Smoking Now Banned in All Connecticut Bars

[xXped0thugXx]

im just gonna put in a huge wad of chewing tobacco and spit it in peoples drinks on bar stools and all over the bar, that will show you non smokers

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: DeathByAnts

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Why not ban free speech in private while you are at it?

I would like to see a pub owner take this up to the Supreme Court so it can get bitch slapped down

<---Former smoker who believes you should be able to do wtf you want to do in your own place and how you want to do it.

<---Person who has never and will never smoke and thinks idiots like you should be shot

Why'd you call him an idiot?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
With public places, there is no doubt in my mind that smoking should be banned, because those places are for the whole spectrum of the population to enjoy, and so nobody should have to endure the possibility of health problems from somebody else smoking to enjoy them...

For private places, I waver a bit, but come to the same conclusion... On one hand, I think that the government shouldn't interfere with what somebody does in their own home/business. You don't have to go there, and nothing states that you inherently have the right to go to every private place. If there were no non-smoking law, I'd just refuse to go to a restaurant that chose to allow smoking, because it makes me sick to my stomach; but, if you wanted to go to a smoking place and smoke, go ahead. Sometimes, however, issues have less to do with "personal rights," and more to do with public health. The "businesses should be able to do what they want" argument would also mean that there should be no public health laws, building codes, etc. On this line of reasoning, I could cook up meals on my toilet seat, and you'd just learn better when you got sick. The government is not stepping in to take away your rights because people don't like smoke, they do it because it's harmful. I don't like people's ugly clothes and I won't be able to get them banned. This is about public health, and since we don't have responsibility for it, sometimes we don't even think about it.

I also remember (in response to somebody's comment about waitresses hating this law), that a good deal of backing was given to the law in some places by waitresses who didn't want to have to inhale second-hand smoke for hours on end in order to make a living. You might tell them to find a new place of work... they might tell you to just go outside to smoke. When your rights and their rights interfere, I'm glad that we err on the side of public health.

Simply put, if you don't like it, don't go/work there.

And what about alcohol? Let's ban that too since it creates hangovers, beer googles, and accidents?

Because it weren't for Beer guys like BostonRedSox would never get laid..at least by the opposite sex!

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Still no rebuttal to my post, eh? BostonRedSox, you were so quick to whip out the playground barbs when it came to Howard Stern, yet you're avoiding this particular bull.

What gives? Tell me why it's ok for the government to tell a private businessman that he cannot allow smoking in his bar, but it's not ok for the government to tell a private broadcaster that he can't say certain things on the air?

In both cases, if someone doesn't like what's going on, they can turn off the radio or patronize a different bar that does not allow smoking.

Actually, it's extremely different. In Connecticut, there is (was) absolutely NO non-smoking clubs or bars. Therefore, I was forced to NOT patronize a bar or club if I didn't want to be in a smoke filled environment, otherwise, I'd have to suffer. The choice wasn't offered to me. If someone doesn't want to listen to Howard Stern, they DO have a choice to turn to another radio station, or turn the radio off completely. Now, in this instance, there is a choice. Smokers and non-smokers alike can both patronize the same establishment. The smokers are only inconvienienced a tad by having to step outdoors to smoke their cancer sticks, where as I shouldn't have to be forced to step outside to breath fresh oxygen and keep my health in tact.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
With public places, there is no doubt in my mind that smoking should be banned, because those places are for the whole spectrum of the population to enjoy, and so nobody should have to endure the possibility of health problems from somebody else smoking to enjoy them...

For private places, I waver a bit, but come to the same conclusion... On one hand, I think that the government shouldn't interfere with what somebody does in their own home/business. You don't have to go there, and nothing states that you inherently have the right to go to every private place. If there were no non-smoking law, I'd just refuse to go to a restaurant that chose to allow smoking, because it makes me sick to my stomach; but, if you wanted to go to a smoking place and smoke, go ahead. Sometimes, however, issues have less to do with "personal rights," and more to do with public health. The "businesses should be able to do what they want" argument would also mean that there should be no public health laws, building codes, etc. On this line of reasoning, I could cook up meals on my toilet seat, and you'd just learn better when you got sick. The government is not stepping in to take away your rights because people don't like smoke, they do it because it's harmful. I don't like people's ugly clothes and I won't be able to get them banned. This is about public health, and since we don't have responsibility for it, sometimes we don't even think about it.

I also remember (in response to somebody's comment about waitresses hating this law), that a good deal of backing was given to the law in some places by waitresses who didn't want to have to inhale second-hand smoke for hours on end in order to make a living. You might tell them to find a new place of work... they might tell you to just go outside to smoke. When your rights and their rights interfere, I'm glad that we err on the side of public health.

Simply put, if you don't like it, don't go/work there.

And what about alcohol? Let's ban that too since it creates hangovers, beer googles, and accidents?

Because it weren't for Beer guys like BostonRedSox would never get laid..at least by the opposite sex!

At least I don't have to resort to stalking someone on ATOT and moving clear across the country in order to try and get laid.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
With public places, there is no doubt in my mind that smoking should be banned, because those places are for the whole spectrum of the population to enjoy, and so nobody should have to endure the possibility of health problems from somebody else smoking to enjoy them...

For private places, I waver a bit, but come to the same conclusion... On one hand, I think that the government shouldn't interfere with what somebody does in their own home/business. You don't have to go there, and nothing states that you inherently have the right to go to every private place. If there were no non-smoking law, I'd just refuse to go to a restaurant that chose to allow smoking, because it makes me sick to my stomach; but, if you wanted to go to a smoking place and smoke, go ahead. Sometimes, however, issues have less to do with "personal rights," and more to do with public health. The "businesses should be able to do what they want" argument would also mean that there should be no public health laws, building codes, etc. On this line of reasoning, I could cook up meals on my toilet seat, and you'd just learn better when you got sick. The government is not stepping in to take away your rights because people don't like smoke, they do it because it's harmful. I don't like people's ugly clothes and I won't be able to get them banned. This is about public health, and since we don't have responsibility for it, sometimes we don't even think about it.

I also remember (in response to somebody's comment about waitresses hating this law), that a good deal of backing was given to the law in some places by waitresses who didn't want to have to inhale second-hand smoke for hours on end in order to make a living. You might tell them to find a new place of work... they might tell you to just go outside to smoke. When your rights and their rights interfere, I'm glad that we err on the side of public health.

Simply put, if you don't like it, don't go/work there.

And what about alcohol? Let's ban that too since it creates hangovers, beer googles, and accidents?

Because it weren't for Beer guys like BostonRedSox would never get laid..at least by the opposite sex!

At least I don't have to resort to stalking someone on ATOT and moving clear across the country in order to try and get laid.

I'm glad you don't as your butt buddies are already in your local.

 

[Tinkerhell]

Originally posted by: Huz
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I don't even smoke, I just hate government getting involved in things it doesn't need to be involved in.

Whats ridiculous is second-hand smoke. People shouldnt have to be subjected to smoke if they aren't a smoker. I have asthma, and I think its the best thing in the world. Smoking is disgusting; all it does is kill.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: Jzero
Still no rebuttal to my post, eh? BostonRedSox, you were so quick to whip out the playground barbs when it came to Howard Stern, yet you're avoiding this particular bull.

What gives? Tell me why it's ok for the government to tell a private businessman that he cannot allow smoking in his bar, but it's not ok for the government to tell a private broadcaster that he can't say certain things on the air?

In both cases, if someone doesn't like what's going on, they can turn off the radio or patronize a different bar that does not allow smoking.

Actually, it's extremely different. In Connecticut, there is (was) absolutely NO non-smoking clubs or bars. Therefore, I was forced to NOT patronize a bar or club if I didn't want to be in a smoke filled environment, otherwise, I'd have to suffer. The choice wasn't offered to me. If someone doesn't want to listen to Howard Stern, they DO have a choice to turn to another radio station, or turn the radio off completely. Now, in this instance, there is a choice. Smokers and non-smokers alike can both patronize the same establishment. The smokers are only inconvienienced a tad by having to step outdoors to smoke their cancer sticks, where as I shouldn't have to be forced to step outside to breath fresh oxygen and keep my health in tact.

Can you show me where the constitution says we delegate authority to the most inconvenienced?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Actually, it's extremely different. In Connecticut, there is (was) absolutely NO non-smoking clubs or bars. Therefore, I was forced to NOT patronize a bar or club if I didn't want to be in a smoke filled environment, otherwise, I'd have to suffer. The choice wasn't offered to me. If someone doesn't want to listen to Howard Stern, they DO have a choice to turn to another radio station, or turn the radio off completely. Now, in this instance, there is a choice. Smokers and non-smokers alike can both patronize the same establishment. The smokers are only inconvienienced a tad by having to step outdoors to smoke their cancer sticks, where as I shouldn't have to be forced to step outside to breath fresh oxygen and keep my health in tact.

You do have a choice! Don't go to the bar!

So if Howard Stern was the only thing on the radio, you would want him censored or taken off the air? What kind of BS is that?

To me this seems like a business opportunity! If there aren't any smokeless bars, and there is a big enough outcry over it to garner support for a LAW. It seems business entrepenaurs should be acting on this.

It's the American way, sorry you don't understand.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Tinkerhell

Originally posted by: Huz
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I don't even smoke, I just hate government getting involved in things it doesn't need to be involved in.

Whats ridiculous is second-hand smoke. People shouldnt have to be subjected to smoke if they aren't a smoker. I have asthma, and I think its the best thing in the world. Smoking is disgusting; all it does is kill.

... are you done whining?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tinkerhell

Originally posted by: Huz
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I don't even smoke, I just hate government getting involved in things it doesn't need to be involved in.

Whats ridiculous is second-hand smoke. People shouldnt have to be subjected to smoke if they aren't a smoker.

Fine, then do not go to places that allow smoking.

I have asthma, and I think its the best thing in the world.

I'm glad you are enjoying your autoimmune disorder.

Smoking is disgusting; all it does is kill.

And it's a personal choice if a person wants to off themselves. It is also a personal choice if the owner of a bar chooses to allow smoking on his PRIVATE property.

I think smoking is disgusting and stupid as well. The difference is, I don't want to impose my will on others.

 

[ElFenix]

there is no evidence saying that second hand smoke harms healthy people. there is some evidence that it is actually beneficial, but the WHO buried that study when they figured out what the data was saying.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox
Actually, it's extremely different. In Connecticut, there is (was) absolutely NO non-smoking clubs or bars. Therefore, I was forced to NOT patronize a bar or club if I didn't want to be in a smoke filled environment, otherwise, I'd have to suffer. The choice wasn't offered to me. If someone doesn't want to listen to Howard Stern, they DO have a choice to turn to another radio station, or turn the radio off completely. Now, in this instance, there is a choice. Smokers and non-smokers alike can both patronize the same establishment. The smokers are only inconvienienced a tad by having to step outdoors to smoke their cancer sticks, where as I shouldn't have to be forced to step outside to breath fresh oxygen and keep my health in tact.

First, I have a hard time believing there isn't a single smoke-free bar in the entire state of Connecticut.

Second, even if there really weren't any, you still have a choice!
The choice is to NOT GO TO THE BAR. I will admit, that I have not read the Constitution all the way through since 1995, and I have never read the Connecticut Constitution, however I am willing to go out on a limb here and declare that neither document guarantees you the right to go to a smoke free bar anymore than it guarantees smokers the right to have bars in which to smoke.

Lack of smoke-free establishments is NOT a government problem. If you think there is a market for smoke-free bars, START ONE!

It's no different from forcing Howard Stern to be "decent." Even if he was the only broadcaster on the radio, you would STILL have the option of turning the radio off, just as you have the option of not going to bars.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Still no rebuttal to my post, eh? BostonRedSox, you were so quick to whip out the playground barbs when it came to Howard Stern, yet you're avoiding this particular bull.

What gives? Tell me why it's ok for the government to tell a private businessman that he cannot allow smoking in his bar, but it's not ok for the government to tell a private broadcaster that he can't say certain things on the air?

In both cases, if someone doesn't like what's going on, they can turn off the radio or patronize a different bar that does not allow smoking.

Last time I checked words don't give you cancer. And the whole you can go to bar that doesn't allow smoking argument is just retarded, the majority of people don't smoke, if you want to smoke you move. Don't you think it's a little sad that smokers are such addicts that they can't even have a beer without smoking, or go without smoking for a couple hours.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: Jzero
Still no rebuttal to my post, eh? BostonRedSox, you were so quick to whip out the playground barbs when it came to Howard Stern, yet you're avoiding this particular bull.

What gives? Tell me why it's ok for the government to tell a private businessman that he cannot allow smoking in his bar, but it's not ok for the government to tell a private broadcaster that he can't say certain things on the air?

In both cases, if someone doesn't like what's going on, they can turn off the radio or patronize a different bar that does not allow smoking.

Last time I checked words don't give you cancer. And the whole you can go to bar that doesn't allow smoking argument is just retarded, the majority of people don't smoke, if you want to smoke you move. Don't you think it's a little sad that smokers are such addicts that they can't even have a beer without smoking, or go without smoking for a couple hours.

Despite what you think smoking on occasion can be enjoyable.

Prove that SHS causes cancer.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Last time I checked words don't give you cancer. And the whole you can go to bar that doesn't allow smoking argument is just retarded, the majority of people don't smoke, if you want to smoke you move. Don't you think it's a little sad that smokers are such addicts that they can't even have a beer without smoking, or go without smoking for a couple hours.

i know plenty of smokers that go without for hours on end

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: Jzero
Still no rebuttal to my post, eh? BostonRedSox, you were so quick to whip out the playground barbs when it came to Howard Stern, yet you're avoiding this particular bull.

What gives? Tell me why it's ok for the government to tell a private businessman that he cannot allow smoking in his bar, but it's not ok for the government to tell a private broadcaster that he can't say certain things on the air?

In both cases, if someone doesn't like what's going on, they can turn off the radio or patronize a different bar that does not allow smoking.

Last time I checked words don't give you cancer. And the whole you can go to bar that doesn't allow smoking argument is just retarded, the majority of people don't smoke, if you want to smoke you move. Don't you think it's a little sad that smokers are such addicts that they can't even have a beer without smoking, or go without smoking for a couple hours.

Understand this:

1. You do not have a Constitutional right to frequent a privately owned bar.

2. No where in the Constitution or bill of rights are you given the right to dictate how a private business owner runs their business.

3. You do not have a right to force business owners to make you comfortable.

If a bar allows smoking, it is not the smoker's fault for taking advantage of it, it is the owner's fault for allowing it. Yet you continue to blame smokers. Why?

Why would you want to do business with someone who's values are so different from yours? Better yet, why do you feel the need to force others to behave as you see fit?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Don't you think it's a little sad that smokers are such addicts that they can't even have a beer without smoking, or go without smoking for a couple hours.

No, what I find sad is the people who see this as an issue about smoking and cancer and can't see the bigger picture.

 

Yet another smoking ban thread.

If you compare this thread and all the other smoking ban theads, they are exactly the same.

Understand this:

1. You do not have a Constitutional right to frequent a privately owned bar.

2. No where in the Constitution or bill of rights are you given the right to dictate how a private business owner runs their business.

3. You do not have a right to force business owners to make you comfortable.

If a bar allows smoking, it is not the smoker's fault for taking advantage of it, it is the owner's fault for allowing it. Yet you continue to blame smokers. Why?

Why would you want to do business with someone who's values are so different from yours? Better yet, why do you feel the need to force others to behave as you see fit?

That is the reality people seem to overlook.
Why people need govt. to tell them how to run their lives is beyond me.

People are such pushovers about their rights being taken away. Which is why more and more get eroded every passing year.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Yet another smoking ban thread.

If you compare this thread and all the other smoking ban theads, they are exactly the same.

Understand this:

1. You do not have a Constitutional right to frequent a privately owned bar.

2. No where in the Constitution or bill of rights are you given the right to dictate how a private business owner runs their business.

3. You do not have a right to force business owners to make you comfortable.

If a bar allows smoking, it is not the smoker's fault for taking advantage of it, it is the owner's fault for allowing it. Yet you continue to blame smokers. Why?

Why would you want to do business with someone who's values are so different from yours? Better yet, why do you feel the need to force others to behave as you see fit?

That is the reality people seem to overlook.
Why people need govt. to tell them how to run their lives is beyond me.

People are such pushovers about their rights being taken away. Which is why more and more get eroded every passing year.

ive got to agree with you. its ironic that people want to bitch about rights, as long as the ones left are what they agree with. the howard stern argument is a good one that no one can seem to counter. its the end of the world when they want to censor howard and his stupid show that only feeds the ignorant masses with more worthless drivel, yet its a gift from god that people cant smoke in a bar now.

id still like proof that SHS exposure from a bar a few nights a week can cause health problems. plenty of proof that alcohol can kill innocent people tho. non of you non smokers humping this bill has a problem with that? i guess its your right to go out and get drunk and drive home, huh?

 

[Linux23]

If there really is a market for non-smoking bars, then shouldn't there be tons of non-smoking establishment since there are so many non-smokers on this board?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Linux23
If there really is a market for non-smoking bars, then shouldn't there be tons of non-smoking establishment since there are so many non-smokers on this board?

You'd think. Of course, then one wonders why there are so many non-smoking restaurants.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

LOL @ the 'don't go to the bar' answers. Oh you poor, poor friendless people. I really pity you. You obviously have never had a good time out in your life. Too funny.

Btw, just got home from the smoke-free clubs, and they were more packed than ever. The whining smokers putting down the non-smokers here is so pathetic. Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox
LOL @ the 'don't go to the bar' answers. Oh you poor, poor friendless people. I really pity you. You obviously have never had a good time out in your life. Too funny.

Btw, just got home from the smoke-free clubs, and they were more packed than ever. The whining smokers putting down the non-smokers here is so pathetic. Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa.

First, I am a non-smoker who hates the smell of smoke. Nice try. Hell, I own my own chain of sandwich shops and I do not allow smoking in them. Not because of any laws, but because that is what *I*, the PRIVATE busniess owner prefers.

What you do not seem to understand is, MY likes or dislikes do not give me a right to dictate how a PRIVATE business owner runs their business. I understand this, you do not. That is the difference between us.

In fact, the people in this thread making the most relevant arguments against you are all non-smokers.

True freedom is not measured in allowing what we like or agree with, but in what we dislike or disagree with.

 

[faenix]

Smoke on people. But remember, when Lung Cancer hits you on at age 50, don't regret it.