass and a stupid ass earlier in this thread. so YEH i am singling him out and with due cause. :|

shove your bias claim Amused, really :|

Awww, does it sting when you get called out for your obvious bias? I mean, come on. the other guy was calling people "fvckfaces" and you get upset over "idiots?"

Get angry all you want... it won't make that any less obvious.

did you not comprehend my response to you? the guy has called me numerous names (dumb ass and stupid ass) that is why i singled him out.

now please, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Spike]

I am all for banning smoking in public places and restarants but bars and cigar louges are supposed to be smokey. Now (here in Seattle) not even those can have smokers in them. It does not affect me at all as I HATE second hand smoke but I feel the law is a bit restrictive.

-spike

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

the no shirt/shoes = no service thing has to do with the establishment's image. it's just like requiring a suit at a certain restaurant, like 1789 down in georgetown.

however, smoking publicly in an enclosed area is a HEALTH risk. that's when the government can step in. whenever there's a health issue to more than just the smoker themselves, the government can step in and make the rule, as well they should.

well it could be a health issue, but so could the "no drink" rule. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but that could also be a health issue. what if someone spills a drink and you slip and break your leg? so what, should the government make it so that you can't have any drinks in bars as well because its a health issue now because you can slip and fall because of the floor being wet/slippery?

and as anyone else knows, every single bar has a slippery floor because come 1am, people are drunk and spilling drinks left and right.

or how about loud music? should the government now set a certain volume level of the music clubs are allowed to play, because the music is so loud its bad for our health and damages our ears?

so now we'll have a club/bar w/out any music and drinks ... sounds like a blast!

(and yes i see this is out on a limb, but its just for the sake of a comparison)

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

the no shirt/shoes = no service thing has to do with the establishment's image. it's just like requiring a suit at a certain restaurant, like 1789 down in georgetown.

however, smoking publicly in an enclosed area is a HEALTH risk. that's when the government can step in. whenever there's a health issue to more than just the smoker themselves, the government can step in and make the rule, as well they should.

well it could be a health issue, but so could the "no drink" rule. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but that could also be a health issue. what if someone spills a drink and you slip and break your leg? so what, should the government make it so that you can't have any drinks in bars as well because its a health issue now because you can slip and fall because of the floor being wet/slippery?

and as anyone else knows, every single bar has a slippery floor because come 1am, people are drunk and spilling drinks left and right.

or how about loud music? should the government now set a certain volume level of the music clubs are allowed to play, because the music is so loud its bad for our health and damages our ears?

so now we'll have a club/bar w/out any music and drinks ... sounds like a blast!

(and yes i see this is out on a limb, but its just for the sake of a comparison)

you are really stretching it imho.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: eits
i swear, it's as if you don't realize that the who, osha, and the cdc see second-hand smoke as a health risk...

you haven't debated jack shyt effectively. what you do is sit back and try to use questions to argue as well as disregard actual valid arguments as being "invalid" by your standards. the fact that you're missing is that you're not exactly a bright guy, so your standards of evaluating what is or isn't a valid argument means jack-ass-crap.

it's not selfish to not want people to impose their arguably disgusting habits on people. what IS selfish is the habit of smoking and disregarding the fact that a majority of people don't like the smell and don't want the health defects to which second-hand smoke is linked. until cigarette smoke can somehow be contained within your personal airspace, it causes harm to other people as well as unfavorably taints the smell of clothing, skin, and hair.

what you're implying is that if non-smokers don't like it, they should leave the establishment. that's quite possibly the worst excuse for a logical argument anyone's used this entire thread, especially whenever it's backed with spew like "i haven't seen a valid argument for robbing private property owners blah blah blah i'm an idiot".

use some common sense.

You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits
i swear, it's as if you don't realize that the who, osha, and the cdc see second-hand smoke as a health risk...

you haven't debated jack shyt effectively. what you do is sit back and try to use questions to argue as well as disregard actual valid arguments as being "invalid" by your standards. the fact that you're missing is that you're not exactly a bright guy, so your standards of evaluating what is or isn't a valid argument means jack-ass-crap.

it's not selfish to not want people to impose their arguably disgusting habits on people. what IS selfish is the habit of smoking and disregarding the fact that a majority of people don't like the smell and don't want the health defects to which second-hand smoke is linked. until cigarette smoke can somehow be contained within your personal airspace, it causes harm to other people as well as unfavorably taints the smell of clothing, skin, and hair.

what you're implying is that if non-smokers don't like it, they should leave the establishment. that's quite possibly the worst excuse for a logical argument anyone's used this entire thread, especially whenever it's backed with spew like "i haven't seen a valid argument for robbing private property owners blah blah blah i'm an idiot".

use some common sense.

You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

but country music can't kill you...
oh wait...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

the no shirt/shoes = no service thing has to do with the establishment's image. it's just like requiring a suit at a certain restaurant, like 1789 down in georgetown.

however, smoking publicly in an enclosed area is a HEALTH risk. that's when the government can step in. whenever there's a health issue to more than just the smoker themselves, the government can step in and make the rule, as well they should.

It is not a "risk" if the person who fears it chooses not to do business with owners who allow smoking. It's called informed risk.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: purbeast0
regardless of who is saying what against Amused, his argument is %100 correct, no matter how you feel about the situation.

the store owners should have the right to decide whether or not the store should allow people to smoke, NOT the government. just like with any other types of rules. some stores don't let you bring in drinks, food, some stores don't let you go in barefeet while others do. its all the same crap, and those types of rules should NOT be up to the government to decide, they should be up to the store owners.

if you don't like the rules of the store/bar, don't go, simple as that. just like people don't shop at best buy or walmart because of the policies they incorporate. no one is forcing you to go to these bars. if you don't want to go to a smoke filled bar, then don't go to that bar that you know will have people smoking inside of it. go elsewhere.

i just do not see what is so hard to understand about that and why Amused has had to go on for pages about that simple argument.

the no shirt/shoes = no service thing has to do with the establishment's image. it's just like requiring a suit at a certain restaurant, like 1789 down in georgetown.

however, smoking publicly in an enclosed area is a HEALTH risk. that's when the government can step in. whenever there's a health issue to more than just the smoker themselves, the government can step in and make the rule, as well they should.

well it could be a health issue, but so could the "no drink" rule. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but that could also be a health issue. what if someone spills a drink and you slip and break your leg? so what, should the government make it so that you can't have any drinks in bars as well because its a health issue now because you can slip and fall because of the floor being wet/slippery?

and as anyone else knows, every single bar has a slippery floor because come 1am, people are drunk and spilling drinks left and right.

or how about loud music? should the government now set a certain volume level of the music clubs are allowed to play, because the music is so loud its bad for our health and damages our ears?

so now we'll have a club/bar w/out any music and drinks ... sounds like a blast!

(and yes i see this is out on a limb, but its just for the sake of a comparison)

alcohol is digested in your body... cigarette smoke isn't. you can convert alcohol into waste products and water... you can't with cigarette smoke. it takes about an hour to clear out 12 oz of alcohol... it takes years to clear up your lungs from smoking. you liver cells regenerate... your lung doesn't.

see the difference?

that's one....

secondly, there's a last call in bars established by the government in the sale of alcohol. that helps cut down with alcohol being such a health issue. also, we enforce no drunk driving and public intoxication laws to prevent alcohol abuse, too.... also imposed by the government for protection of people from themselves and others.

loud music can be stifled by ear plugs... so, the next time you go to the ottobar or the brass monkey and the music is too loud, bring earplugs so that you can hear at a normal decibel. furthermore, loud music is not a HEALTH issue... it's more of a sensory issue. it's not exactly bad for our health in any profound way like smoking is.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits
i swear, it's as if you don't realize that the who, osha, and the cdc see second-hand smoke as a health risk...

you haven't debated jack shyt effectively. what you do is sit back and try to use questions to argue as well as disregard actual valid arguments as being "invalid" by your standards. the fact that you're missing is that you're not exactly a bright guy, so your standards of evaluating what is or isn't a valid argument means jack-ass-crap.

it's not selfish to not want people to impose their arguably disgusting habits on people. what IS selfish is the habit of smoking and disregarding the fact that a majority of people don't like the smell and don't want the health defects to which second-hand smoke is linked. until cigarette smoke can somehow be contained within your personal airspace, it causes harm to other people as well as unfavorably taints the smell of clothing, skin, and hair.

what you're implying is that if non-smokers don't like it, they should leave the establishment. that's quite possibly the worst excuse for a logical argument anyone's used this entire thread, especially whenever it's backed with spew like "i haven't seen a valid argument for robbing private property owners blah blah blah i'm an idiot".

use some common sense.

You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

i'm not saying smoking should be banned from buildings because it's distasteful. i'm saying smoking should be banned from buildings because it poses a health issue. the next time country music caused achy breaky hearts that needed medical attention all across the world, then i think it should be reviewed for being banned.... until then, that's just a musical preference some people have. besides, people don't go to country western bars to listen to 50 cent. you're only going to find people who either like or don't mind country music in country bars.

conversely, you'll find smokers and non-smokers in bars... the only problem is that one group of people has a harmful habit that imposes on others while the other doesn't. favor should go to those who don't in order to eliminate health risks.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

seems no one wants to tackle that one.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Are you talking about standards for cleanliness and such? If so, it's completely different. Not to mention those apply to the staff and food preparation and such, not the clientele. No one is going to get food poisoning from breathing some errant second-hand smoke.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

really Sampson, you are sounding like a typical smoker; harsh, inconsiderate, and just concerned with your rights. but hey, we're bad guys for wanting the same rights.

i don't see what the issue is for you. it seems you've found a goldmine of a bar in NY state that lets you smoke it up. kudos - have a good one there, and bitch about how bad non-smokers are, and how big brother is stealing all your rights. ha.

Psst, I'm not a smoker.

There is nothing harsh or inconsiderate with allowing business owners to decide if it's a smoking establishment or not. You have no argument against allowing that, period.
You have the same rights, if not more. Smokers now have to jump over hurdles in order to enjoy their rights while non-smokers don't have to do anything except exist. Personal rights should involve nothing more than existing, so why is it smokers must do more than exist in order to have their rights?

I dont have to specifically bitch about non-smokers, I will bitch about any fool that supports the government restriction of ones personal rights as well as a private business owners rights. I don't see how you can provide any argument against letting private business owners choose their stance on smoking.

Have fun arguing a losing battle with Amused, no offence of course.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

So why don't they just post the results of a failed health inspection on the door rather than shutting the restaurant down? Let the consumers assume the risk if they choose.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Are you talking about standards for cleanliness and such? If so, it's completely different. Not to mention those apply to the staff and food preparation and such, not the clientele. No one is going to get food poisoning from breathing some errant second-hand smoke.

It's not really that different. Health codes don't generally apply to customers because customers have no direct contact with each other. It doesn't matter if a customer doesn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom, because he won't handle another customer's food. Cigarette smoke does pass to other customers though.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

So why don't they just post the results of a failed health inspection on the door rather than shutting the restaurant down? Let the consumers assume the risk if they choose.

They do that already. Only when the case is especially egregious and repeated do they shut it down

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

actually, it makes sense because innocent people aren't being hurt. if those who want to hurt themselves WANT to hurt themselves without hurting others, they can.

that's called "making sense," regardless of whether or not i agree with it.