[bhd812]

If I said completely what I feel of this subject I would be banned...

But I will say this..
I lost a good part of my Business in Chicago since they passed the no smoking law into effect recently...

now I need to drive further and so do my workers, more gas,more unsafe coniditions...less money


all because some tight wads think people "should have the rite to breath clean air".....you want clean air live in the forest...you want women, drinks, dance, party party?

most people smoke when they drink (esp non smokers)..What kind of sense is to ban it in a bar?

"now you have to go outside..15ft away from the door to smoke."....nice...
I want to see whats going to happen to some very pretty young ladies smoking alone in the wrong neighbor one late night....have any clue on the amount of rapes,murders,fights,robbery's you tight wads just caused cause you "believe in the rite to breath clean air"....losers


Yes I am a smoker, but ask anyone that ever seen me in life cause I always ask before I lite up "does anyone mind?"...I respect people and their rite to breath...I do...maybe some non smokers should respect my rite and FREEDOM (soon not to be) to do what I want also...oh I am sorry thats rite you tight wads are always rite..


but it is what it is...and smoking will be banned all over shortly.
thats life and i will live (maybe not cause smoking kills rite tight wads?...I am sure someone here wants to say that..rite? cause since your a non smoker you have that rite to tell me that rite?..)

I DO BELIEVE they should raise the tax's on smokes though...hell Raise them $50 a pack,,really do it. the people are addicted they will pay, if not they will quit..which is the better for them anyway (rite tight wads?..I know you all wanna say that also)


btw tight wads meaning nobody on this forum just the general people who make theses laws..

if you think your a tight wad then leave me alone...dont reply...I am to busy smoking a red..just go breath your clean air...away from me and my post..


lol
total rant

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula I like the rephrase. The difference between those scenarios is in one case, the government is regulating the type of product available for sale/what the employees are doing to promote sales (exotic dancing). In the other, the government is telling people what they can't do when they GO to a business (smoke). I don't think the government should be doing the latter in this case, I don't have an issue with the former.

But that's a distinction without a difference, in terms of the issue under discussion. You might as well say one scenario involves smoking and one involves dancing. The issue that was raised (by someone else, actually several folks) was that the government should not be able to tell the owner of a "private establishment," (i.e., a bar) what he or she can or cannot permit in his bar. It seems to me that the government quite frequently, in the name of the so-called "public good," or for other reasons, places limitations on what private business (including restaurants and bars) can do. For example,there are laws limiting discrimination based on race, gender, etc., there are health and safety regulations, there are zoning limitations, there are limitations as to the kind of entertainment permitted in bars, there are limitations on operating hours in some instances, etc. In many instances, the government to some extent says, we don't care what the bar owner wants, and we don't care that some customers may actually prefer a bar that does not have these restrictions, and we are not going to accept the argument that customers could go to a different bar, we are putting on these limitations in order the protect the public and advance the overall public good. (It's a separate issuue whether the government's judgment is sensible or not.) We generally accept these limitations that the government imposes in most or all of these contexts, but some are now saying the government cannot do this with smoking. To my mind no rational distinction has yet been offered for treating the two situations differently. There may in fact be a rational basis to distinguish these situations, but I haven't heard it yet.

 

[Mr.PD]

The limitations on bars in Oregon are many and strict. But none on smoking , , yet.
Who is in the majority? Are there more non smokers than smokers in the bar?
The only difference between the state telling a bar they have to be closed by 2:30AM and telling them they can't allow smoking, is that closing protects the majority public outside the bar and no smoking protects the minority inside the bar.
Both regulations seriously infringe on the rights of the smoking beer drinker.

I guess he will just have to buy a keg and go home.

As you said, PhilS. The laws and regulations are for the public good. Strippers, closing times, zoning laws, all protect those that do not go into the bar, the general public. Smoking bans only effect those that go into the bars, the patrons. Patrons and public are similar but not always the same.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS But that's a distinction without a difference, in terms of the issue under discussion.

I'm not saying what the government is allowed to do (that's a constituional question), I'm saying what I think it should do. I think there is a distinction with a difference with smoking in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS The issue that was raised (by someone else, actually several folks) was that the government should not be able to tell the owner of a "private establishment," (i.e., a bar) what he or she can or cannot permit in his bar. It seems to me that the government quite frequently, in the name of the so-called "public good," or for other reasons, places limitations on what private business (including restaurants and bars) can do.

I agree with you there...they can and should in some cases. But not smoking.

 

[max-9]

There once was a time when the govt. began prohibition (no booze anywhere). It was started by fanatics who found drinking to be immoral and disgusting and a hazard to ones health and drinkers to be a burden on society .

Those fanatics who started prohibition remind me of fanatic nonsmokers (not all nonsmokers are fanatics mind you) . There are nonsmokers that are extremely over the top with attitude to the point of actual prejudice towards a smoker regardless of blowing smoke in the face or not ect.

When enough fanatics scream and cry loud and long enough to mommy (the govt) they will make new laws to shut them up . That results in stuff like smoking bans and prohibition ect.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula I'm not saying what the government is allowed to do (that's a constituional question), I'm saying what I think it should do. I think there is a distinction with a difference with smoking in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula I agree with you there...they can and should in some cases. But not smoking.

I give up. I think we are just two ships passing in the night on the issue I was trying to address.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS ............ In many instances, the government to some extent says, we don't care what the bar owner wants, and we don't care that some customers may actually prefer a bar that does not have these restrictions, and we are not going to accept the argument that customers could go to a different bar, we are putting on these limitations in order the protect the public and advance the overall public good. (It's a separate issue whether the government's judgment is sensible or not.) We generally accept these limitations that the government imposes in most or all of these contexts, but some are now saying the government cannot do this with smoking. To my mind no rational distinction has yet been offered for treating the two situations differently. There may in fact be a rational basis to distinguish these situations, but I haven't heard it yet.

In regards to a rational basis to distinguish these situations. Try this on for size.
The laws and regulations in place concerning bars are for the public good. Closing time laws, zoning laws, etc. all protect those that do not go into the bar, the general public. We don't want drunks out driving around so we close the bar early, we don't want perverts in residential neighborhoods so we limit strip clubs to certain locations. (yes I know these laws don't do much good in some cases, but that is why they were implemented)
Smoking bans only effect those that go into the bars, the patrons the minority. Patrons and public are similar but not always the same.
Laws for the general good of society are for the majority of the public. Bar patrons are not the majority of the public.

 

[aerius]

Smoking in bars is banned where I live and I personally couldn't be happier. I can finally have a few beers with my friends at the local bar without having my asthma act up and feeling like I've lost a lung for the next day. There were many cries of doom & gloom from local bar & restaurant owners when the law went into effect, but the general consensus now is that business is just as good as before if not better.

 

[RedLeader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Smoking in bars is banned where I live and I personally couldn't be happier. I can finally have a few beers with my friends at the local bar without having my asthma act up and feeling like I've lost a lung for the next day. There were many cries of doom & gloom from local bar & restaurant owners when the law went into effect, but the general consensus now is that business is just as good as before if not better.

I was just about to say the exact same thing. Score one for living in Ontario. I have several friends who smoke, and aside from a bit of "dang its cold", I hear no complaints about going outside to smoke, be it a bar, at work or anywhere else. They understand their habit is offensive, and don't mind being curteous. I have struck up conversations with bar owners/workers and the only thing I've heard is good. Business has actually seen a bit of an increase, as people around here actually want to go out and have a good time without worrying about cancer. (Which is huge in Canada btw) I'm one of those people, I'm an athlete who has to keep in good shape and needs his lung capacity. My liver will regenerate and handle the 1 beer I drink. But will my lungs regenerate and handle the 5 cigarettes I second hand smoked in the same amount of time? Not a chance. We've banned it in all workplaces; pubs, concerts and bars included and haven't looked back yet.

 

[Edwood]

Visiting my relatives in Cincinnati, Ohio, I must say that I find it annoying to have to eat in a restaurant with smoking and so-called non-smoking that is within a few feet of each other. They keep forgetting to turn on the invisible force shield that prevents smoke form drifting over to the other side of the restaurant.

I guess I've been living in California long enought to now get a little confused when greeted at a restaurant with "Smoking or Non?"

Another reason I love living in California.

-Ed

 

[acs236]

I would love to live somewhere were smoking was not allowed in restaurants or bars. I left NYC right before the smoking ban went into effect.

To many non-smokers, the smell of smoke is nauseating. It is hard to deny the negative health effects of smoke.

Specifically, I recall an article published in a medical journal about a small town in Montana (I belive) that had a smoking ban in effect for several months, but it was eventually withdrawn. What was unique about this town is that there was only one hospital, so it was easy to gather certainl types of medical data. During the time of the smoking ban, there was a statistically significant drop in the number of people (smokers and non-smokers alike) admitted to the hospital because they were suffering heart attacks. When the smoking ban was over, the number went back up to the pre-ban level.

I understand that smokers want to be able to congregate and smoke in public. I wish there was a solution to the dilema, but I haven't heard one yet. As it has been mentioned, the employees of the bars that allow smoking are subjected to its harmful effects for several hours every day. The argument that they shouldn't work at a place that allows smoking doesn't hold much water to me. For one, the same argument could be made for sexual harassment -- if you don't like it, then work somewhere else.


I think we're going through a transitional period now. At the other side, smoking won't be as accepted. And those who want to smoke will have to do so in the privacy of their own homes or maybe tobacco bars(?).

 

[Spareribs]

Back in the 1960s people would go to cafes and smoke cigarettes and sometimes there would be a pinball machine.

You smoked, you listened to jazz. You read books about philosophy. The 60s was a fun time.