Well, they banned smoking in all pubs & clubs at the start of this month in WA...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Sweet, so the moral authoritarians have slugged their iron fists into the guts of private property owners in Australia as well?

I can't wait until they start regulating what we can do in our own houses!

Slippery slope, eh?

First they want to make your car have a windshield. Then A ROOF? How dare they. Whoops, gotta have structural metal around you too. Don't forget sunvisors so you can block the evil sun rays. The temerity. The pièce de résistance? Seatbelts. Now you are less likely to be thrown from your car, become a vegetable, thus maxing out your health insurance and making me pay for it through Medicare.

moral authoritarians ftw.

Whiner.

Wrong + wrong != right

You accuse him of use a fallacious argument and yours is even worse.
If paying for other people's medicare is as evil as you imply, then the solution is to get rid of that payment that you think is such a burden, not burden other people with your morals.
Believe it or not, people do have brains and the ability to make choices, and they even have the ability to make a correct choice -- even in the absence of a law. I know that probably sounds shocking to you, but it's true.

I was not accusing him of anything. I was perpetuating the ridiculous slippery slope argument. "If they take this away, then eventually we'll have nothing." Which is bee ess. Completely.

I did not mean to imply paying for other people's Medicare as evil. I would (and do) gladly pay for Medicare for people who BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN are unable to care for themselves. Not wearing a seatbelt, getting tossed from your vehicle and being brain dead does not count. See? I'm down for choice. Assumer! (is that a word?) lol

Wrong. Slippery slope is not always a fallacious argument. It can be valid. Text

OTOH, two-wrongs-make-a-right is always a fallacy. Text

Then don't pay for their medicare. That's a far more simple solution that paying to control their lives or their morals. And no, it's not being "down for choice" to force people to do what you think they should do.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Vic
Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

What does the dangers being well known have anything to do with it? Bottom line is, if the business is open, somebody will work there and they would have to endure the effects of the smoke. Removing that harm is a very good thing in my book.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
One of the big arguments against allowing smoking in private clubs here, is that the patrons are exposing the employees who may not smoke to carcinogens with the 2nd hand smoke. OSHA laws make that illegal. I know there are many who would say that the wait staff or whoever, could always find a different job, but that doesn't make good sense either. It is the employers duty to minimize any potential health hazards to it's employees. Personally, I enjoy going to a restaurant or clubknowing that I don't have to breath tons of smoke from other people smoking, even though I am a smoker myself.
Now, if we could only get a "No perfume" law passed...Some people seem to think that bathing in a gallon of what ever brand of "smell-purty" they bought at Wal-Mart is preferrable to taking a daily bath with soap and water.

Work someplace else.

Patronize someplace else.

It's that simple.

By this line of thought, ALL workplace safety laws should be done away with. Never mind that fall hazard, or lead poisoning, if you don't like it, go find another job. Like Prince says, that could throw us back into the "dark ages" when people getting killed on the job, was considered just another cost of business.

Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

Funny, that last line was basically my reply to you.

Yes, but I'm telling the truth, whereas you're just whining and crying that the world isn't fair and you don't always get way your way the way you think you should.
Case in point: I addressed your points head-on with valid arguments. In return, I got nothing but fallacies from you and the rest.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you eat french fries, it doesn't clog my arteries.
If you drink a beer, it doesn't get me drunk.
If you smoke, it gives ME lung disease :|

Good for them.

You have lung disease?

Nope, don't hang around smokers/smoking places. However, a former waitress in our neighborhood now has emphysema at only 41 from second hand smoke. If you want to do something to yourself that's unhealthy, that's fine. As soon as what you're doing affects other people's health, it becomes wrong.

An example I like to use is if I liked to have nerve gas spewing off of me, would you want me sitting next to you?

You basically prove my point. Based upon an amazing amount of information and education, you make the wise choice not to hang around smokers/smoking places. Based upon that exact same information, that same "former waitress" made the opposite choice. In other words, she did so something that was unhealthy to herself, and that should be fine to you, by your own logic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: Vic
Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

What does the dangers being well known have anything to do with it? Bottom line is, if the business is open, somebody will work there and they would have to endure the effects of the smoke. Removing that harm is a very good thing in my book.

So what you're saying is that those people who work there are slaves without choice? The business owners round them up at gunpoint or something?

edit: Oh no, I get it... your complaint is that people will do it anyway in spite of the known dangers, and that what's you really can't tolerate, isn't it?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
One of the big arguments against allowing smoking in private clubs here, is that the patrons are exposing the employees who may not smoke to carcinogens with the 2nd hand smoke. OSHA laws make that illegal. I know there are many who would say that the wait staff or whoever, could always find a different job, but that doesn't make good sense either. It is the employers duty to minimize any potential health hazards to it's employees. Personally, I enjoy going to a restaurant or clubknowing that I don't have to breath tons of smoke from other people smoking, even though I am a smoker myself.
Now, if we could only get a "No perfume" law passed...Some people seem to think that bathing in a gallon of what ever brand of "smell-purty" they bought at Wal-Mart is preferrable to taking a daily bath with soap and water.

Work someplace else.

Patronize someplace else.

It's that simple.

By this line of thought, ALL workplace safety laws should be done away with. Never mind that fall hazard, or lead poisoning, if you don't like it, go find another job. Like Prince says, that could throw us back into the "dark ages" when people getting killed on the job, was considered just another cost of business.

Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

Funny, that last line was basically my reply to you.

Yes, but I'm telling the truth, whereas you're just whining and crying that the world isn't fair and you don't always get way your way the way you think you should.
Case in point: I addressed your points head-on with valid arguments. In return, I got nothing but fallacies from you and the rest.

No, you didn't. You sidestepped and insulted, same as always.

Businesses used to exploit workers to the point of death. Government regulation greatly reduced that. This is just an extension of that. You want businesses to be allowed to murder their employees so that the owners can buy a better car. I want the workers protected from unneccessary harm.

SMOKE CAUSES HARM! IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE! IT HAS NO BENEFITS! IT IS DANGEROUS! PERIOD!

Now that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it to themselves, but it DOES mean that anyone who inflicts it on another person should be put in prison for assault or attempted manslaughter. A business is NOT the same as a house. It may be privately owned, but it falls under the control of federal and state regulations for businesses. The point isn't to hurt business owners, it's to protect workers. Nothing you have said in any way refutes this information.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, you didn't. You sidestepped and insulted, same as always.

Businesses used to exploit workers to the point of death. Government regulation greatly reduced that. This is just an extension of that. You want businesses to be allowed to murder their employees so that the owners can buy a better car. I want the workers protected from unneccessary harm.

SMOKE CAUSES HARM! IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE! IT HAS NO BENEFITS! IT IS DANGEROUS! PERIOD!

Now that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it to themselves, but it DOES mean that anyone who inflicts it on another person should be put in prison for assault or attempted manslaughter. A business is NOT the same as a house. It may be privately owned, but it falls under the control of federal and state regulations for businesses. The point isn't to hurt business owners, it's to protect workers. Nothing you have said in any way refutes this information.

Text

Paranoia will destory ya.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, you didn't. You sidestepped and insulted, same as always.

Businesses used to exploit workers to the point of death. Government regulation greatly reduced that. This is just an extension of that. You want businesses to be allowed to murder their employees so that the owners can buy a better car. I want the workers protected from unneccessary harm.

SMOKE CAUSES HARM! IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE! IT HAS NO BENEFITS! IT IS DANGEROUS! PERIOD!

Now that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it to themselves, but it DOES mean that anyone who inflicts it on another person should be put in prison for assault or attempted manslaughter. A business is NOT the same as a house. It may be privately owned, but it falls under the control of federal and state regulations for businesses. The point isn't to hurt business owners, it's to protect workers. Nothing you have said in any way refutes this information.

Text

Paranoia will destory ya.

I don't believe there was an appeal to emotion there, but hey, you call em however you want.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: Vic
Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

What does the dangers being well known have anything to do with it? Bottom line is, if the business is open, somebody will work there and they would have to endure the effects of the smoke. Removing that harm is a very good thing in my book.

So what you're saying is that those people who work there are slaves without choice? The business owners round them up at gunpoint or something?

edit: Oh no, I get it... your complaint is that people will do it anyway in spite of the known dangers, and that what's you really can't tolerate, isn't it?

Yes I am glad that fewer people are exposed to harm from this utterly useless and filthy habit. Although I'll admit that I have a very strong personal bias on this issue due to various reasons.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, you didn't. You sidestepped and insulted, same as always.

Businesses used to exploit workers to the point of death. Government regulation greatly reduced that. This is just an extension of that. You want businesses to be allowed to murder their employees so that the owners can buy a better car. I want the workers protected from unneccessary harm.

SMOKE CAUSES HARM! IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE! IT HAS NO BENEFITS! IT IS DANGEROUS! PERIOD!

Now that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it to themselves, but it DOES mean that anyone who inflicts it on another person should be put in prison for assault or attempted manslaughter. A business is NOT the same as a house. It may be privately owned, but it falls under the control of federal and state regulations for businesses. The point isn't to hurt business owners, it's to protect workers. Nothing you have said in any way refutes this information.

Text

Paranoia will destory ya.

I don't believe there was an appeal to emotion there, but hey, you call em however you want.

Oh really? Your entire post is an appeal to emotion, including several usages of ad hominem against me. Do I actually need to break it down for you? Or are you just going to spout more "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS WE DO AS I SAY" and continue believing that that is not a fallacious argument?

:roll:

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: GrammatonJP
oh good.. less people die from cancer due to 2nd hand smoking.. LESS TAXES TO PAY FROM THAT

LOL Im sorry but less taxes???? My friend once there is a tax set in place no matter what happens it goes only one way and that is up. And if that doesnt bring in enough money then they will put the blame on something else, brain was the public into to its for their own good, and there you have yet another tax.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: Vic
Ridiculous. More fallacies. Almost all workplace safety laws protect people from immediate (and often unrecognizable) dangers. Smoking is neither immediate not unrecognizable. Quite the opposite, the effects of short-term exposure to tobacco smoking are quickly reversible, while the dangers of long-term exposure are well known due to education.
You're basically full of sh!t.

What does the dangers being well known have anything to do with it? Bottom line is, if the business is open, somebody will work there and they would have to endure the effects of the smoke. Removing that harm is a very good thing in my book.

So what you're saying is that those people who work there are slaves without choice? The business owners round them up at gunpoint or something?

edit: Oh no, I get it... your complaint is that people will do it anyway in spite of the known dangers, and that what's you really can't tolerate, isn't it?

Yes I am glad that fewer people are exposed to harm from this utterly useless and filthy habit. Although I'll admit that I have a very strong personal bias on this issue due to various reasons.

You failed to address any of my questions. I don't care about your personal bias. If anything, that descreases your credibility.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Vic

You failed to address any of my questions. I don't care about your personal bias. If anything, that descreases your credibility.

no. no. yes.

credibility? what is this? a formal debate? I'm just expressing my personal opinion on this.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, you didn't. You sidestepped and insulted, same as always.

Businesses used to exploit workers to the point of death. Government regulation greatly reduced that. This is just an extension of that. You want businesses to be allowed to murder their employees so that the owners can buy a better car. I want the workers protected from unneccessary harm.

SMOKE CAUSES HARM! IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE! IT HAS NO BENEFITS! IT IS DANGEROUS! PERIOD!

Now that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it to themselves, but it DOES mean that anyone who inflicts it on another person should be put in prison for assault or attempted manslaughter. A business is NOT the same as a house. It may be privately owned, but it falls under the control of federal and state regulations for businesses. The point isn't to hurt business owners, it's to protect workers. Nothing you have said in any way refutes this information.

Text

Paranoia will destory ya.

I don't believe there was an appeal to emotion there, but hey, you call em however you want.

Oh really? Your entire post is an appeal to emotion, including several usages of ad hominem against me. Do I actually need to break it down for you? Or are you just going to spout more "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS WE DO AS I SAY" and continue believing that that is not a fallacious argument?

:roll:

No, I said business was allowed to run over workers until the govnernment stepped in. That's absolute fact.

I said smoking is harmful. That's absolute fact.

I said businesses are subject to government oversight. That's absolute fact.

I said you side with business interests. That's been supported fully in a number of your posts here.

I equated smoking with assault on another person. Even if there's no case law yet it IS a reasonable statement in my opinion.

I probably did go too far with my 'allowed to murder for a car' bit, but I don't really care because you just pi$$ me off that much.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: Vic

You failed to address any of my questions. I don't care about your personal bias. If anything, that descreases your credibility.

no. no. yes.

credibility? what is this? a formal debate? I'm just expressing my personal opinion on this.

It's a serious legal issue. Property rights are being denied from people by (including your case now) confessed moral authoritarians. It's not so much that you care about the dangers, but you would spite people for their choices that you disapprove of. I find that disgusting. Mind your own fsckin' business.

 

[her209]

Just a question. Are there any rules/regulations/ordinances as to the maximum allow decibel levels in a club/bar?

 

[Vic]

*Yawn*

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, I said business was allowed to run over workers until the govnernment stepped in. That's absolute fact.

I already addressed that irrelevant to this argument. Nor is that "absolute fact." Despite your prejudice and ignorance makes you want to believe, killing workers is not good for business.

I said smoking is harmful. That's absolute fact.

It is a fact that 1 in 4 smokers will die from smoking. It's also a fact than 1 in 1 people will die from life. Neither is relevant to this discussion.

I said businesses are subject to government oversight. That's absolute fact.

And it's an "absolute fact" that business are not subject to absolute government oversight. In your ridiculous mysticism, your arguments always fail to notice the "absolute fact" that business are not living entities, but are owned by people, controlled by people, and worked in by people, who do so that they might feed and house themseleves and their families, and that those people have rights.

I said you side with business interests. That's been supported fully in a number of your posts here.

See above. I don't like the idea of starving to death just because you can add 2 and 2 together. Businesses are people. Without businesses, things don't get made, services don't get provided, people don't eat.
And you ALWAYS side with government interests, yet government doesn't produce anything, or actually feed anyone. That's ironic in light of the fact that you are trying to present my "siding with business interests" in an evil light, now isn't it?

I equated smoking with assault on another person. Even if there's no case law yet it IS a reasonable statement in my opinion.

There is no case law. Your equating is meaningless garbage.

I probably did go too far with my 'allowed to murder for a car' bit, but I don't really care because you just pi$$ me off that much.

OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU DO AS I SAY!

What's next? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

You sound like a Republican defending the failed War on Drugs. You use very similar failed arguments in order to push a pro-government anti-choice moral authoritarian police state agenda that is virtually identical.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209
Just a question. Are there any rules/regulations/ordinances as to the maximum allow decibel levels in a club/bar?

Those are to protect the neighboring residents, not the patrons.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: her209
Just a question. Are there any rules/regulations/ordinances as to the maximum allow decibel levels in a club/bar?

Noise ordinances vary widely from place to place. I'm not aware of any singular safety restrictions on music, though they might exist. There are OSHA requirements regarding ambient noise from machinery and required ear protection however.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you eat french fries, it doesn't clog my arteries.
If you drink a beer, it doesn't get me drunk.
If you smoke, it gives ME lung disease :|

Good for them.

You have lung disease?

Nope, don't hang around smokers/smoking places. However, a former waitress in our neighborhood now has emphysema at only 41 from second hand smoke. If you want to do something to yourself that's unhealthy, that's fine. As soon as what you're doing affects other people's health, it becomes wrong.

An example I like to use is if I liked to have nerve gas spewing off of me, would you want me sitting next to you?

You basically prove my point. Based upon an amazing amount of information and education, you make the wise choice not to hang around smokers/smoking places. Based upon that exact same information, that same "former waitress" made the opposite choice. In other words, she did so something that was unhealthy to herself, and that should be fine to you, by your own logic.

She got a job to serve food. People came in to the place that she served food billowing toxic gases that gave her a disease that will eventually kill her. Yeah- I'm sure she chose to do that second part :roll:

If you want to smoke, go do it outside where it won't affect others. Very simple.

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
One of the big arguments against allowing smoking in private clubs here, is that the patrons are exposing the employees who may not smoke to carcinogens with the 2nd hand smoke. OSHA laws make that illegal. I know there are many who would say that the wait staff or whoever, could always find a different job, but that doesn't make good sense either. It is the employers duty to minimize any potential health hazards to it's employees. Personally, I enjoy going to a restaurant or clubknowing that I don't have to breath tons of smoke from other people smoking, even though I am a smoker myself.
Now, if we could only get a "No perfume" law passed...Some people seem to think that bathing in a gallon of what ever brand of "smell-purty" they bought at Wal-Mart is preferrable to taking a daily bath with soap and water.

Work someplace else.

Patronize someplace else.

It's that simple.

Its not that simple. Prior to the ban in NJ there were no bars or clubs that were smoke free only non-smoking sections in restaraunts. So if you wanted to go to the bar with some friends then you had to put up with the smoke and everything you had with you smelled of smoke. I had a leather jacket that I wore a few times to the bar and I still can't get the smell of smoke out of it.
Then, no bar owner would voluntarily make his club smoke free because this would put him at a disadvantage, but since all bars are smoke free now everyone can enjoy the bar, where before some people simply could not spend any time there due to the overwhelming haze of smoke.
If you want to smoke without exposing the rest of us, make some sort of hood and gas your self silly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you eat french fries, it doesn't clog my arteries.
If you drink a beer, it doesn't get me drunk.
If you smoke, it gives ME lung disease :|

Good for them.

You have lung disease?

Nope, don't hang around smokers/smoking places. However, a former waitress in our neighborhood now has emphysema at only 41 from second hand smoke. If you want to do something to yourself that's unhealthy, that's fine. As soon as what you're doing affects other people's health, it becomes wrong.

An example I like to use is if I liked to have nerve gas spewing off of me, would you want me sitting next to you?

You basically prove my point. Based upon an amazing amount of information and education, you make the wise choice not to hang around smokers/smoking places. Based upon that exact same information, that same "former waitress" made the opposite choice. In other words, she did so something that was unhealthy to herself, and that should be fine to you, by your own logic.

She got a job to serve food. People came in to the place that she served food billowing toxic gases that gave her a disease that will eventually kill her. Yeah- I'm sure she chose to do that second part :roll:

If you want to smoke, go do it outside where it won't affect others. Very simple.

Your argument doesn't work. It's not your property to tell people what to do with it. And she could have gotten a job somewhere else. The only proof you need for that is that you did, now didn't you?

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a serious legal issue. Property rights are being denied from people by (including your case now) confessed moral authoritarians. It's not so much that you care about the dangers, but you would spite people for their choices that you disapprove of. I find that disgusting. Mind your own fsckin' business.

It's not just a property rights issue. You say the workers could choose to work elsewhere, true, but the ones who do work there are may have little other choice. Perhaps it is a little unfair to deny the business the right to allow smoking on its premises, but weigh that against the health of the workers I think it is a very easy decision. When you ban smoking in an entire area, it shouldn't affect the business much if at all.

Oh and I do not share the typical american paranoia and distaste toward governments and laws

 

[Fritzo]

Its not that simple. Prior to the ban in NJ there were no bars or clubs that were smoke free only non-smoking sections in restaraunts. So if you wanted to go to the bar with some friends then you had to put up with the smoke and everything you had with you smelled of smoke. I had a leather jacket that I wore a few times to the bar and I still can't get the smell of smoke out of it.
Then, no bar owner would voluntarily make his club smoke free because this would put him at a disadvantage, but since all bars are smoke free now everyone can enjoy the bar, where before some people simply could not spend any time there due to the overwhelming haze of smoke.
If you want to smoke without exposing the rest of us, make some sort of hood and gas your self silly.

Just to add to that, only 25% of Americans smoke. By banning smoking, you are catering to 75% of people, potentially opening up your business to more customers.

My grandfather died at 62 of double emphysema, and my father in law is 55 and has mild emphysema. I am an AVID anti-smoker and nobody will ever be able to convince me of a reason where it is OK to smoke in ANY situation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
One of the big arguments against allowing smoking in private clubs here, is that the patrons are exposing the employees who may not smoke to carcinogens with the 2nd hand smoke. OSHA laws make that illegal. I know there are many who would say that the wait staff or whoever, could always find a different job, but that doesn't make good sense either. It is the employers duty to minimize any potential health hazards to it's employees. Personally, I enjoy going to a restaurant or clubknowing that I don't have to breath tons of smoke from other people smoking, even though I am a smoker myself.
Now, if we could only get a "No perfume" law passed...Some people seem to think that bathing in a gallon of what ever brand of "smell-purty" they bought at Wal-Mart is preferrable to taking a daily bath with soap and water.

Work someplace else.

Patronize someplace else.

It's that simple.

Its not that simple. Prior to the ban in NJ there were no bars or clubs that were smoke free only non-smoking sections in restaraunts. So if you wanted to go to the bar with some friends then you had to put up with the smoke and everything you had with you smelled of smoke. I had a leather jacket that I wore a few times to the bar and I still can't get the smell of smoke out of it.
Then, no bar owner would voluntarily make his club smoke free because this would put him at a disadvantage, but since all bars are smoke free now everyone can enjoy the bar, where before some people simply could not spend any time there due to the overwhelming haze of smoke.
If you want to smoke without exposing the rest of us, make some sort of hood and gas your self silly.

Funny, Oregon doesn't have a smoking ban in bars and yet roughly half the bars are voluntarily non-smoking now. And they don't think they're at a disadvantage, they advertise it as a feature to those people who prefer a non-smoking bar. Amazing!! That's been happening for ~15 years now (since McMenamins, a wildly successful chain of non-smoking bars and brewpubs) opened their first establishment. And you say it would never happen without a law....

Oh, and BTW, I don't smoke.