Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, it is about bar owners. It's their property, their choice. If you don't like smoke, don't go somehwere that allows smoking.
It's also about bar owners providing a safe working environment for their employees.
Do you work in a bar? If not, why not?

No. Because I work in the IT field. Not sure what the correlation is there. :confused:

I did work at a company that allowed smoking in the break room and it freaking sucked until they banned it.

The correlation is that you have a choice in where you work, just like bar employees do.

BTW, don't link to those asbestos litigation ambulance chasers like they have any credibility. They don't.

So the wait staff of a restaurant or bar must decide to live with being exposed to smoke or find another job? That doesn't fly.

I don't like those 'ambulance chasers' either. My point is an employer that puts their employees at risk leaves themselves open for litigation. One of my previous jobs was in an environment where I worked with ethylene oxide (a known carcinogen). While precautions were taken it was impossible to reduce the risk to zero. A coworker left the job and shortly after developed cancer and sued the company.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Robor
So the wait staff of a restaurant or bar must decide to live with being exposed to smoke or find another job? That doesn't fly.

I don't like those 'ambulance chasers' either. My point is an employer that puts their employees at risk leaves themselves open for litigation. One of my previous jobs was in an environment where I worked with ethylene oxide (a known carcinogen). While precautions were taken it was impossible to reduce the risk to zero. A coworker left the job and shortly after developed cancer and sued the company.
Why not? It's a KNOWN risk, just like with the ethylene oxide. Let them litigate.

And we're not talking about restaurants here, we're talking about BARS.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, it is about bar owners. It's their property, their choice. If you don't like smoke, don't go somehwere that allows smoking.
It's also about bar owners providing a safe working environment for their employees.
Do you work in a bar? If not, why not?

No. Because I work in the IT field. Not sure what the correlation is there. :confused:

I did work at a company that allowed smoking in the break room and it freaking sucked until they banned it.

The correlation is that you have a choice in where you work, just like bar employees do.

BTW, don't link to those asbestos litigation ambulance chasers like they have any credibility. They don't.

So the wait staff of a restaurant or bar must decide to live with being exposed to smoke or find another job? That doesn't fly.

I don't like those 'ambulance chasers' either. My point is an employer that puts their employees at risk leaves themselves open for litigation. One of my previous jobs was in an environment where I worked with ethylene oxide (a known carcinogen). While precautions were taken it was impossible to reduce the risk to zero. A coworker left the job and shortly after developed cancer and sued the company.

Why not? They KNEW of the risks going in. The risks are, in reality, quite small and easily assumed. Smoke is not a hidden threat nor is the average person ignorant to it.

How about this: Business owners who choose to allow smoking have employees sign wavers? Or how about they hire only smokers?

There is a level of risk in nearly every job. Your argument presents a very slippery slope. It's sad the amount of freedoms we have lost and continue to lose.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Amused

Why not? They KNEW of the risks going in. The risks are, in reality, quite small and easily assumed. Smoke is not a hidden threat nor is the average person ignorant to it.

How about this:

Business owners who choose to allow smoking have employees sign wavers?

Or how about they hire only smokers?

There is a level of risk in nearly every job. Your argument presents a very slippery slope. It's sad the amount of freedoms we have lost and continue to lose.

Ah the real hate and distain for America and Americans comes out.

The love of discrimination, hate and death all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Bravo
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Amused

Why not? They KNEW of the risks going in. The risks are, in reality, quite small and easily assumed. Smoke is not a hidden threat nor is the average person ignorant to it.

How about this:

Business owners who choose to allow smoking have employees sign wavers?

Or how about they hire only smokers?

There is a level of risk in nearly every job. Your argument presents a very slippery slope. It's sad the amount of freedoms we have lost and continue to lose.

Ah the real hate and distain for America and Americans comes out.

The love of discrimination, hate and death all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Bravo

Advocating freedom and the right to private property means I "hate America and Americans?"

Dave, just stop posting. In all my time here I have yet to see one post from you that shows even a modicum of basic understanding... of ANYTHING.

You should have just gave up the day you thought right wingers were Marxists and wanted to take down crosses on private land.

In fact, in this very thread you tried to claim smoking bans were being pushed by solely "right wingers."

Last 3rd of thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...ctab=arc&highlight_key=y&keyword1=dave

Dave, hating America means taking away freedoms one by one until a business and property owner has no rights whatsoever.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Amused
Dave, hating America means taking away freedoms one by one until a business and property owner has no rights whatsoever.

Exactly WHICH rights are they losing?

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/us-const.txt

Please list the exact right being violated by this.

Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

edit: and let's forget that the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, not grants rights to the people (as rights are inherent under liberal philosophy, not granted, as it is the people who are sovereign, not the government).
Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Amused
Dave, hating America means taking away freedoms one by one until a business and property owner has no rights whatsoever.

Exactly WHICH rights are they losing?

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/us-const.txt

Please list the exact right being violated by this.

Vic already got it.

When the Bill of Rights was proposed, many feared that only those rights listed would end up being their only rights. Hamilton and Adams tirelessly disputed this idea. They said it was absurd and added the 9th and 10th Amendments to assure people that this just wasn't true.

At the core of American rights and ideology was the right of private property, limited government, and individualism or as they called it, self determination.

It is so sad that they nay-sayers of their day were correct. :(

Many of the posters on this board honestly scare me. What are our schools teaching these days?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Amused
Dave, hating America means taking away freedoms one by one until a business and property owner has no rights whatsoever.

Exactly WHICH rights are they losing?

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/us-const.txt

Please list the exact right being violated by this.

Vic already got it.

When the Bill of Rights was proposed, many feared that only those rights listed would end up being their only rights. Hamilton and Adams tirelessly disputed this idea. They said it was absurd and added the 9th and 10th Amendments to assure people that this just wasn't true.

At the core of American rights and ideology was the right of private property, limited government, and individualism or as they called it, self determination.

It is so sad that they nay-sayers of their day were correct. :(

Many of the posters on this board honestly scare me.

What are our schools teaching these days?

They are teaching your heroes NLCB way.

They teach to pass a test. Drill Drill Drill, Results, Results, Results that is all that matters.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
When is dmctrollen going to get banned? "Thank your heroes" and "Bwahahahahaha" seems to be the extent of this morons thoughts. Get rid of this fool already, anybody else would have been banned for his bullshit years ago.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

edit: and let's forget that the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, not grants rights to the people (as rights are inherent under liberal philosophy, not granted, as it is the people who are sovereign, not the government).
Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hah... there are lists of things that I can't do or must legally do while in the comfort of my own home, and that's a world of difference from creating rules that places where the public is freely invited in to must adhere to.



Is it reasonable to say that we should abolish fire codes, for instance, since the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do on our own property?

Is it reasonable to say that warrants should no longer be a legal means of entering or searching someone's property without their permission? It's MY private property, and according to you, the government should have NO right to tell me what can go on there.

Should it be legal to require building permits for all more-than-minor renovations to residence? Why should I be required to get the government's permission to change MY house so long as it's on MY property?

Should I be allowed to play with firearms freely on my property so long as a single bullet doesn't go outside of my property? We have the right to bear arms, don't we?

 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
When is dmctrollen going to get banned? "Thank your heroes" and "Bwahahahahaha" seems to be the extent of this morons thoughts. Get rid of this fool already, anybody else would have been banned for his bullshit years ago.

I think it's funny that when someone from the liberal side speaks up, all the ass kissers call the conservatives trolls and suggest they get banned just for freely speaking their mind. He's not slinging any mud from his side that amused isn't slinging from his.

I think we can ALL agree that if you're taking some sort of personal offense to this stuff, you need to find the door and let yourself out of it.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: BoberFett
When is dmctrollen going to get banned? "Thank your heroes" and "Bwahahahahaha" seems to be the extent of this morons thoughts. Get rid of this fool already, anybody else would have been banned for his bullshit years ago.

I think it's funny that when someone from the liberal side speaks up, all the ass kissers call the conservatives trolls and suggest they get banned just for freely speaking their mind. He's not slinging any mud from his side that amused isn't slinging from his.

I think we can ALL agree that if you're taking some sort of personal offense to this stuff, you need to find the door and let yourself out of it.
Get lost twerp. This has nothing to do with "liberals" and everything to do with Dave being a useless, trolling piece of crap.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: Vic
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

edit: and let's forget that the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, not grants rights to the people (as rights are inherent under liberal philosophy, not granted, as it is the people who are sovereign, not the government).
Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hah... there are lists of things that I can't do or must legally do while in the comfort of my own home, and that's a world of difference from creating rules that places where the public is freely invited in to must adhere to.



Is it reasonable to say that we should abolish fire codes, for instance, since the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do on our own property?

Is it reasonable to say that warrants should no longer be a legal means of entering or searching someone's property without their permission? It's MY private property, and according to you, the government should have NO right to tell me what can go on there.

Should it be legal to require building permits for all more-than-minor renovations to residence? Why should I be required to get the government's permission to change MY house so long as it's on MY property?

Should I be allowed to play with firearms freely on my property so long as a single bullet doesn't go outside of my property? We have the right to bear arms, don't we?

See, now you're being completely ignorant and making asinine comparisons.

Fire codes exist to protect neighboring property owners. When your property endangers another property, you are infringing on the rights of that property owner. Countless city destroying fires made this necessary.

Same for building permits.

Meanwhile, look up the Forth Amendment for your absurd search comparison.

As for the guns. Yes. It's called an indoor firing range in urban areas, and a protected range in rural areas.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: BoberFett
When is dmctrollen going to get banned? "Thank your heroes" and "Bwahahahahaha" seems to be the extent of this morons thoughts. Get rid of this fool already, anybody else would have been banned for his bullshit years ago.

I think it's funny that when someone from the liberal side speaks up, all the ass kissers call the conservatives trolls and suggest they get banned just for freely speaking their mind. He's not slinging any mud from his side that amused isn't slinging from his.

I think we can ALL agree that if you're taking some sort of personal offense to this stuff, you need to find the door and let yourself out of it.
Get lost twerp. This has nothing to do with "liberals" and everything to do with Dave being a useless, trolling piece of crap.

Are you the kettle or the pot? If he is just trolling... you should know by now that you're just feeding the trolls.

God forbid someone care to take the minority standpoint on the forums once in a while just for stimulating argument's sake.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: Vic
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

edit: and let's forget that the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, not grants rights to the people (as rights are inherent under liberal philosophy, not granted, as it is the people who are sovereign, not the government).
Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hah... there are lists of things that I can't do or must legally do while in the comfort of my own home, and that's a world of difference from creating rules that places where the public is freely invited in to must adhere to.



Is it reasonable to say that we should abolish fire codes, for instance, since the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do on our own property?

Is it reasonable to say that warrants should no longer be a legal means of entering or searching someone's property without their permission? It's MY private property, and according to you, the government should have NO right to tell me what can go on there.

Should it be legal to require building permits for all more-than-minor renovations to residence? Why should I be required to get the government's permission to change MY house so long as it's on MY property?

Should I be allowed to play with firearms freely on my property so long as a single bullet doesn't go outside of my property? We have the right to bear arms, don't we?

See, now you're being completely ignorant and making asinine comparisons.

Fire codes exist to protect neighboring proprty owners. When your property endangers another property, you are infringing on the rights of that property owner. Countless city destroying fires made this necessary.

Same for building permits.

Meanwhile, look up the Forth Amendment for your absurd search comparison.

As for the guns. Yes. It's called an indoor firing range in urban areas, and a protected range in rural areas.

Far from absurd. You using insults like that is just your little defense mechanism to dodge the point here and try and impress yourself.

All of those points I brought up are instances where it is perfectly acceptable for the government to intervene and regulate what you can do and funny enough, they either relate to a person's well-being or the necessity of the government to regulate private property for the better good of people other than the property owner.

If you think you can just randomly discharge a firearm... then walk outside and just start shooting away and see what happens.

"When your property endangers another property, you are infringing on the rights of that property owner. " ...So you're still of the belief that cigarette smoke causes no harm to people? Is my body not considered my property?

Bottom line is that WE THE PEOPLE voted for a smoking ban, and I, personally don't give a crap what rights I gave up by banning smoking because I don't smoke. Sucks for you. I don't care. I won't care. And none of your slippery-slope BS trying to convince us that we're borderline fascist for allowing the government to regulate this is going to convince me otherwise. I believe that cigarettes are a burden to society and I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like a ban that was voted on in a state you don't live in. I love that I can walk to my favorite bar, have a few drinks and walk out without smelling like crap, breathing in a bunch of putrid ****** and laugh at all the stupid f'ers that have to stand outside to smoke because they can't go an hour or two without that wretched stuff violating their bodies with a mixture of tar and nicotine. I don't care if you think smoking is your right as a citizen, it's my right, expectation and privledge to have clean air and breathe fresh air in every second I'm alive and it's a damn shame to me that some of you think that if I don't like the smoke, I should just deal with it or go somewhere else. NOW things are fair. Nothing is stopping everyone from joining together and having a good time.

The people that support the ban are getting my money, and apparently getting more money than the people that aren't. Property owners can kiss my ass. The ban has been here for 6 months and if you think that people just aren't going to go out anymore you're off your rocker. I haven't seen one damn difference in the night crowds with the exception of the afformentioned "The supporters are busier". Roll that data up and smoke it... but not inside. Don't like my opinion? Tough ******. You get your own f'ing vote. Don't like the smoking ban? Fine. Don't come to my state. Obviously less people agree with you than me. It's always going to be majority rules because everyone can't win, you might as well benefit the large group than the small group. We've all been burned by it and we've all benefited. I didn't want minimum wage to raise nearly $1.50 because it de-values too many people to raise it that much that fast. Guess what? It'll probably put some restaurants out of business. Deal with it. That's how America works. That's how LIFE works. You adapt or you fail. Better luck on your ballot choices next time.

edit: Consider the bold parts my response to any and all replies on the matter anymore.
 

Job

Senior member
Jan 16, 2006
283
0
0
I think people should be forced to go outside if they don't want to smoke. We can set up some non-smoker shelters. Everyone should be forced to have a lit cigarette in their hands or face a fine - bars should enforce the smoking rule and anyone caught not smoking should be fined and banned from the premises.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: Vic
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

edit: and let's forget that the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, not grants rights to the people (as rights are inherent under liberal philosophy, not granted, as it is the people who are sovereign, not the government).
Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hah... there are lists of things that I can't do or must legally do while in the comfort of my own home, and that's a world of difference from creating rules that places where the public is freely invited in to must adhere to.



Is it reasonable to say that we should abolish fire codes, for instance, since the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do on our own property?

Is it reasonable to say that warrants should no longer be a legal means of entering or searching someone's property without their permission? It's MY private property, and according to you, the government should have NO right to tell me what can go on there.

Should it be legal to require building permits for all more-than-minor renovations to residence? Why should I be required to get the government's permission to change MY house so long as it's on MY property?

Should I be allowed to play with firearms freely on my property so long as a single bullet doesn't go outside of my property? We have the right to bear arms, don't we?

See, now you're being completely ignorant and making asinine comparisons.

Fire codes exist to protect neighboring proprty owners. When your property endangers another property, you are infringing on the rights of that property owner. Countless city destroying fires made this necessary.

Same for building permits.

Meanwhile, look up the Forth Amendment for your absurd search comparison.

As for the guns. Yes. It's called an indoor firing range in urban areas, and a protected range in rural areas.

Far from absurd. You using insults like that is just your little defense mechanism to dodge the point here and try and impress yourself.

All of those points I brought up are instances where it is perfectly acceptable for the government to intervene and regulate what you can do and funny enough, they either relate to a person's well-being or the necessity of the government to regulate private property for the better good of people other than the property owner.

If you think you can just randomly discharge a firearm... then walk outside and just start shooting away and see what happens.

"When your property endangers another property, you are infringing on the rights of that property owner. " ...So you're still of the belief that cigarette smoke causes no harm to people? Is my body not considered my property?

Bottom line is that WE THE PEOPLE voted for a smoking ban, and I, personally don't give a crap what rights I gave up by banning smoking because I don't smoke. Sucks for you. I don't care. I won't care. And none of your slippery-slope BS trying to convince us that we're borderline fascist for allowing the government to regulate this is going to convince me otherwise. I believe that cigarettes are a burden to society and I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like a ban that was voted on in a state you don't live in. I love that I can walk to my favorite bar, have a few drinks and walk out without smelling like crap, breathing in a bunch of putrid ****** and laugh at all the stupid f'ers that have to stand outside to smoke because they can't go an hour or two without that wretched stuff violating their bodies with a mixture of tar and nicotine. I don't care if you think smoking is your right as a citizen, it's my right, expectation and privledge to have clean air and breathe fresh air in every second I'm alive and it's a damn shame to me that some of you think that if I don't like the smoke, I should just deal with it or go somewhere else. NOW things are fair. Nothing is stopping everyone from joining together and having a good time.

The people that support the ban are getting my money, and apparently getting more money than the people that aren't. Property owners can kiss my ass. The ban has been here for 6 months and if you think that people just aren't going to go out anymore you're off your rocker. I haven't seen one damn difference in the night crowds with the exception of the afformentioned "The supporters are busier". Roll that data up and smoke it... but not inside. Don't like my opinion? Tough ******. You get your own f'ing vote. Don't like the smoking ban? Fine. Don't come to my state. Obviously less people agree with you than me. It's always going to be majority rules because everyone can't win, you might as well benefit the large group than the small group. We've all been burned by it and we've all benefited. I didn't want minimum wage to raise nearly $1.50 because it de-values too many people to raise it that much that fast. Guess what? It'll probably put some restaurants out of business. Deal with it. That's how America works. That's how LIFE works. You adapt or you fail. Better luck on your ballot choices next time.

edit: Consider the bold parts my response to any and all replies on the matter anymore.

Wow. :roll:

When you run out of rational arguments (as if you ever had one) just fall back on childish tirades.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Injury
Are you the kettle or the pot? If he is just trolling... you should know by now that you're just feeding the trolls.

God forbid someone care to take the minority standpoint on the forums once in a while just for stimulating argument's sake.

You think the "liberal" viewpoint (although Dave is nothing of the sort, he's the crackpot viewpoint) is the minority? Step into P&N sometime chump. The attempts of "liberals" to silence "conservatives" is overwhelming.

So again I so, go fck yourself.
 

SpurtSpanker

Member
Feb 19, 2006
42
0
0
I used to be a smoker of 8 years. I am 27 and quit about 6 months ago. I have no plans to start back up and am very happy I quit for many reasons.

I used to smoke in resturants and bars in of course the designated smoking areas. If I went to a place that did not have a smoking area and I needed to smoke, I went outside. I did not see anything wrong with this and I still don't.

Here is what I beleive - I think the issue on whether or not an establishment should be smoking/non-smoking or both should be left up to the owners and no one else. Period, the end. It should not be the states decision.

Nobody is forcing anyone to go to a place they do not want to go or be subjected to something they don't want to be subjected to. IE - nobody is making you go to TGI Fridays and sit in the smoking section. Nobody is making you go to a specific ALL SMOKING bar when your a non smoker. Nobody but YOU is making that choice.

The problem? People need to start making their OWN decisions and STOP letting somone else (THE STATE) do it for them. This causes alot of problems and pretty much strips away your rights.

Since when did all the hubub start with smokers? Wheres all the crap about the alcoholics? You know, the ones that kill people on the road every day?



Again, as a previous smoker - I respected people and did not blow smoke in their face or smoke where a main entrance was - its common courtesy - As a non smoker I expect the same courtesy. I also don't have a problem with smokers and I don't mind eating in a resturant with a smoking section either. That area stinks to high heaven - but I am not eating in there.


So.. whats the problem?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: SpurtSpanker

Nobody is forcing anyone to go to a place they do not want to go or be subjected to something they don't want to be subjected to.

So.. what's the problem?

Discrimination is the problem.

Let's add cigarettes (required) to the bus.

Everyone on the bus was white and smoking. Rosa gets on without a cigarette.