Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Smurf
Ban smoking in bars? What's next? Ban alcohol?

Alcohol kills, too. If not directly, (liver?), then indirectly, (drunken dumbness).

Why ban smoking? Allow bars to keep it if they have a seperate ventilation system for smokers. At least give them an OPTION.

I like the 'smoking room' idea, which we had in Ontario for a while. (Don't get me started on the BS of changing the rules after letting bars invest in expensive ventilation with the promise of 'forever').

But the income/livelihood argument is BS.

I live where it's hot in the summer, rainy spriong and fall, and cold and windy in the winter, and having to go outside to smoke has not affected bar business at all. That's quite simply all there is to it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Smurf
Ban smoking in bars? What's next? Ban alcohol?

Alcohol kills, too. If not directly, (liver?), then indirectly, (drunken dumbness).

Why ban smoking? Allow bars to keep it if they have a seperate ventilation system for smokers. At least give them an OPTION.

I like the 'smoking room' idea, which we had in Ontario for a while. (Don't get me started on the BS of changing the rules after letting bars invest in expensive ventilation with the promise of 'forever').

But the income/livelihood argument is BS.

I live where it's hot in the summer, rainy spriong and fall, and cold and windy in the winter, and having to go outside to smoke has not affected bar business at all. That's quite simply all there is to it.

But that's just not true for all areas.

In my town in the midwest (hot in the summer, cold and snowy in the winter), 13 bars have closed since the start of the smoking ban just 6 months ago.. When the average bar closing is 1 or 2 a year. Bar business is down 40-50% overall.

Small neighborhood pubs are the worst hit, since the bread and butter of their business are the daily customers who use it to hang out and socialize. Now they're just staying home because they can't smoke. Big night clubs noticed a smaller drop in business.

 

[BoomerD]

Well, I guess on the positive side of this, the more bars that close, the less drunks you have driving home at closing time...THAT's a good thing.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Smurf
Ban smoking in bars? What's next? Ban alcohol?

Alcohol kills, too. If not directly, (liver?), then indirectly, (drunken dumbness).

Why ban smoking? Allow bars to keep it if they have a seperate ventilation system for smokers. At least give them an OPTION.

I like the 'smoking room' idea, which we had in Ontario for a while. (Don't get me started on the BS of changing the rules after letting bars invest in expensive ventilation with the promise of 'forever').

But the income/livelihood argument is BS.

I live where it's hot in the summer, rainy spriong and fall, and cold and windy in the winter, and having to go outside to smoke has not affected bar business at all. That's quite simply all there is to it.

I have a different view and I'm in Ontario, too. When I go out drinking with my friends I have noticed that those who tend to smoke drink less than the rest of us. Why? Simply because in some bars (the ones without booths, for example) require them to leave their beer/drink somewhere while they go light up outside.

Its a total pain in the ass to ask someone to hold your drink and they know it (no one wants to do it). As such I've noticed a trend that those who smoke typically drink less throughout the night especially at more busy venues where we don't have tables.

And I don't know why Ontario scrapped the smoking room idea. It is a political stunt if anything. They worked adequately well in Tim Hortons. People in Ontario just want to dig into other peoples business when they have no right.

Ya know.. I wonder about stress. Stress is one of the most detrimental thing to your health going. So what about those people who are minding the affairs of others--imagine the stress they must have. The horror, the horror! They practically have a heart attack when they see someone light up. Why can't we ban being a nosy, panties-in-a-bunch, fsck? Imagine how many lives that would save (heart ailments and all). And it doesn't just hurt the busybody--it hurts everyone else because such stupid nonsense spreads among the masses when its fashionable (right now it is very fashionable to hate smokers).

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Smurf
Ban smoking in bars? What's next? Ban alcohol?

Alcohol kills, too. If not directly, (liver?), then indirectly, (drunken dumbness).

Why ban smoking? Allow bars to keep it if they have a seperate ventilation system for smokers. At least give them an OPTION.

I like the 'smoking room' idea, which we had in Ontario for a while. (Don't get me started on the BS of changing the rules after letting bars invest in expensive ventilation with the promise of 'forever').

But the income/livelihood argument is BS.

I live where it's hot in the summer, rainy spriong and fall, and cold and windy in the winter, and having to go outside to smoke has not affected bar business at all. That's quite simply all there is to it.

But that's just not true for all areas.

In my town in the midwest (hot in the summer, cold and snowy in the winter), 13 bars have closed since the start of the smoking ban just 6 months ago.. When the average bar closing is 1 or 2 a year. Bar business is down 40-50% overall.

Small neighborhood pubs are the worst hit, since the bread and butter of their business are the daily customers who use it to hang out and socialize. Now they're just staying home because they can't smoke. Big night clubs noticed a smaller drop in business.

In my town it drove all the small bars out of business or severely cut thier sales. People drove across the bridge to the indian casinos. They have no ban on smoking.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Smurf
Ban smoking in bars? What's next? Ban alcohol?

Alcohol kills, too. If not directly, (liver?), then indirectly, (drunken dumbness).

Why ban smoking? Allow bars to keep it if they have a seperate ventilation system for smokers. At least give them an OPTION.

I like the 'smoking room' idea, which we had in Ontario for a while. (Don't get me started on the BS of changing the rules after letting bars invest in expensive ventilation with the promise of 'forever').

But the income/livelihood argument is BS.

I live where it's hot in the summer, rainy spriong and fall, and cold and windy in the winter, and having to go outside to smoke has not affected bar business at all. That's quite simply all there is to it.

I have a different view and I'm in Ontario, too. When I go out drinking with my friends I have noticed that those who tend to smoke drink less than the rest of us. Why? Simply because in some bars (the ones without booths, for example) require them to leave their beer/drink somewhere while they go light up outside.

Its a total pain in the ass to ask someone to hold your drink and they know it (no one wants to do it). As such I've noticed a trend that those who smoke typically drink less throughout the night especially at more busy venues where we don't have tables.

And I don't know why Ontario scrapped the smoking room idea. It is a political stunt if anything. They worked adequately well in Tim Hortons. People in Ontario just want to dig into other peoples business when they have no right.

Ya know.. I wonder about stress. Stress is one of the most detrimental thing to your health going. So what about those people who are minding the affairs of others--imagine the stress they must have. The horror, the horror! They practically have a heart attack when they see someone light up. Why can't we ban being a nosy, panties-in-a-bunch, fsck? Imagine how many lives that would save (heart ailments and all). And it doesn't just hurt the busybody--it hurts everyone else because such stupid nonsense spreads among the masses when its fashionable (right now it is very fashionable to hate smokers).

Killing the smoking rooms was criminal, and I hope that eventually the bar owners are more than compensated (or that the rooms are reinstated). We're talking about 6-figure investments that were rendered worthless with the stroke of a pen, and frankly I don't care whether they worked or not (they did), you can't do that to your businesses.

As for drinking less, I haven't noticed that at all. Smokers might finish their drink before they go out, but the net effect has to be minimal - I've found that non-smokers actually like going to what used to be smokey bars. In my mind, the smoking room solution protected patrons, and more importantly, staff, from the health effects of smoking, but left the final decision up to the owners. It was the 'right' solution.

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Amused

But that's just not true for all areas.

In my town in the midwest (hot in the summer, cold and snowy in the winter), 13 bars have closed since the start of the smoking ban just 6 months ago.. When the average bar closing is 1 or 2 a year. Bar business is down 40-50% overall.

Small neighborhood pubs are the worst hit, since the bread and butter of their business are the daily customers who use it to hang out and socialize. Now they're just staying home because they can't smoke. Big night clubs noticed a smaller drop in business.

In my town it drove all the small bars out of business or severely cut thier sales. People drove across the bridge to the indian casinos. They have no ban on smoking.

[/quote]
Having a jurisdiction with completely different rules so close certainly would affect the outcome. As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

There was a brief falloff in bar business when Ontario's rules changed, but within a year, non-smokers started frequenting the bars more, and smokers realized that their enjoyment of bars was not being crippled by having to step out for a few moments. Most bars in my area have an outdoor, licensed smoking area, though not all.

Where I see the problem starting is the new push to ban smoking on patios, etc, which is quite simply ridiculous, as there is no health reason, it's just an attempt to legislate some twisted version of morality.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

You know it's bad when you start making the same sorry arguments dmcowen674 has made, and that have been destroyed.

The bread and butter of small neighborhood pubs are the daily customers who come in mainly to relax and socialize. A very high percentage of these daily barflies smoke. Ban smoking, and they stay home more than anyone else. This hurts the small pubs.

As I said, bar business here is down 40-50% since the smoking ban 6 months ago. The small pubs taking the worst of that.

Try losing 40-60% of your income in any small business and tell me how long you'll survive.

 

[IEC]

It should be up to the bar owner. This is coming from a guy who hates cigarettes...

 

[sourceninja]

I like the way my town did it, they simple require smokers to be segritated off in an enclosed space. Most of the good restaurants now have nice glass enclosures to keep the smoke away from me, its much nicer to go out now and smokers get their own smoke hazed area with no drift into mine. Of course bars are 100% smoking still, I think it would be silly to change that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

You know it's bad when you start making the same sorry arguments dmcowen674 has made, and that have been destroyed.

The bread and butter of small neighborhood pubs are the daily customers who come in mainly to relax and socialize.

A very high percentage of these daily barflies smoke.

Ban smoking, and they stay home more than anyone else.

This hurts the small pubs.

As I said, bar business here is down 40-50% since the smoking ban 6 months ago. The small pubs taking the worst of that.

Try losing 40-60% of your income in any small business and tell me how long you'll survive.

Staying home :laugh: You actually believe that ??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

You know it's bad when you start making the same sorry arguments dmcowen674 has made, and that have been destroyed.

The bread and butter of small neighborhood pubs are the daily customers who come in mainly to relax and socialize. A very high percentage of these daily barflies smoke. Ban smoking, and they stay home more than anyone else. This hurts the small pubs.

As I said, bar business here is down 40-50% since the smoking ban 6 months ago. The small pubs taking the worst of that.

Try losing 40-60% of your income in any small business and tell me how long you'll survive.

They haven't been staying home for 6 whole months.

Tell me they're going somewhere else instead (like over to the indian reserve), and I might accept that, even then they'll get bored.

Either way, you already have my real opinion - some version of a 'real' non-smoking section, with a smoking section safe enough to staff.

As far as pre-destroying my argument, I'm sorry, but a business that can't take a brief downturn in business is borderline at best. You could choose to close, rather than wait things out, or whatever, but that's not the same as being forced to close.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to smoke, kill myself slowly, annoy the crap out of those around me, and defy the will of the majority!!! God dammit, it's my right!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

This isn't about smokers. This is about bar owners.

And the majority in most bars are smokers.

No, it's pretty much about smokers. Why would a bar owner give a fvck about this (unless he's a smoker of course)? If smoking is banned in all bars how does this hurt a bar owner? It doesn't make people want to go to other bars because smoking is banned in all drinking establishments.

did you read the piece? 22 bars have closed in Coloraod Springs since the ban. so yea a bar owner cares a whole lot about this wheter he is smoker or not.

So, where did the drunk smokers take their business? Must have been a lot of them...or these bars were on the verge of bankruptcy to begin with. Wow, a whopping 22 bars closed in Colorado Springs...what's that leave anyway? 2,000 left that didn't close? I love statistics like these...won't someone think of the business owners!!!

No crap. No matter what city you are in, a bar or two closes up every month and a bar or two opens up.

I hate articles like this that give one-sided statistics. How many bars closed in the same time span before there was a ban?

If you truly believe that 20% of the population keeps the bars of America open and in business, you're off your rocker. I've noticed that since Ohio passed the ban, the bars that fill up at nights are the ones that ENFORCE the ban. Interestingly enough, even the smokers have been patronizing these bars and just going outside to smoke. How do you respond to this?

Okay, so to the people that think it should be okay to smoke in bars but not restaurants... where do you draw the line? Many resaurants like Fridays, Applebees and similar places have a full bar and beer on tap. Should people be allowed to smoke? Many bars serve food until about 10pm... should people not be allowed to smoke until then?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

You know it's bad when you start making the same sorry arguments dmcowen674 has made, and that have been destroyed.

The bread and butter of small neighborhood pubs are the daily customers who come in mainly to relax and socialize. A very high percentage of these daily barflies smoke. Ban smoking, and they stay home more than anyone else. This hurts the small pubs.

As I said, bar business here is down 40-50% since the smoking ban 6 months ago. The small pubs taking the worst of that.

Try losing 40-60% of your income in any small business and tell me how long you'll survive.

They haven't been staying home for 6 whole months.

Tell me they're going somewhere else instead (like over to the indian reserve), and I might accept that, even then they'll get bored.

Either way, you already have my real opinion - some version of a 'real' non-smoking section, with a smoking section safe enough to staff.

As far as pre-destroying my argument, I'm sorry, but a business that can't take a brief downturn in business is borderline at best. You could choose to close, rather than wait things out, or whatever, but that's not the same as being forced to close.

A loss of 40-50% of business for 6 months would kill just about any small business. Why would you comment on something you obviously know nothing about? I cannot believe anyone who knows anything about small businesses would describe a six month loss of 40-50% a "brief downturn in business." Sure, some people who run one as a side business or hobby may be able to take that. But for the small family run pub it's a disaster. They can no longer make a living.

And yes, they are staying home, not going out as often and not drinking as much when they do go out. When the smokers do come out, they spend half their time outside where they cannot drink... which means they buy fewer drinks.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As far as bar closings, some or even most were likely on the edge of viability anyway - I'm not saying it's 'good' that they were forced out sooner by a rule change, but if they closed within six months, that's well within the time-frame for business to stabilize. Basically, if you can't swallow a slow season, you're bar is not in good financial health to begin with.

You know it's bad when you start making the same sorry arguments dmcowen674 has made, and that have been destroyed.

The bread and butter of small neighborhood pubs are the daily customers who come in mainly to relax and socialize.

A very high percentage of these daily barflies smoke.

Ban smoking, and they stay home more than anyone else.

This hurts the small pubs.

As I said, bar business here is down 40-50% since the smoking ban 6 months ago. The small pubs taking the worst of that.

Try losing 40-60% of your income in any small business and tell me how long you'll survive.

Staying home :laugh: You actually believe that ??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yes, I do. Why would old retired men who usually spend their day at the local pub want to spend half the day out on the sidewalk in -10 degree weather with 30 MPH winds?

They don't. They are going to the pubs less, and spending less when they do go. A lot of people are just getting together at people's homes now, too.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
A loss of 40-50% of business for 6 months would kill just about any small business. Why would you comment on something you obviously know nothing about? I cannot believe anyone who knows anything about small businesses would describe a six month loss of 40-50% a "brief downturn in business." Sure, some people who run one as a side business or hobby may be able to take that. But for the small family run pub it's a disaster. They can no longer make a living.

And yes, they are staying home, not going out as often and not drinking as much when they do go out. When the smokers do come out, they spend half their time outside where they cannot drink... which means they buy fewer drinks.

They're going somewhere else. Really.

Either that or the town is 80% smokers, and you have to ask yourself where the ban got political traction in the first place.

You don't seem interested in responding to my 'real' position on this, possibly because it is too reasonable and you're having too much fun pretending that I'm an idiot.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
A loss of 40-50% of business for 6 months would kill just about any small business. Why would you comment on something you obviously know nothing about? I cannot believe anyone who knows anything about small businesses would describe a six month loss of 40-50% a "brief downturn in business." Sure, some people who run one as a side business or hobby may be able to take that. But for the small family run pub it's a disaster. They can no longer make a living.

And yes, they are staying home, not going out as often and not drinking as much when they do go out. When the smokers do come out, they spend half their time outside where they cannot drink... which means they buy fewer drinks.

They're going somewhere else. Really.

Either that or the town is 80% smokers, and you have to ask yourself where the ban got political traction in the first place.

You don't seem interested in responding to my 'real' position on this, possibly because it is too reasonable and you're having too much fun pretending that I'm an idiot.

Are you a business owner? I am. I know that if ALL my stores faced a 40-50% loss of business, I'd be doomed. If back in the day when I had one store, I wouldn't have lasted 3 months with a loss that staggering.

No, 80% of the town are not smokers. In this town the smoking rate is somwhere around 25-30%. BUT, a vast majority of bar regulars ARE smokers, even if they only smoke when they drink. Now tell me, how much fun is it to go to a bar when you have to spend half the day or night outside in -10 degree weather with 30 MPH winds?

And take a wild stab at how many fewer drinks a person buys if they are sepnding half their time outseide where they cannot drink?

People don't HAVE to go out. Bars are not essential to anyone's life. People are staying home more often, and gathering for house parties more than in the past.

Trust me, I'm not pretending you're an idiot.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
A loss of 40-50% of business for 6 months would kill just about any small business. Why would you comment on something you obviously know nothing about? I cannot believe anyone who knows anything about small businesses would describe a six month loss of 40-50% a "brief downturn in business." Sure, some people who run one as a side business or hobby may be able to take that. But for the small family run pub it's a disaster. They can no longer make a living.

And yes, they are staying home, not going out as often and not drinking as much when they do go out. When the smokers do come out, they spend half their time outside where they cannot drink... which means they buy fewer drinks.

They're going somewhere else. Really.

Either that or the town is 80% smokers, and you have to ask yourself where the ban got political traction in the first place.

You don't seem interested in responding to my 'real' position on this, possibly because it is too reasonable and you're having too much fun pretending that I'm an idiot.

Are you a business owner? I am. I know that if ALL my stores faced a 40-50% loss of business, I'd be doomed. If back in the day when I had one store, I wouldn't have lasted 3 months with a loss that staggering.

No, 80% of the town are not smokers. In this town the smoking rate is somwhere around 25-30%. BUT, a vast majority of bar regulars ARE smokers, even if they only smoke when they drink. Now tell me, how much fun is it to go to a bar when you have to spend half the day or night outside in -10 degree weather with 30 MPH winds?

And take a wild stab at how many fewer drinks a person buys if they are sepnding half their time outseide where they cannot drink?

People don't HAVE to go out. Bars are not essential to anyone's life. People are staying home more often, and gathering for house parties more than in the past.

Trust me, I'm not pretending you're an idiot.

You are, in fact.

I am not a small-business owner, but I am the only full-time employee at one, and I felt the pinch too last year when our winter business fell off 40-50% because it didn't snow. In Toronto, businesses that used to convert to snow for the winter have been hammered by the city taking over driveway end and sidewalk plowing. At least these businesses can complain that they provided a beneficial service which has been replaced by an inferior (read: slower) version.

There are at least two arguments going on here, one is about whether bars lose business, especially in the long run, due to a smoking ban. It is as cold and windy here as it is in Illinois, and the answer is still 'no'. There was a shift in patronage, and an effort made by bars to provide better outdoor smoking arrangements, but the two bar owners I know personally (one of them is a close friend), and who were both exceedingly worried about the new regulations found no long-term loss of business. Bars still open and close, but there's no obvious pattern.

The second argument is about health and safety. While it is true that the only people who have to go into a bar are the fire and health inspectors, the health argument is still a good one. [If] (and it's a big if) smoking bylaws resulted in a permanent reduction in bar business, it's hard to argue that any economic activity is lost - afterall, virtually any use of money is more productive and will drive the economy further than drinking it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
A loss of 40-50% of business for 6 months would kill just about any small business. Why would you comment on something you obviously know nothing about? I cannot believe anyone who knows anything about small businesses would describe a six month loss of 40-50% a "brief downturn in business." Sure, some people who run one as a side business or hobby may be able to take that. But for the small family run pub it's a disaster. They can no longer make a living.

And yes, they are staying home, not going out as often and not drinking as much when they do go out. When the smokers do come out, they spend half their time outside where they cannot drink... which means they buy fewer drinks.

They're going somewhere else. Really.

Either that or the town is 80% smokers, and you have to ask yourself where the ban got political traction in the first place.

You don't seem interested in responding to my 'real' position on this, possibly because it is too reasonable and you're having too much fun pretending that I'm an idiot.

Are you a business owner? I am. I know that if ALL my stores faced a 40-50% loss of business, I'd be doomed. If back in the day when I had one store, I wouldn't have lasted 3 months with a loss that staggering.

No, 80% of the town are not smokers. In this town the smoking rate is somwhere around 25-30%. BUT, a vast majority of bar regulars ARE smokers, even if they only smoke when they drink. Now tell me, how much fun is it to go to a bar when you have to spend half the day or night outside in -10 degree weather with 30 MPH winds?

And take a wild stab at how many fewer drinks a person buys if they are sepnding half their time outseide where they cannot drink?

People don't HAVE to go out. Bars are not essential to anyone's life. People are staying home more often, and gathering for house parties more than in the past.

Trust me, I'm not pretending you're an idiot.

You are, in fact.

I am not a small-business owner, but I am the only full-time employee at one, and I felt the pinch too last year when our winter business fell off 40-50% because it didn't snow. In Toronto, businesses that used to convert to snow for the winter have been hammered by the city taking over driveway end and sidewalk plowing. At least these businesses can complain that they provided a beneficial service which has been replaced by an inferior (read: slower) version.

There are at least two arguments going on here, one is about whether bars lose business, especially in the long run, due to a smoking ban. It is as cold and windy here as it is in Illinois, and the answer is still 'no'. There was a shift in patronage, and an effort made by bars to provide better outdoor smoking arrangements, but the two bar owners I know personally (one of them is a close friend), and who were both exceedingly worried about the new regulations found no long-term loss of business. Bars still open and close, but there's no obvious pattern.

The second argument is about health and safety. While it is true that the only people who have to go into a bar are the fire and health inspectors, the health argument is still a good one. [If] (and it's a big if) smoking bylaws resulted in a permanent reduction in bar business, it's hard to argue that any economic activity is lost - afterall, virtually any use of money is more productive and will drive the economy further than drinking it.

What's the point of discussing this any further? Now you feel it's OK to make policy redirecting what people do with their own money. :roll: How dare property owners decide what to allow on thier property... and now how dare people spend their money as they would like to.

Wow...

 

[Injury]

You know, as far as I'm concerned, if smokers are a great minority (roughly 20-25%) and a majority determines by voting that smoking should not be allowed in certain places, then TFB.

It's selfish of smokers to expect other people to deal with their smoke or go elsewhere, As such, I'm going to be selfish and support any and all bans on smoking.

There isn't a single smoker that doesn't understand that non-smokers don't like the smell, and if they had been more considerate of others and smoked less or taken it outside from time to time maybe we could all be playing nicely.

 

[shortspanishguy]

I know quite a few people that would go out more if Baltimore Bars didnt smell like a burning building. I guess they will get the chance in 08 when the ban kicks in.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
What's the point of discussing this any further? Now you feel it's OK to make policy redirecting what people do with their own money. :roll: How dare property owners decide what to allow on thier property... and now how dare people spend their money as they would like to.

Wow...

It's easy to assume away complications, isn't it?

Why is the boxing association allowed to stop you from fighting if you don't pass mental tests?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
What's the point of discussing this any further? Now you feel it's OK to make policy redirecting what people do with their own money. :roll: How dare property owners decide what to allow on thier property... and now how dare people spend their money as they would like to.

Wow...

It's easy to assume away complications, isn't it?

Why is the boxing association allowed to stop you from fighting if you don't pass mental tests?

They are allowed to stop you from fighting in THEIR privately sanctioned fights in THEIR private organization. You are perfectly able to start your own. In fact, ther are other fighting orgs out there. They are not a state run agency.

Complications? No. Excuses to have the government gore other people's bulls while selfishly protecting your own? Yes, and that's hypocrisy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Injury
You know, as far as I'm concerned, if smokers are a great minority (roughly 20-25%) and a majority determines by voting that smoking should not be allowed in certain places, then TFB.

It's selfish of smokers to expect other people to deal with their smoke or go elsewhere, As such, I'm going to be selfish and support any and all bans on smoking.

There isn't a single smoker that doesn't understand that non-smokers don't like the smell, and if they had been more considerate of others and smoked less or taken it outside from time to time maybe we could all be playing nicely.

So you feel it's perfectly OK for the government to tell you what you may, and may not allow on your property simply because of the whims of the voters? What if you don't like smoking?

What if smokers were in the majority and the government passed a law making it illegal for any property owner to ban smoking on their property? Would you think that was fair?

Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Arguing majority rule does nothing to help this argument because it can ALWAYS be turned against you. There is a freedom you enjoy that is only enjoyed by the minority or offends the majority. How would you like it if it was voted away?

 

[BlancoNino]

Without freedom, morality is an impossibility.

We've become a nation of people who instead of exercising their freedoms and letting the free markets breathe would rather pass laws to make their experiences on other people's private property more enjoyable, without caring who is hurt.

What's stopping anybody from opening non-smoking bars? What's wrong with having both kinds of bars (smoking and non-smoking) so that EVERYONE can enjoy them? Why can't everyone be happy? Man...to think the majority of my state is that selfish to pass the ban (WA).

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Injury
You know, as far as I'm concerned, if smokers are a great minority (roughly 20-25%) and a majority determines by voting that smoking should not be allowed in certain places, then TFB.

It's selfish of smokers to expect other people to deal with their smoke or go elsewhere, As such, I'm going to be selfish and support any and all bans on smoking.

There isn't a single smoker that doesn't understand that non-smokers don't like the smell, and if they had been more considerate of others and smoked less or taken it outside from time to time maybe we could all be playing nicely.

I don't think you get it. I am non-smoker and I find smoking to be disgusting for the most part, not that I haven't dabbled a tiny bit in college. With that said, I find it appalling that the majority, being people that don't even go to the bars in the first place, are imposing their distaste for smoking on bar owners who has a large customer base that smokes.

It makes no fvcking sense. Go elsewhere? You wouldn't be in a bar that had a lot of smokers in the first place, so what is it to you?