I'm taking a stand!

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
In CA, it's illegal to smoke most places, including restaurants and bars. For whatever reason, the city of Santa Cruz doesn't see fit to enforce that little law. So I've decided to stop patronizing bars where they allow smoking. All my clothes reek of smoke (so now all my dirty clothes will until I do laundry), and I just sniffed my forearms (I was wearing a T-shirt), and I can smell it there too. Goddamn. I suppose I could find some agency to complain to, but if they're not enforcing it now, they probably don't care. Ugh. I'm feeling pretty good about looking forward to saying, "No, I won't go to that bar, sorry." They won't ever notice my missing business, but at least I won't have to convince myself I don't mind anymore.

Way to be an informed and intelligent consumer. Maybe if other people who do not like smoke did the same thing you did, CA and the rest of the country wouldn't have unnecessary laws mandating smoke free bars.

 

[Nitemare]

If you don't like it don't go there, stop making the government tell private individuals what they can and can't do on their property.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I want to be able to have SOME establishments such as bars where smoking is available. Not all of them. What is it that you want?

so open up a bar in your own home.

i've already stated what i want.

That doesn't make any more sense than smokers telling all smokers to stay at home if they want to drink in a smoke free environment. I just don't get it Mosh. How do you not understand that what you are asking for isn't selfish? Why should non-smokers get the whole pie and smokers be left with crumbs?

sure it's selfish and so is thinking you can go to any establishment and turn it into a smoke filled hell at the expense of those who don't want to breath in that stinky carcinogenic exhaust.

smoker and non-smokers are both selfish on this issue.

you're a smoker i take it?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Not if it's against the law and in CA, MA, NYC, etc you do not have the right to smoke in a public establishment.

Anything to discourage smoking is a bonus when tax money has to be used to help pay the medical costs for those that chose to smoke.

Don't bring tax money into this argument. You know just as much as I do of the gazillion examples of how tax money "shouldn't" have to be used for this and that thanks to the desires of people that you may not agree with. ATOT has beaten that subject to a pulp and the bottom line is that each individual in this country would prefer taxes to be used in such a way which benefits themselves and people like them. The government's job is to try and use the taxes in the ways which benefit the freedoms over everyone. Now, how well they do that is obviously subject to a ridiculous amount of debate so let's not take that one any further.

Why? You bring up rights? Same thing. If tax payers don't want something, they go to their legislators who then make laws like banning smoking in public establishments (ie bars). If you don't like it then change the law.

Being too selfish with your "rights" and tax money leads to gradual destruction of freedoms. It's important to not think about yourself all of the time and consider the entire country. Make decisions and fight for the laws which preserve everyone's freedoms and fairly distribute the ability to make a choice to everyone. In the case of smoking in bars, the obvious answer is to have some bars which permit smoking and others that do not. In places where the subject is entirely not enforced, this is exactly what you end up having.

 

[TechBoyJK]

when I see people smoke cigarrettes, I immediately classify them as fucking idiots.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
well stated. i don't mean to seem overbearing, i'm just passionate about the subject. (as if you couldn't tell. )

It's ok to be passionate. Just understand that it is too much passion and faith in certain beliefs which have led to a great many decisions in the past which very much restrict the freedoms of others. That goes way beyond our country. A perfect example is the UK. They weren't always as bad as they are right now. They started small and gradually got worse and worse and worse.

The UK is a place where freedoms go to DIE.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
well stated. i don't mean to seem overbearing, i'm just passionate about the subject. (as if you couldn't tell. )

It's ok to be passionate. Just understand that it is too much passion and faith in certain beliefs which have led to a great many decisions in the past which very much restrict the freedoms of others. That goes way beyond our country. A perfect example is the UK. They weren't always as bad as they are right now. They started small and gradually got worse and worse and worse.

you don't get it. you are stuck on smoker's rights being taken away and don't pay any never mind to non-smoker's rights.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I want to be able to have SOME establishments such as bars where smoking is available. Not all of them. What is it that you want?

so open up a bar in your own home.

i've already stated what i want.

That doesn't make any more sense than smokers telling all smokers to stay at home if they want to drink in a smoke free environment. I just don't get it Mosh. How do you not understand that what you are asking for isn't selfish? Why should non-smokers get the whole pie and smokers be left with crumbs?

sure it's selfish and so is thinking you can go to any establishment and turn it into a smoke filled hell at the expense of those who don't want to breath in that stinky carcinogenic exhaust.

Not ANY establishment, only establishments that WELCOME smoking.

 

[child of wonder]

There's a really nice bar in the town I live that serves nothing but imported beers and ales, most from Belgium. It's got a fireplace, jazz music, plus couches and recliners to sit on. Best of all it's non-smoking. It's my wife and I's favorite place.

We don't go to bars very much but the few times we do it sucks coming home reeking of smoke.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I want to be able to have SOME establishments such as bars where smoking is available. Not all of them. What is it that you want?

so open up a bar in your own home.

i've already stated what i want.

That doesn't make any more sense than smokers telling all smokers to stay at home if they want to drink in a smoke free environment. I just don't get it Mosh. How do you not understand that what you are asking for isn't selfish? Why should non-smokers get the whole pie and smokers be left with crumbs?

sure it's selfish and so is thinking you can go to any establishment and turn it into a smoke filled hell at the expense of those who don't want to breath in that stinky carcinogenic exhaust.

Not ANY establishment, only establishments that WELCOME smoking.

before the smoking ban in NY i don't know of any bar/restaurant that didn't allow smoking.
sure, there were smoking and non-smoking sections, but c'mon, like the smoke magically stopped at that wall between them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

haha and I laugh at how dearly people want to hold on to thier "right" to smoke around others.

I hold someone smoking around me on the same level as someone shitting their pants and not being able to control it.

It stinks and its nasty, and they can't help it. THey had to.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Not if it's against the law and in CA, MA, NYC, etc you do not have the right to smoke in a public establishment.

Anything to discourage smoking is a bonus when tax money has to be used to help pay the medical costs for those that chose to smoke.

Don't bring tax money into this argument. You know just as much as I do of the gazillion examples of how tax money "shouldn't" have to be used for this and that thanks to the desires of people that you may not agree with. ATOT has beaten that subject to a pulp and the bottom line is that each individual in this country would prefer taxes to be used in such a way which benefits themselves and people like them. The government's job is to try and use the taxes in the ways which benefit the freedoms over everyone. Now, how well they do that is obviously subject to a ridiculous amount of debate so let's not take that one any further.

Why? You bring up rights? Same thing. If tax payers don't want something, they go to their legislators who then make laws like banning smoking in public establishments (ie bars). If you don't like it then change the law.

Being too selfish with your "rights" and tax money leads to gradual destruction of freedoms. It's important to not think about yourself all of the time and consider the entire country. Make decisions and fight for the laws which preserve everyone's freedoms and fairly distribute the ability to make a choice to everyone. In the case of smoking in bars, the obvious answer is to have some bars which permit smoking and others that do not. In places where the subject is entirely not enforced, this is exactly what you end up having.

And of your course, you're not considering employee rights. Again, you're being too self-fish with your rights.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
well stated. i don't mean to seem overbearing, i'm just passionate about the subject. (as if you couldn't tell. )

It's ok to be passionate. Just understand that it is too much passion and faith in certain beliefs which have led to a great many decisions in the past which very much restrict the freedoms of others. That goes way beyond our country. A perfect example is the UK. They weren't always as bad as they are right now. They started small and gradually got worse and worse and worse.

you don't get it. you are stuck on smoker's rights being taken away and don't pay any never mind to non-smoker's rights.

What about the property owner's rights?

Shouldn't he be able to decide?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I want to be able to have SOME establishments such as bars where smoking is available. Not all of them. What is it that you want?

so open up a bar in your own home.

i've already stated what i want.

That doesn't make any more sense than smokers telling all smokers to stay at home if they want to drink in a smoke free environment. I just don't get it Mosh. How do you not understand that what you are asking for isn't selfish? Why should non-smokers get the whole pie and smokers be left with crumbs?

sure it's selfish and so is thinking you can go to any establishment and turn it into a smoke filled hell at the expense of those who don't want to breath in that stinky carcinogenic exhaust.

smoker and non-smokers are both selfish on this issue.

you're a smoker i take it?

I only smoke when I go out with a bunch of friends to a place that actually allows smoking which is maybe once or twice a month. I am not a regular. I never have nic fits.

The problem here is that you are playing on the side of an extreme which is asking for 100% non-smoking establishments because it appears (correct me if I am mistaken) that you believe that the only other alternative would result in every bar and club being a smoke filled choking hazard. The truth is that it doesn't have to be this way. There are ways to meet in the middle. For example, in many parts of Florida (possibly the whole state?) what they do to give everyone their slice of the pie is to only enforce anti-smoking regulations on establishments where a certain percentage of the products being sold is a form of food. What this has resulted in is that there are both a good number of bars that allow smoking and a good number that do not. Both types make pretty much the same amount of money because the law has done a good job of splitting up the customer pool. It's a great solution. Everyone in a single community gets exactly what they want and they get a lot of it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
well stated. i don't mean to seem overbearing, i'm just passionate about the subject. (as if you couldn't tell. )

It's ok to be passionate. Just understand that it is too much passion and faith in certain beliefs which have led to a great many decisions in the past which very much restrict the freedoms of others. That goes way beyond our country. A perfect example is the UK. They weren't always as bad as they are right now. They started small and gradually got worse and worse and worse.

you don't get it. you are stuck on smoker's rights being taken away and don't pay any never mind to non-smoker's rights.

What about the property owner's rights?

*hands Nightmare a pitchfork*

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

And of your course, you're not considering employee rights. Again, you're being too self-fish with your rights.

Why would any employee who has an issue with smoking even apply at a smoking establishment? You know what I am not cool with? Being covered in grease. You don't see me applying at any place which involves me handling food now do you? If the people of the US need that sort of thing to be micromanaged by the government then god help us because no one else will.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I want to be able to have SOME establishments such as bars where smoking is available. Not all of them. What is it that you want?

so open up a bar in your own home.

i've already stated what i want.

That doesn't make any more sense than smokers telling all smokers to stay at home if they want to drink in a smoke free environment. I just don't get it Mosh. How do you not understand that what you are asking for isn't selfish? Why should non-smokers get the whole pie and smokers be left with crumbs?

sure it's selfish and so is thinking you can go to any establishment and turn it into a smoke filled hell at the expense of those who don't want to breath in that stinky carcinogenic exhaust.

smoker and non-smokers are both selfish on this issue.

you're a smoker i take it?

I only smoke when I go out with a bunch of friends to a place that actually allows smoking which is maybe once or twice a month. I am not a regular. I never have nic fits.

The problem here is that you are playing on the side of an extreme which is asking for 100% non-smoking establishments because it appears (correct me if I am mistaken) that you believe that the only other alternative would result in every bar and club being a smoke filled choking hazard. The truth is that it doesn't have to be this way. There are ways to meet in the middle. For example, in many parts of Florida (possibly the whole state?) what they do to give everyone their slice of the pie is to only enforce anti-smoking regulations on establishments where a certain percentage of the products being sold is a form of food. What this has resulted in is that there are both a good number of bars that allow smoking and a good number that do not. Both types make pretty much the same amount of money because the law has done a good job of splitting up the customer pool. It's a great solution. Everyone in a single community gets exactly what they want and they get a lot of it.

wouldn't it be nice if everyone really got exactly what they wanted? and a lot of it.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
-snip-

Techboy do you really believe all the stuff you've so far posted or are you just trolling?

Honestly curious.

Smoking is an indulgence some partake in to enjoy themselves.

It's not about the right of the smoker here, it is about the right of the property owner to allow people to smoke there or not smoke there.

That's all the indulgence I'm going to give you on the matter, as unlike some of the others, you haven't shown any intent to have a well-mannered discussion.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
wouldn't it be nice if everyone really got exactly what they wanted? and a lot of it.

Look...all I am trying to say is that if Florida can do it then everyone can do it. Our government isn't exactly world class. :laugh:

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
wouldn't it be nice if everyone really got exactly what they wanted? and a lot of it.

Look...all I am trying to say is that if Florida can do it then everyone can do it. Our government isn't exactly world class. :laugh:

I'm sorry you live in Florida.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
well stated. i don't mean to seem overbearing, i'm just passionate about the subject. (as if you couldn't tell. )

It's ok to be passionate. Just understand that it is too much passion and faith in certain beliefs which have led to a great many decisions in the past which very much restrict the freedoms of others. That goes way beyond our country. A perfect example is the UK. They weren't always as bad as they are right now. They started small and gradually got worse and worse and worse.

you don't get it. you are stuck on smoker's rights being taken away and don't pay any never mind to non-smoker's rights.

What about the property owner's rights?

*hands Nightmare a pitchfork*

I used to smoke and would appreciate more smoke-free facilities, but I absolutely abhor and detest allowing the government to trample on the rights of property owners.

But then again, the government has been stealing land, imminent domain, and telling owners what they can do in their own place of business for years...ie smoking ban in NY and the Pruneyard doctrine in Cali(says protestors/trespassers have a right to be on your private property).

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: moshquerade
wouldn't it be nice if everyone really got exactly what they wanted? and a lot of it.

Look...all I am trying to say is that if Florida can do it then everyone can do it. Our government isn't exactly world class. :laugh:

I'm sorry you live in Florida.

Me too

Although I would be lying if I said my time here has really sucked that bad. It's only really been an issue since insurance companies went bananas over home insurance thanks to the hurricanes over the past 5 years across the country. The Housing boom in South Florida has also been a drag but at least that is more temporary.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
-snip-

Techboy do you really believe all the stuff you've so far posted or are you just trolling?

Honestly curious.

Smoking is an indulgence some partake in to enjoy themselves.

It's not about the right of the smoker here, it is about the right of the property owner to allow people to smoke there or not smoke there.

That's all the indulgence I'm going to give you on the matter, as unlike some of the others, you haven't shown any intent to have a well-mannered discussion.

I'm not trolling. I'm laughing at smokers so stuck on arguing their rights. Fuck you (smokers, not YOU) and your "rights".

It's an incredibly fucking stupid activity to partake in. Much like street racing, driving motorcycles on public roads, huffing paint, etc. Just this morning, I was in an elevator in a parking garage and as soon as I get in, some old lady lights up a cigarrette. I looked at her while we in a closed off room, and said "are you fucking serious lady? I should punch you". I covered my mouth, started acting like I was choking, and barged out of the elevator. I'm completely sick of the smokers' entitlement attitude. Granted this lady was extreme, as not all smoker's want to get sucker punched, which is why they don't do things so rude, but it's still an extreme of a problem. And even the non extreme aspects of the problem suck.

Smoking is a man made plague that will be eventually irradicated (sp? sorry its early) from society. The smoking bans you are seeing is the start of that. I don't buy the enjoyment thing. Most people started smoking when they were kids/teens to be cool and they are addicted to it like crack. The reason people "enjoy it" is because they get stressed the fuck out when they don't get their fix, and getting their fix makes them feel better. They enjoy that.

Edit: second hand smoke smells like dog shit. Only worse.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is why CA can eat a D.

It shouldn't be outlawed period. It should be up to the owner. That way, everyone gets their piece of the pie.

It's spreading, too, Nebraska is just about as much of a red state as there is, and the Governor signed a state-wide ban into law.

?In weighing the merits of this bill, I took into account the valid concerns about local control and the rights of business owners, as well as the health concerns and the rights of the public to clean indoor air,? Heineman said in a statement.
(Except, you know, for the part about actually taking into account the rights of business owners and city/county control)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is why CA can eat a D.

It shouldn't be outlawed period. It should be up to the owner. That way, everyone gets their piece of the pie.

It's spreading, too, Nebraska is just about as much of a red state as there is, and the Governor signed a state-wide ban into law.

?In weighing the merits of this bill, I took into account the valid concerns about local control and the rights of business owners, as well as the health concerns and the rights of the public to clean indoor air,? Heineman said in a statement.
(Except, you know, for the part about actually taking into account the rights of business owners and city/county control)

Yep, here in Iowa they slammed through a smoking ban too. Oh wait... it exempts casinos which happen to be state run(except the Indian casinos).
....but they did it for the public health... Screw the casino employee health...right? What a load of BS.