Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[CrazyShiz]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz

Originally posted by: Vic
Yay! 100k people die from alcohol each year. No provable documented deaths from secondhand smoke. We are making this world a safer place goddamnit! Where we can drink our alcoholic poison without the threat of secondhand smoke!

The difference is, you can't make someone drink. You CAN however, force someone to suck in your gross smoke by way of proximity.


If smoking didn't affect people who didn't want to be affected, it wouldn't be banned indoors. Simple as that.

I'm sorry... are you saying that you go into BARS to not drink?

lol, no I'm saying I don't go into bars to SMOKE. The only way this law would be rediculous would be if they banned smoking in cigar lounges, where the whole point is to smoke. Or banned the consumption of alcohol in bars. It may be enjoyable to smoke in a bar, but it is not one of the sole points of the establishment.

And you own all these bars you go into? That you get to decide the "sole points of the establishment"?

That's a valid point. I suppose it depends on how much regulation you believe is nesessary for a business. (and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron).

The number of bars that willingly forbid smoking on their premesis or created a separate place for it are so low when compared to the number that don't do anything for non-smokers, that the government felt it was nessesary to write a law.

Personally, I love the law, but it would be interesting to see a study on the corelation between drinking and smoking. If smokers are indeed in the minority (which I suspect), there really is no reason for everyone to be subjected to their smoke. (and if the # of smoke and smoke-free bars actually correlated with the # of smoking and non-smoking patrons, there wouldn't be a problem - or a need for regulation)


Just my .02

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
That's a valid point. I suppose it depends on how much regulation you believe is nesessary for a business. (and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron).

The number of bars that willingly forbid smoking on their premesis or created a separate place for it are so low when compared to the number that don't do anything for non-smokers, that the government felt it was nessesary to write a law.

Personally, I love the law, but it would be interesting to see a study on the corelation between drinking and smoking. If smokers are indeed in the minority (which I suspect), there really is no reason for everyone to be subjected to their smoke. (and if the # of smoke and smoke-free bars actually correlated with the # of smoking and non-smoking patrons, there wouldn't be a problem - or a need for regulation)


Just my .02

Really? Because voluntary non-smoking bars are everywhere around where I live. Maybe you fascists just didn't give them a chance and went for the law first. But then again, you bring up an example of a company that willfully violated already existing laws while discussing a lack of regulation, so what other choice do you give me but to assume that? (Besides that you might just be ignorant.) Personally, I think you just want non-smoking bar laws because you're chickensh!t and don't want your wife to know when you've snuck out to the nudie bar. What other reason would cause you to bring up majority-rules democracy while ignoring the property rights of others?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

I certainly hope you don't drive an automobile powered by a gasoline(or diesel)-fueled internal combustion engine. Because otherwise I'd have to call you a hypocrite of the absolute worst sort.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

I certainly hope you don't drive an automobile powered by a gasoline(or diesel)-fueled internal combustion engine. Because otherwise I'd have to call you a hypocrite of the absolute worst sort.

Cars are a necessary evil. Smoking is not. I'm not saying that smokers are making our environment unclean or anything (though that is true) - that is not my point.

Also I ride my bike when I can to avoid polluting.

What pisses me off is I'm up in San Fran...enjoying a nice day with the nice bay-area air and breeze...and there a bunch of stupid smokers walking around as if forcing their bad habbit on others shouldn't even concern them. It's ridiculous. They do not respect non-smokers at all.

 

[CrazyShiz]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
That's a valid point. I suppose it depends on how much regulation you believe is nesessary for a business. (and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron).

The number of bars that willingly forbid smoking on their premesis or created a separate place for it are so low when compared to the number that don't do anything for non-smokers, that the government felt it was nessesary to write a law.

Personally, I love the law, but it would be interesting to see a study on the corelation between drinking and smoking. If smokers are indeed in the minority (which I suspect), there really is no reason for everyone to be subjected to their smoke. (and if the # of smoke and smoke-free bars actually correlated with the # of smoking and non-smoking patrons, there wouldn't be a problem - or a need for regulation)


Just my .02

Really? Because voluntary non-smoking bars are everywhere around where I live. Maybe you fascists just didn't give them a chance and went for the law first. But then again, you bring up an example of a company that willfully violated already existing laws while discussing a lack of regulation, so what other choice do you give me but to assume that? (Besides that you might just be ignorant.) Personally, I think you just want non-smoking bar laws because you're chickensh!t and don't want your wife to know when you've snuck out to the nudie bar. What other reason would cause you to bring up majority-rules democracy while ignoring the property rights of others?

Wow, I was trying to have a nice intelligent debate, and you did make a very good point about an establishment's property rights.

But since you can't seem to see an issue from a perspective other than your own, and since you devolved the conversation into namecalling, I don't see the point in trying to have an honest intellectual debate with you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Cars are a necessary evil. Smoking is not. I'm not saying that smokers are making our environment unclean or anything (though that is true) - that is not my point.

Also I ride my bike when I can to avoid polluting.

What pisses me off is I'm up in San Fran...enjoying a nice day with the nice bay-area air and breeze...and there a bunch of stupid smokers walking around as if forcing their bad habbit on others shouldn't even concern them. It's ridiculous. They do not respect non-smokers at all.

Really? So you walking into another person's property to drink alcohol is a necessary evil, but the property owner's right to allow people to smoke on his property is not?

Yaknow, I find it distasteful when people stick their noses up other peoples' asses... and then complain about the smell...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
Wow, I was trying to have a nice intelligent debate, and you did make a very good point about an establishment's property rights.

But since you can't seem to see an issue from a perspective other than your own, and since you devolved the conversation into namecalling, I don't see the point in trying to have an honest intellectual debate with you.

What did you expect? A company engages in massive stock fraud, violating almost every law in the SEC books, and you say "and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron" as though Enron weren't regulated. That's like saying that murderers are perfect examples that murder isn't against the law. At that point I realized that I wasn't talking with an intelligent person so there was no point in pretending any more.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Cars are a necessary evil. Smoking is not. I'm not saying that smokers are making our environment unclean or anything (though that is true) - that is not my point.

Also I ride my bike when I can to avoid polluting.

What pisses me off is I'm up in San Fran...enjoying a nice day with the nice bay-area air and breeze...and there a bunch of stupid smokers walking around as if forcing their bad habbit on others shouldn't even concern them. It's ridiculous. They do not respect non-smokers at all.

Really? So you walking into another person's property to drink alcohol is a necessary evil, but the property owner's right to allow people to smoke on his property is not?

Yaknow, I find it distasteful when people stick their noses up other peoples' asses... and then complain about the smell...

I'm not talking about any place in particular. I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke outside in public or inside in public. They should do it at their own homes.

Having a drink at a bar does not impose a disgusting smell or habbit upon another person. You cannot compare that to smoking.

Also...if smokers can just smoke outside in public, then I think I should be allowed to impose an equally distasteful smell upon all smokers whenever they are outside. How about dog poo? Yeah if all smokers agree to that then I will let them smoke outside.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
Wow, I was trying to have a nice intelligent debate, and you did make a very good point about an establishment's property rights.

But since you can't seem to see an issue from a perspective other than your own, and since you devolved the conversation into namecalling, I don't see the point in trying to have an honest intellectual debate with you.

What did you expect? A company engages in massive stock fraud, violating almost every law in the SEC books, and you say "and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron" as though Enron weren't regulated. That's like saying that murderers are perfect examples that murder isn't against the law. At that point I realized that I wasn't talking with an intelligent person so there was no point in pretending any more.

I think he means that even though Enron was regulated, they still got away with that. If there were NOT regulated who knows what they would have done. That is why regulation is needed. I think he was commenting on the LEVEL of regulation.

 

[CrazyShiz]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
Wow, I was trying to have a nice intelligent debate, and you did make a very good point about an establishment's property rights.

But since you can't seem to see an issue from a perspective other than your own, and since you devolved the conversation into namecalling, I don't see the point in trying to have an honest intellectual debate with you.

What did you expect? A company engages in massive stock fraud, violating almost every law in the SEC books, and you say "and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron" as though Enron weren't regulated. That's like saying that murderers are perfect examples that murder isn't against the law. At that point I realized that I wasn't talking with an intelligent person so there was no point in pretending any more.

I think he means that even though Enron was regulated, they still got away with that. If there were NOT regulated who knows what they would have done. That is why regulation is needed. I think he was commenting on the LEVEL of regulation.

:thumbsup: What he said :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Cars are a necessary evil. Smoking is not. I'm not saying that smokers are making our environment unclean or anything (though that is true) - that is not my point.

Also I ride my bike when I can to avoid polluting.

What pisses me off is I'm up in San Fran...enjoying a nice day with the nice bay-area air and breeze...and there a bunch of stupid smokers walking around as if forcing their bad habbit on others shouldn't even concern them. It's ridiculous. They do not respect non-smokers at all.

Really? So you walking into another person's property to drink alcohol is a necessary evil, but the property owner's right to allow people to smoke on his property is not?

Yaknow, I find it distasteful when people stick their noses up other peoples' asses... and then complain about the smell...

I'm not talking about any place in particular. I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke outside in public or inside in public. They should do it at their own homes.

Having a drink at a bar does not impose a disgusting smell or habbit upon another person. You cannot compare that to smoking.

Also...if smokers can just smoke outside in public, then I think I should be allowed to impose an equally distasteful smell upon all smokers whenever they are outside. How about dog poo? Yeah if all smokers agree to that then I will let them smoke outside.

Oh c'mon... you claim to be offended by smokers outside while on the SF bay at windy Pier 39. Clearly you have a king-sized stick up your ass and think you do no wrong or anything that ever offends anyone.

And that is not what he posted. Let me repost it here for you: "... and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron."

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OdiN
Cars are a necessary evil. Smoking is not. I'm not saying that smokers are making our environment unclean or anything (though that is true) - that is not my point.

Also I ride my bike when I can to avoid polluting.

What pisses me off is I'm up in San Fran...enjoying a nice day with the nice bay-area air and breeze...and there a bunch of stupid smokers walking around as if forcing their bad habbit on others shouldn't even concern them. It's ridiculous. They do not respect non-smokers at all.

Really? So you walking into another person's property to drink alcohol is a necessary evil, but the property owner's right to allow people to smoke on his property is not?

Yaknow, I find it distasteful when people stick their noses up other peoples' asses... and then complain about the smell...

I'm not talking about any place in particular. I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke outside in public or inside in public. They should do it at their own homes.

Having a drink at a bar does not impose a disgusting smell or habbit upon another person. You cannot compare that to smoking.

Also...if smokers can just smoke outside in public, then I think I should be allowed to impose an equally distasteful smell upon all smokers whenever they are outside. How about dog poo? Yeah if all smokers agree to that then I will let them smoke outside.

Oh c'mon... you claim to be offended by smokers outside while on the SF bay at windy Pier 39. Clearly you have a king-sized stick up your ass and think you do no wrong or anything that ever offends anyone.

And that is not what he posted. Let me repost it here for you: "... and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron."

Just because you interpreted what he said incorrectly.....


And yes I'm greatly offended by smoke. It causes me to cough and upsets my throat and it smells disgusting. Nothing I do forces that type of circumstance onto others.

I never said on Pier 39...just walking around the city with all the people outside on the sidewalks...lots of smokers with no respect.

I'm sure that I offend people. But nothing that causes health problems or causes them to have to smell disgusting substances that they have no desire to have to smell.

 

[Bozono]

It's been the same deal in Ontario for the past 3 years. Even down to it being legal to smoke in the Casinos. It p.o.ed me at first. but people did adapt pretty quickly. Bars really didn't lose any business at all. Standing outside in -15c to pufff on a shmoke never gets easier though.

 

[daniel1113]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that all of these anti-smoking bans have been passed as worker protection bills, not as public health ordinances, since there are no reported cases of anyone dieing or otherwise being injured from second hand smoke in a restaurant. Anyone know for sure?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

i think Blairs going for a national smoking ban here.

definately some bars/pubs i go in now ban smoking

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: OdiN
I'm not talking about any place in particular. I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke outside in public or inside in public. They should do it at their own homes.

Having a drink at a bar does not impose a disgusting smell or habbit upon another person. You cannot compare that to smoking.

Also...if smokers can just smoke outside in public, then I think I should be allowed to impose an equally distasteful smell upon all smokers whenever they are outside. How about dog poo? Yeah if all smokers agree to that then I will let them smoke outside.

As Vic mentioned before, a bar or restaurant is not a public establishment. The issue many people have with this law is that you are taking away a right from the business owner to decide whether or not they allow smoking in their private establishment. If either the workers or patrons decide that the second-hand smoke is dangerous to their health, or if they simply hated the smell, they are free to go somewhere else.

Knock yourself out.

 

[jjones]

Why the exemption for casinos? Oh, I get it, it's okay to be hypocritical when one of your cash cows is involved.

 

[imported_LoKe]

It's also illegal in most of Canada.

 

[waggy]

I think this is nuts.

I hate smokeing. I do not allow it in my home or car. but the goverment should not be forcing this on company's. It should be up to the bar to make that decision. if a patron does not want to inhale the smoke they are free to leave. If they want to go to a bar and they all are full of smoke then they can start a smoke free bar.

 

[isasir]

Been like this in NY for awhile, and I'm, for the most part, all for it. I do miss smoking in strip clubs tho' (Only place I really smoke).

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yea for the futher erosion of private property rights.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Amused
Yea for the futher erosion of private property rights.

No it's not an erosion of private property rights.

Just because the establishment is operating on private property should not exempt the establishment from proper health protocol.

The private establishment serves the public.

The fact that the establishment is private should not mean that the individuals that smoke get defacto right to corrupt the air that non-smokers have to breathe.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
yay for fascism ++

yay for protecting non-smokers from the ignorant and self-centered ++

 

[jfall]

What actually happens if someone gets caught smoking in a bar/resturant when there is a ban in place? Does the smoker get in any sort of legal trouble, or is the resturant at fault