Is there ANYPLACE left to smoke in peace!!!

carpenter

Shack, I'm afraid your take on what is government intervention worthy

"but trying to protect others from the smokers actions"

is a very slippery slope. this DYI statistics site, says

In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.

and ..

16,005 people were killed in the United States in alcohol-related* motor vehicle traffic crashes (BAC of .01 or higher).

and I'm leaving the children fatalities statistics out on purpose.
what would you say the government should do? should it reinstate prohibition as a way to protect tens of thousands of people ? didn't work to well the first time around did it ...? (some) people who drink and drive kill innocent children!
Am I being demagogues? you bet your ****. it's still very relevant in this discussion, as the simple fact is that the Gov't did try it once.

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

In this particular case he does and there is over 50 yrs of medical proof to back him up!

Be my guest & kill yourself, but you shouldn't be allowed to take anyone else with you & little by little you wont be allowed to.

Oh boy.......just how far will we let big brother dictate what is good or bad?
We can all agree smoking is bad for you....and so is sugar,red meat,talking on your cell phone,listening to music at extreme volumes,and so on.Should not be a problem to all of you then when this all gets regulated.If a bar lets people smoke,you have a choice to frequent that place or not.Just like I have a choice to sit in the front row of a rock concert and risk hearing loss.So lets forbid that too then.It's about freedom of choice,plain and simple.I can agree though when you have a captive audience,such as indoor concerts,smoking should not be allowed.Here in Illinois,bar owners are lobbying to allow smoking in bars.....hmmm,could be for the lack of buisness?I guess you non smokers aren't spending enough money.:p All the smokers I know,now go out to eat and return to someones house to party rather than staying in a bar.Who looses?

jflail2

When you start imposing smoking bans on places that are specifically for smoking (cigar lounges, tobacco shops, any bar in which the owner has chosen to provide a smoking area for his/her clients) then yes it is going too far.

Like I said, I understand not having smoking in restaurants, malls, etc etc, but pasting that ban across all places of business is overboard.

mantis

tonyb wrote: »

No,there should be places to smoke,and places to not.That way the consumer has a choice to frequent the places they wish...smoking...non-smoking.

Cathy,thats like saying I shouldn't have to pay higher health care costs because so many are slurping down ding-dongs.So lets ban ding-dongs? C'mon....don't go into places that allow smoking,is that so hard?

Ding dongs don't hurt others while eating them.

bobman1235

Unless frozen, and thrown.

ohskigod

the comparisons people are pulling out there arses are making me giggle.

no one wants to ban smoking, just smoking in public areas where other people are who dont want to inhale smoke. NOT BANNING SMOKING.

so the alcohol/prohibition argument isnt just invalid, it's grasping at straws to bolster an argument using flawed logic. drink all you want, but if you get into a car and put others lives in danger....IT's ILLEGAL!!!!! last time I checked

smoking is fine, but smoking in some public places putting there lives in dnger (granted over a much longer term) BECOMING ILLEGAL.

----anyone see a similarity here? I do


hey Carpenter, thanks for bolstering my argument

ohskigod

bobman1235 wrote: »

Unless frozen, and thrown.

again, if frozen and thrown at someone......ILLEGAL. thats assault brotha!

ROTFLMAO :D:p:D:p

tonyb

mantis wrote: »

Ding dongs don't hurt others while eating them.

Then they won't mind when the airline's charge them for 2 seats.

Or when your healthcare cost goes up because of that un-insured gastric by-pass,ding dong eating mo-fo starts crying.

Smoking doesn't hurt anyone else either....as long as a non-smoker isn't standing by them.Thus,they have a choice.And if another smoker is standing there,then they really don't give a crap now do they?

ohskigod

jflail2 wrote: »

There is talk of even banning smoking in CIGAR STORES in some states. I'm sorry, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If the owner chooses to provide a smoking environment, and the patrons are there (in the cigar store case) specifically to smoke, should our govt really have the ability to ban this outright? I'd know going in that there will be smoking, and if it bothers me I just wouldn't go in the 1st place...

I .

a VERY VALID argument here. I would say Cigar stores should be smoking permitted.

the specific places to smoke argument if applied to some bars might hold water, but can be harder to implement than you think.....

shack

ohskigod wrote:

the comparisons people are pulling out there arses are making me giggle.

no one wants to ban smoking, just smoking in public areas where other people are who dont want to inhale smoke. NOT BANNING SMOKING.

so the alcohol/prohibition argument isnt just invalid, it's grasping at straws to bolster an argument using flawed logic. drink all you want, but if you get into a car and put others lives in danger....IT's ILLEGAL!!!!! last time I checked

smoking is fine, but smoking in some public places putting there lives in dnger (granted over a much longer term) BECOMING ILLEGAL.

----anyone see a similarity here? I do


hey Carpenter, thanks for bolstering my argument

BINGO!

tonyb wrote:

Smoking doesn't hurt anyone else either....as long as a non-smoker isn't standing by them.Thus,they have a choice.And if another smoker is standing there,then they really don't give a crap now do they?

Almost all scientific research disagrees with this point of view.

Imperitor

^ +1

ohskigod

tonyb wrote: »

Smoking doesn't hurt anyone else either....as long as a non-smoker isn't standing by them.Thus,they have a choice.And if another smoker is standing there,then they really don't give a crap now do they?

truth be told, I have a problem with smokers dictating where I can and cant go under this argument. basically what your saying is the minority number of smokers fully dictate where the non smokers can and can not eat (well, those that don't feel like breathing in something that will kill them and make them smell like an ashtray)

smoker - "hey, I'm smoking here, if you dont like it, eat somewhere else"

me - "f%^k you, and put out your cigarette....I'm hungry"


truth be told, if someone smokes near me I might not notice it. its the chain smoker that smokes non stop while eating...creating a plume of annoyance that chaps my ****. this is the same jerkoff that didnt light up on the way to the resteraunt, or even in the car. just when they sit down to the meal to they start lettin em rip. these people exist.....believe me

I really dont see the major inconvenience. you cant just go outside for a couple minutes??? really?
If someone banned ding domg's to where I would have to go outside to eat ding dong's....my fat **** could easily go outside and eat a ding dong. I couldnt whine, what with my mouth being engorged with ding dong and all!!!

tonyb

shack wrote: »

BINGO!




Almost all scientific research disagrees with this point of view.

Really....what tests where done with a non smoker standing say 30 ft away in a dinning room and a guy smoking in the bar area? I read all the second hand smoke stuff,but just about all test put both of these people in the same crowded room with little to no air circulation.Yes,I can agree second hand smoke isn't good for you,but why is it your call on what a buisness can or cannot do? The way it used to be was you had places that allowed smoking and places that didn't.Everyone had a choice.What was wrong with that?Leave it up to the individual buisness owner to decide,not your government.

bobman1235

ohskigod wrote: »

I really dont see the major inconvenience. you cant just go outside for a couple minutes??? really?
If someone banned ding domg's to where I would have to go outside to eat ding dong's....my fat **** could easily go outside and eat a ding dong. I couldnt whine, what with my mouth being engorged with ding dong and all!!!

Again, this is absolutely a true statement; it's just the idea of creating laws telling private businessowners what LEGAL things they can and can't do in their own establishment is bad.

Smoking is also gross and annoying, and forcing people to go outside is very much NOT a huge deal, and the arrogance of someone to do something annoying and harmful around others and saying deal with it, even that I agree is bad. They are all valid statements, and completely irrelevant : a private business is still a private business, and smoking is still legal in private places.

tonyb

ohskigod wrote: »

truth be told, I have a problem with smokers dictating where I can and cant go under this argument. basically what your saying is the minority number of smokers fully dictate where the non smokers can and can not eat (well, those that don't feel like breathing in something that will kill them and make them smell like an ashtray)

smoker - "hey, I'm smoking here, if you dont like it, eat somewhere else"

me - "f%^k you, and put out your cigarette....I'm hungry"


truth be told, if someone smokes near me I might not notice it. its the chain smoker that smokes non stop while eating...creating a plume of annoyance that chaps my ****. this is the same jerkoff that didnt light up on the way to the resteraunt, or even in the car. just when they sit down to the meal to they start lettin em rip. these people exist.....believe me

I really dont see the major inconvenience. you cant just go outside for a couple minutes??? really?
If someone banned ding domg's to where I would have to go outside to eat ding dong's....my fat **** could easily go outside and eat a ding dong. I couldnt whine, what with my mouth being engorged with ding dong and all!!!

Smokers don't dictate,the owners do.Problem is non smokers want to eat at smoking places and expect everyone else to change to accomadate them.Go eat at a non smoking place....but you won't.So now smokers took there cash elswhere and the individual buisness owner is feeling the pinch.Go outside?? In the winter? Yeah ok....here in chicago that doesn't work out too well.The bars will get it back eventually,the state misses the money too much.

shack

The government regulates many activites of it's citizens. Smoking is now one of those because of it's adverse effect on others. AND YES the CDC reports do cover the distances that second hand maintains it's toxicity and emphatically states "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous." MORE regulation is gaining momentum among the majority of citizens and will continue to increase in scope. It is not going to change. I am in favor of it. Smoke in your home, in your car, smoke outside but not indoors in a public place or business. I would also like to see more littering enforcement of people who throw cigarette butts out of their car or on the ground. in public.

cfrizz

Well eventually I believe that all establishments that cater to the public are going to go the nonsmoking route.

Since they are the minority they will either stay home or get over themselves & start eating out again & smoke their nasty butts outside when they are done.

As far as business hurting, most saw little to no change in business or an increase in business. So that BS doesn't fly either!

treitz3

Damn, all this talk about smoking makes me want to go outside and smoke a cigarette. Thanks, needed that.

NotaSuv

cfrizz wrote: »

Well eventually I believe that all establishments that cater to the public are going to go the nonsmoking route.

Since they are the minority they will either stay home or get over themselves & start eating out again & smoke their nasty butts outside when they are done.

As far as business hurting, most saw little to no change in business or an increase in business. So that BS doesn't fly either!

In the Minneapolis area some counties went smoke free before others...the place i managed did see a big decrease during the 1am-5am shifts (bar rush) as smokers could drive 5 minutes into another county and enjoy the same food in a smoking area.....BUT when the entire state went smoke free we did actually see an overall increase..lots more families and kids during the supper hours and daytimes on weekends...the overnight rebounded as everywhere was now smoke free.... Indian casinos are the only places i know of here that now allow smoking

Demiurge

ohskigod wrote: »

smoker - "hey, I'm smoking here, if you dont like it, eat somewhere else"

me - "f%^k you, and put out your cigarette....I'm hungry"

D

You don't get it.

If I open a restaurant and I allow smoking, you should expect that there may be someone smoking while you're fattening your **** up on my food.

If I open a restaurant and I don't allow smoking, you should expect that I'll throw anyone out on their **** if they try lighting up.

You've all got to accept the reality that the world always doesn't cater to you and what you deem acceptable.

If smoking bothered as many people as the government would have us believe there would be more business owners CHOOSING to ban it on their own.

Ya'll can slice this however the hell you want, but until tobacco is banned outright you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. You seem to forget we're talking about a LEGAL and governmentally regulated product.

...and as I said before, I don't really care about what other gross abuses of power the government has advanced -- it doesn't justify this one.

Really can't wait until they come after the fat people.

shack

Demiurge wrote:

You don't get it.

No...you don't get it. You or anyone else does not have the unbridled right to what you want...when you want. Like it or not...there are rules and society gets to set those rules. If you don't like them you can work within society to change them. Smoking where and when you want or allowing smoking where and when you want is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. One has certain unalienable Rights...and smoking in a public building isn't one of them unless society as a whole allows it.

Demiurge

shack wrote: »

No...you don't get it. You or anyone else does not have the unbridled right to what you want...when you want. Like it or not...there are rules and society gets to set those rules. If you don't like them you can work within society to change them. Smoking where and when you want or allowing smoking where and when you want is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. One has certain unalienable Rights...and smoking in a public building isn't one of them unless society as a whole allows it.

Shack, YOU don't get it. Stop calling a private business a public buildings. They are open to the public, but you can choose who you do or do not want inside of it. I know you understand the difference, so why do insist on calling restaurants, bars, and some guys machine shop a public building?

You have a choice to make, but you want government to make it for you. Businesses have a choice to make, but you want government to take it away from them.

treitz3

..........and that's unconstitutional.

If it ain't, show me where it says it ain't.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

Shack, YOU don't get it. Stop calling a private business a public buildings. They are open to the public, but you can choose who you do or do not want inside of it. I know you understand the difference, so why do insist on calling restaurants, bars, and some guys machine shop a public building?

You have a choice to make, but you want government to make it for you. Businesses have a choice to make, but you want government to take it away from them.

Very well put Sir...

Can anyone tell me why when we had smoking places and non smoking places,why that wasn't satisfactory?Yes,I am baiting.....

shack

Why can't a business owner serve alcohol wherever they want? Why can't they open a strip club wherever they want?. These are legal activities and it's their "private property". Why can't you fire a gun wherever you want? You have the right to have one and the right to shoot it...why should you be limited to where?

You all can whine all you want...the fact remains that the government is making public policy decisions that the majority of the citizens agree with. You claim you have certain rights...you don't. The government has the right to do what is doing...and I wholeheartly agree with it.

tcrossma

Demiurge wrote: »

Shack, YOU don't get it. Stop calling a private business a public buildings. They are open to the public, but you can choose who you do or do not want inside of it. I know you understand the difference, so why do insist on calling restaurants, bars, and some guys machine shop a public building?

You have a choice to make, but you want government to make it for you. Businesses have a choice to make, but you want government to take it away from them.

When you have a business, open to the public, you are accepting to abide by a certain set of rules. No, you can't choose who you do or do not want inside it as that would be discrimination. You can't sell people OTC drugs in a restaurant, people can't dine naked in a restaurant, you can't serve alcohol in your private hair salon, you agree to have a clean, safe, healthy environment for your patrons (thus the health code regulation). This is not your business to do with whatever the hell you want, sorry. You have to follow the rules. And right now there are rules in place in many states that say smoking isn't OK.

cfrizz

Bingo Tcross! The majority of society has gotten the message that smoking is bad & we will no longer tolerate the affects of second hand smoke. You are free to smoke, but the general public must be protected from 2nd hand smoke.

The govt knows that if left up to business owners they will always choose the bottom dollar over doing what's right. Therefore, more & more cities/states are making the right choice for them.

You are free to **** about that, but you are not going to stop it. Those that don't comply will end up being fined out of existence & no one will miss them since others will take their place happy to comply with the law.

shawn474

Smokers can smoke......................they can smoke in their houses and in their cars. I'm not against people smoking in a bar, etc. but I must admit that it's so much nicer to go to a bar, have a few drinks and not come home smelling like a chimney. Not to mention how bad smoking and even secondhand smoke is for you (not preaching, just saying).

I don't hate smokers; I just hate smoking.;)

hoosier21

I hate smokers, and I am one

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

Bingo Tcross! The majority of society has gotten the message that smoking is bad & we will no longer tolerate the affects of second hand smoke. You are free to smoke, but the general public must be protected from 2nd hand smoke.

The govt knows that if left up to business owners they will always choose the bottom dollar over doing what's right. Therefore, more & more cities/states are making the right choice for them.

You are free to **** about that, but you are not going to stop it. Those that don't comply will end up being fined out of existence & no one will miss them since others will take their place happy to comply with the law.

The general public was protected,by having their own non smoking places.
So now the smoker is no longer "free" to smoke in a designated smoking place.

You said buisness owner will always go with whats best for the bottom dollar,yet in a previous statement,you said that buisness has been better since smoking was banned.Which one is it?
As for the majority saying no to smoking.....I must have missed that vote when it came up.Like I said before,I can agree on it when you have a captive audience in an enclosed area.Bars should be able to make their own choice.While some cities might see a benefit from it,here in chicago,we are not.We have a whole town here,Fox Lake,80% of that town smokes and has a bar on every corner.So after buisness went south and smokers stayed home to party,all the bars put up tents with heaters to draw them back.Bar owners have organized and are now lobbying to get a pass on the ban.Seeing that our state is 5 billion in the hole,they have a shot at it.I respect that you don't like smoking,just respect others that do.Goes both ways.