People claim that 2nd hand smoke is much worse for you than 1st hand smoke. They also claim that 2nd hand smoke has a considerably higher nicotine concentration than 1st hand smoke. While this may be true if you would take pure 2nd hand smoke deeply into your lungs, this is NOT how most people inhale 2nd hand smoke. The majority of people catch a whiff of 2nd hand smoke that is heavily diluted by air.
2nd hand smoke in an open environment has a neglible effect on your health. 2nd hand smoke constantly inhaled in closed environments (think Mom or Dad smoking around kids in a car everday or in the house) is completely different.
As for your "room" idea, you're still going to have non-smokers bitch and moan about things because their main complaint is typically the smell of smokers. People that go into a room are still going to stink of smoke, continuing to give people something to bitch about.
And as for saying smoking and non-smoking bars don't work, well why on Earth would simply having all non-smoking bars work? In NY it's banned in bars, but almost all of the bars I've gone to around here have owners that knowingly violate the ban. I don't smoke, and yes I come out of those bars smelling like crap, but that's really the least of my worries. Think for a minute why they're doing this.
Also, not being a smartass, but the spelling is throat. Just for future reference. I'm terrible with a few words too that I have to constantly look up (surprise being one of them, I constantly forget the 'r') so I know what it's like.
Thanks god they are going to ban smoking here in Oregon too. Dang smokers I hate em. Nasty nasty habit. Tired of smelling like smoke after just wanting to enjoy seeing a band I like or go dancing.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,439
- 19,875
- 146
So you continued to support establishments that allowed smoking and wondered why owners still allowed it???
Now you feel the right to impose laws upon private property owners because your sense of entitlement ruined any chance of a voluntary ban in some/most/all of those establishments?
Wow...
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,368
- 418
- 126
I can see why the bars went under. Im a on off again smoker. I am in no way addicted to the stuff, I feel, and can go many days/months without lighting up. But back when I used to go hang with my friends and go to bars there was just something about drinking and smoking that went hand in hand. I would smoke up 2 packs in about 6 hours time whendrinking. I loved it. I craved it, the two, beer and smoking with good friends, loud music I loved. If I was to go to a bar today that didnt allow smoking, I wouldnt go. I went because I liked doing the two. Just going to drink without a smoke wouldnt be the same for me, as it is for a lot of others as well hence why they closed. I just wouldn't be the same fun experience, and I would get going there and would CRAVE a smoke, and since I would crave on and would be told not to have it, I wouldn't go, stay home and drink and smoke, or do nothing and not smoke and save my money I would of spent on high dollar smokes and beer.
Im sure the government is taking it on the chin for this, because they are closing down means less taxes coming in, less smokes being bought means less taxes coming in, bars closing means less people working and again less taxes coming in and more people on public aid. They will soon see the error of their ways and all of a sudden new permits will be passed for X amount of $$ allowing some bars to be smoke zoned, and have to pay annually for such permit. Government always has a method to their madness
OH and for those ones that love the ban so they can go and not smell like smoke to watch a band play. If it were not for the smokers there wouldnt be a band for you to watch, once the ban goes into effect what joy you going to have when customers stop going, no more band, and then no more bar? How happy you going to be then. "OH joy Im so glad theres no more bars to go to to watch a live band play for free, at least I dont smell like smoke, time to knit another sweater on a friday night."
Im sure the government is taking it on the chin for this, because they are closing down means less taxes coming in, less smokes being bought means less taxes coming in, bars closing means less people working and again less taxes coming in and more people on public aid. They will soon see the error of their ways and all of a sudden new permits will be passed for X amount of $$ allowing some bars to be smoke zoned, and have to pay annually for such permit. Government always has a method to their madness
OH and for those ones that love the ban so they can go and not smell like smoke to watch a band play. If it were not for the smokers there wouldnt be a band for you to watch, once the ban goes into effect what joy you going to have when customers stop going, no more band, and then no more bar? How happy you going to be then. "OH joy Im so glad theres no more bars to go to to watch a live band play for free, at least I dont smell like smoke, time to knit another sweater on a friday night."
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
I think it will be a long while before they ban it here in Virginia. They would need the military to enforce it here.
Mardeth
Platinum Member
- Jul 24, 2002
- 2,608
- 0
- 0
According to S.A Glantz and W.W Parmley in Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Right near the end...
I put the "" because it isnt any strict term and my own definition i guess. Shops, bars, cafes, kindergarden, fast food places, offices etc. Altought not legally public, just some place where you can expect other people to be.
Im not one that says 2nd hand smoking is even worse than 1st hand smoking. But it is unhealthy.
For me the main problem is that I smell, not that others smell. Bitching about somebody elses smell would be vanity. But I cant use the clothes I used until I wash them.
The room idea far from perfect for many reasons. Outside would be best.
And like I said. It has to go one way or the other. Either no smoking in any bar or smoking in every bar (unless the owner/manager decides otherwise).
I learned english when I was 10 and live in Finland so I have trouble spelling sometimes. Brainfarts I guess. Ill remember from now on thought, thanks...
If I didnt think it was so inconsiderate and easily fixed I wouldnt be such a bitch about it...
Kelemvor
Lifer
- May 23, 2002
- 16,928
- 8
- 81
This is why I'm more in favor of the smoking bans that ban it in places that primarily serve food but also have a bar but doesn't ban it in place that are just 100% bars. If all the smokers want to go hang out, kill each other off, smell like crap, etc... Then let them all go do it in the same place where you know they do it.
As long as places that are restaurants (whether they have a bar or not) can't allow smoking, I'm fine with that. Most non-smokers I know don't go to bars anyway so it doesn't really affect us at all.
As long as places that are restaurants (whether they have a bar or not) can't allow smoking, I'm fine with that. Most non-smokers I know don't go to bars anyway so it doesn't really affect us at all.
Uppsala9496
Diamond Member
- Nov 2, 2001
- 5,272
- 19
- 81
What's the difference between the government ordering a smoking ban at bars and the government deciding not to give out a liquor license?
I've read a lot of arguments about how it should be up to the bar owner to decide, etc. Well, what if the government just decides not to issue liquor licenses to establishments that allow smoking? A liquor license is issued from the government. So, if they can determine who can or can not get a license to sell liquor, I don't see why they can't decide to ban smoking.
As for the nanny state arguement....well, the government's function is to serve in the best interests of its citizens. If smoking is deemed to be a public health hazard, the government has a right to act in the best interest of the people. If that means banning smoking in bars, then so be it. It isn't banning all smoking. It is just banning it in certain geographic location (within the confines of a public place).
I've read a lot of arguments about how it should be up to the bar owner to decide, etc. Well, what if the government just decides not to issue liquor licenses to establishments that allow smoking? A liquor license is issued from the government. So, if they can determine who can or can not get a license to sell liquor, I don't see why they can't decide to ban smoking.
As for the nanny state arguement....well, the government's function is to serve in the best interests of its citizens. If smoking is deemed to be a public health hazard, the government has a right to act in the best interest of the people. If that means banning smoking in bars, then so be it. It isn't banning all smoking. It is just banning it in certain geographic location (within the confines of a public place).
So since a bar is private property, the bar owner can walk around naked? I can walk around naked in my house, why can't he in his own bar? If he did, I'm sure he'd get arrested.
I'm sure a bar is different "private property" than a house, because somehow a law was passed to ban smoking in them. It's still legal to smoke in your own home. So yes, they are different.
Amen.
I don't smoke...and like KM, I agree with the ban in food chains, malls, etc. But in the case of privately owned restaurants and bars, the owner of building/business should have the right to do as they damn please. If they want to allow smoking...it is their right, I say. People who don't want to be around smoke can exercise their freedom and go elsewhere.
Why is it self-righteous to tell someone who is SMOKING (aka killing not only themselves but others around them with secondhand smoke) to GTFO or stop smoking around others that don't? Why is it self-righteous to tell smokers that other people don't want to smell and inhale their crap? Why is it self-righteous to tell someone else that the MAJORITY doesn't want something so a law is enacted to enforce that majority position? Geez...I'm coming to fully believe that people that smoke/support smoking really don't give two s**ts about anyone but themselves. "Let me smoke anywhere, anytime and in any amount I want. Screw anyone that doesn't smoke." Tell me that isn't self-righteous.
the hyposcrisy of these smoking ban alarmists is absurd.
if you're SO against a smoking ban in bars, then shouldn't you also be up in arms about ANY state/county law prohibiting smoking in "conventional" places of business? retail stores, offices, etc are privately owned buildings that serve the public. what right does the gov't have to stop people from smoking in them?!? oh yeah, there's no loud music or booze being served.
admit it: the only reason that people are upset about the increasing number of smoking bans in bars is due to the tradition of smoking while drinking. equal and fair application of the law is conveniently ignored when smoking bans are discussed. people are sh!tting bricks about their "rights" being taken away, but they ignore the fact that a bar is a business and by law, should be treated like a business.
if you're SO against a smoking ban in bars, then shouldn't you also be up in arms about ANY state/county law prohibiting smoking in "conventional" places of business? retail stores, offices, etc are privately owned buildings that serve the public. what right does the gov't have to stop people from smoking in them?!? oh yeah, there's no loud music or booze being served.
admit it: the only reason that people are upset about the increasing number of smoking bans in bars is due to the tradition of smoking while drinking. equal and fair application of the law is conveniently ignored when smoking bans are discussed. people are sh!tting bricks about their "rights" being taken away, but they ignore the fact that a bar is a business and by law, should be treated like a business.
I agree with the above two posters.
If, for some God-awful reason, people enjoyed rubbing feces all over their bodies (makes as much sense to me as smoking), I would also support a ban on that in public places. It's equally as disgusting to me as smoking.
If, for some God-awful reason, people enjoyed rubbing feces all over their bodies (makes as much sense to me as smoking), I would also support a ban on that in public places. It's equally as disgusting to me as smoking.
What I don't understand is that smokers are minority a now, so if you don't like the fact that a bar allows smoking DON'T GO TO THAT BAR! If there are no smoke free bars pick your favorite bar and get some non-smoking friends and protest out front.
However, if you are one of those people who say "first available" when asked for a smoking preference and then complain that people around you are smoking when you get put in the smoking section, or go to a smoking bar and want them to stop smoking, then you are a POS plain and simple.
You have options to keep the smokers away 99% of the time and yet you still complain. Again in a capitalist country the consumers have the power. If you don't like the way a buisness is run DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY!
However, if you are one of those people who say "first available" when asked for a smoking preference and then complain that people around you are smoking when you get put in the smoking section, or go to a smoking bar and want them to stop smoking, then you are a POS plain and simple.
You have options to keep the smokers away 99% of the time and yet you still complain. Again in a capitalist country the consumers have the power. If you don't like the way a buisness is run DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY!
There is no law (in my area at least) that stops smoking in retail stores. The individual stores have decided that they don't want to allow that. Just like it's not illegal to go without shoes, but many stores have a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service"
god damnit im getting sick of these threads.
I dont smoke cigs, and I hate the smell, although I do smoke an occasional cigar.
That said, smoking bans in bars are retarded. Sure, ban smoking in restaurants and public areas, but not in bars. If I think a bar is too smokey, I just dont go. Lets see... a majority of the people who go to bars smoke. At least half of the remaining non-smokers (like myself) could care less about smoke in the bars, a few others choose not to go to smokey bars, and the remaining few b!tch about it and think they have some god given right to go to a bar that is smoke free. Well, you dont. Why should bar owners sacrifice half their business so that a couple people can go and get drunk and damage their liver without damaging their lungs??
There are plenty of bars that are naturally mostly smoke free (Fridays, etc...). Pool halls, elks clubs, dive bars, etc... are expected to be smokey, so why would you even go to them and b!tch about it?
I dont smoke cigs, and I hate the smell, although I do smoke an occasional cigar.
That said, smoking bans in bars are retarded. Sure, ban smoking in restaurants and public areas, but not in bars. If I think a bar is too smokey, I just dont go. Lets see... a majority of the people who go to bars smoke. At least half of the remaining non-smokers (like myself) could care less about smoke in the bars, a few others choose not to go to smokey bars, and the remaining few b!tch about it and think they have some god given right to go to a bar that is smoke free. Well, you dont. Why should bar owners sacrifice half their business so that a couple people can go and get drunk and damage their liver without damaging their lungs??
There are plenty of bars that are naturally mostly smoke free (Fridays, etc...). Pool halls, elks clubs, dive bars, etc... are expected to be smokey, so why would you even go to them and b!tch about it?
Cars kill people everyday and guess what...they produce a toxic gas that cannot be smelled or tasted....have we passed laws to ban driving?
I am a reformed smoker...I hate it and it makes me sick any more....which is why I don't go to bars.....see how that works?
If you don't like getting your hand burned, use your brain and don't touch the hot stove.....don't wait for mommy or daddy to tell you not to do it.
I am a reformed smoker...I hate it and it makes me sick any more....which is why I don't go to bars.....see how that works?
If you don't like getting your hand burned, use your brain and don't touch the hot stove.....don't wait for mommy or daddy to tell you not to do it.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,439
- 19,875
- 146
The vast majority of retail businesses voluntarily banned smoking in their stores LONG before laws were passed.
A business is private property. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent that people are smoking when you walk into a building.
What we are doing here is robbing property owners of their rights. It has nothing to do with smokers. Telling a business they cannot allow smoking is no less egregious than the government telling you you must allow smoking in your home.
Uppsala9496
Diamond Member
- Nov 2, 2001
- 5,272
- 19
- 81
Telling a business they can not allow smoking is just like telling a business they can not sell alcohol. What is the difference?
You could always choose to not go to bars that allow smoking.
I am a non-smoker and I can see that the real problem here is the non-smokers. They want to go everywhere and have it their way everywhere. If the non-smokers would only go to non-smoking bars then more bars would decide to be non-smoking.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter