Also, I can't stand ozzy, so you know I'm being truthful.
Also, I can't stand ozzy, so you know I'm being truthful.
I hear the voices inside my head. They counsel me. They understand. They talk to me.
Originally Posted by djwolford
Wow, good post. You managed to extend your usual cop out to a few paragraphs and still didn't touch on anything I posted about. Kudos you worthless sack of shit.
Here, I'll explain this again for you. You are ruining a perfectly good thread. You're bitching that people are debating smoking bans in a thread solely for the purpose of debating smoking bans. Please make some sense of that for me.
Last edited by ozzy; 02-20-2009 at 06:34 PM.
All I know is I enjoy my smoke free environments hehehe sucks to be a smoker in this situation.
Personally, I have nothing against smoking bans. I had nothing against them when I was a smoker, and I have nothing against them now that I'm not. I mean, the government already pushes health rules like "No Asbestos Usage", and I have yet to see any complaints about that. Ok, maybe that is a bad analogy, but the point I am trying to make is that dropping a blanket ban on a substance that causes health problems that pushes these problems to the point where the health effect is minimalized and set basically to just the firsthand participants is not a bad thing at all.
Before, people had to opt out of restaurants and bars they may have wanted to go to because the environment allowed smoking, which is a fairly big deal if you really wanted to check a place out. Why you would choose to go to a certain bar usually has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is allowed inside - it's about the people who go there, the drinks, food etc.
Now, the only difference is that the inconvenience has been shifted onto those who have the bad habit to go outside, so everyone else there isn't required to stew in the byproducts of their vice of choice. It makes more sense to put the onus on those who do it to take one extra step (or literally, perhaps 20 - I know it's a lot to ask) before they smoke, rather than putting the onus on those who don't smoke to avoid an entire venue simply because people are too lazy to walk outside and have a smoke.
This basically ends the debate
Telling stupid people they are idiots since 1987
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
I am fortunate enough to be a member of a nationwide private club. VFW.
I agree with Syme, though I am a non-smoker I think it is BS that a law should be passed outright banning smoking in a bar. I've been to many and very few smoking bars were intolerable. In fact, the first one I've encountered was down here in LA. Walked up in there and couldn't see from all the smoke. I guess the next time I am in VA I won't have to worry about smoky bars at all. Hell, my wife probably won't even want to go anymore.
I agree with coq here.
I think it's a minor infringement of a minor freedom (the infringement is that you cannot smoke inside, and the freedom is to smoke at all) which in the long run will probably cause many people to smoke less and enjoy better health. I'm not sympathetic to anything that preserves the right to smoke, because it's such a pointless right.
Also, I don't believe in rights, but that's a discussion for another time.
A similar ban came into effect in Melbourne, Australia a few years ago. I, too, don't really have a problem with it with the exception of the cigar nights at a few of my favourite bars being ruined.
I dislike these bans purely because, as many have said, it should be the owners right to decide if they wish to allow it or not. People say "oh but I don't smoke, so what about me?", well find a place that doesn't allow it. There are lots of bars around. If you don't own the place it isn't upto you what they allow and don't allow.
Smoking is just an easy target. It is one of the few things that can be attacked. Sure smoking lowers your health and increases your chances of cancer. Sure there are alot of inconsiderate smokers who seem oblivious to non smokers and just light up wherever, even as a smoker I dislike this and when I am smoking I always move away from crowds to reduce the chance they will breathe my smoke.
However...in the UK, something like 60% of accident and emergency admissions on the weekend are alcohol related. Smoking doesn't ruin childhoods, dads don't beat up their partners in front of the kids because he had one too many marlboro lights. They don't beat up their kids because they have had too much to smoke. They don't rob kids of a childhood because of their habit, or indeed to they rob themselves of a life. Alcohol not only carries a serious health risk, it also does alot of social damage which is tolerated simply because alot of people do it.
To then have cigarettes being put up as the poster boy of bad habits really does annoy me. The message I get is that it is ok to drink, just don't smoke and I don't like it. Both are bad for you. We have the right to use both and if someone wants to allow both on their premises then that should be their choice. If you care so much about public health, what the fuck are you doing visiting a bar? Bartenders and bars are the acceptable face of drug dealing, the cancer they trade in is far worse than smoking.
I hate it when people get up on their soap box and high horse over smoking, because they want to get drunk in a smoke free environment, it is so hypocritical. Sure, rotting your brain and liver (and potentially your social life) they can take, but the lungs is just a bridge too far? Most aren't even aware of the damage alcohol does to them, they don't care because they like getting drunk, yet when it comes to smoking, so many turn into experts and because smokers are a minority it never gets judged by the same standards.
If we judged all drugs by the same standards we would either have a free market with weed, ecstacy etc, or there would be no tobacco or alcohol sales. For me the arguments in support of the bans have a very very selective scope and if applied to the substance they are visiting the bars for in the first place it is likely they would be staying at home.
I also don't like how bars and resteraunts are tied together. Granted some bars sell food and some resteraunts sell alcohol, but they are different. I can sympathise much more with non smokers when it comes to a resteraunt as it is disgusting when you are trying to eat in a cloud of smoke. Resteraunts are places where families (including young kids) should be able to go. However I still think resteraunts should have the right to decide. It is likely a resteraunt who banned smoking would do ok, however it isn't always the same with bars. It is their property. Heck, alot of places used to have a smoking section up the back away from the bar and others, I didn't see what the problem was with that.
In my small village for example, there is a high proportion of smokers. These stupid laws force people outside, even when the numbers of smokers is probably around even with that of non smokers. It is unreasonable to have a blanket ban. What if only 1 person is in? It is just stupid and unreasonable and they are just picking on smokers because it is an easy target.
Sorry, that was more of a rant than a reasoned argument and is probably riddled with incoherence.
To say that singling out smoking as evil is unfair because other things are more harmful just suggests that more attention should be paid to those other things. It's hardly a vindication of the habit.
see you're just too lazy to step outside to smoke, but are still willing to write up an 8 paragraph rant whining about mistreatment and iniquity
the whole issue is literally just about stepping outside - how bad is that?
New Jersey passed a state-wide smoking ban in bars and restaurants like, 3 years ago I think. It was a bummer not to smoke in Jersey diners anymore, because I always enjoyed going there with my friends to have a nice cup of coffee and a smoke. But I don't really mind walking outside now. I just hate when people look at me with such disdain then start coughing like I'm killing them from one quick whiff of my cigarette. Shut up. Let me smoke. Step away from it. I'm not an asshole that smokes right in front of the door or blows it in people's faces.
I'll most likely be quitting altogether soon, anyway. I cut down a whole lot.
I remember one day, roughly a year ago, when I was in a horrible, horrible, state. As soon as I entered it, I became quite ill. The color disappeared from my face, I had trouble sleeping, there was some mild, yet sustained, discomfort in my belly (an aching pain - a belly-ache, so to speak) and twice I even remember hallucinating, although it may have just been one hallucination in which I hallucinated having another hallucination, I don't think I'll ever know...And so in this state, I too passed something. A most deadly something, which put a look of disgust on the faces of those around me. I passed a very foul smelling gas. It had been stewing in the depths of my innermost sanctum the entire time I'd been in that state. However when it came to pass, all was well. I wonder if this ban you speak of will have a similar effect. Only time will tell.
Ultimately this is very simple. If I own a bar, it's my bar, it's my name above the door and it's my property, and what I do on that property is my own business. Nanny states stepping in to stop people doing what they please on their own private property is a disgrace really.
Yes. That is what I have a problem with.
The only problem is, any property you own is only by virtue that the state allows you to own it, really.
Sad, but true.
also if you're property is to become a place where you invite the public at large, there are criteria to be followed
do you complain about being forced to have bathrooms up to code, clean dishes and a procedure to follow for them etc.? this is essentially the same thing
A bar around here actually found a neat little way to get around this law. They have classified themselves as a private establishment for members only. They have membership cards and everything. A lifetime membership costs $5 if you want to just buy it, but any purchase also comes with a lifetime membership included. Since they are a private establishment the public smoking ban does not apply.
The state legislature is really pissed at them, but there is nothing they could do. It is a nice little loophole.
You are really taking this for granted, when, as coq pointed out, it's not this simple.
I don't necessarily agree that it's the "same thing" as keeping your bathroom or kitchen up to code, but his examples show that in some cases the law steps in without any argument from anyone to work for the betterment of the people at large.
Property isn't owned under threat from other people. That's the point of the rule of law. Or one of the key points.
You are assuming I agree with that kind of regulation. Yes, it is nice to have a clean bathroom, but it's the business's prerogative and may very well be in their best interests to do it anyway. The important point is that it's on private property and there is no coercion involved.
Betterment of the people at large according to whom? The majority? The majority exerting legislative influence on a minority's private property is surely little better than a tyranny of the masses. The law is there to protect individual rights, not to be a vehicle for what a majority wants to impose on everyone.
I'm not sure what place the law has in a private place between consenting adults, anyway.
I cannot stand anti-smoking laws and ads. I don't even fucking smoke and they annoy the shit out of me.
Correct - it's not under threat of other people and that is a key part of property law.
But what you miss is that the fact that laws of ownership apply to your property is an extension of the fact that the land you possess is the sovereign territory of the state. The property rights you have are those granted by the state which is the legal sovereign of the property you own.
Hence zoning regulations, hence compulsory acquisition AKA Eminent Domain etc etc.
Last edited by MrShrike; 02-21-2009 at 11:40 PM.
Not really. Laws are created to protect freedoms that already exist. This is especially true in the US where I believe it explicitly says so in its constitution.
No I think Shrike is right.
No it's not. Those are all sanitation issues that can inflict health problems (food poisoning. etc) on people without their knowledge and/or consent. Smoking isn't. Second-hand smoke certainly causes health problems, but unlike improperly washed plates or improperly prepared food or whatever, anyone who exposes themselves to second-hand smoke is doing so deliberately and knowingly. They could have just as easily turned around and walked out when they saw people were smoking in there.
The real issue isn't whether people have the right to smoke, it's whether private property owners have the right to choose to allow their guests to smoke. I think that's what so many people overlook in this issue. It's a property rights issue, not a smoking rights issue.
Again, you are casting this as a clash between the rights of non-smokers to go into any restaurant they want without being uncomfortable, and the rights of smokers to smoke inside. That's not what it's about. It's about the right of private property owners to allow smoking on their property if they want to. Making silly little moralizations like "well, smokers are the ones with the bad habit so they're the ones who should have the inconvenience" misses that point. If a property owner decides that he wants to allow smoking on his property, then on his property, smokers SHOULDN'T be the ones who inconvenienced--no matter how dirty their habit--because they are guests on private property and the owner has decided to cater to them rather than to the non-smokers.
Again, where do people get the idea that maximizing the restaurant choices of a certain segment of the populace, or minimizing the inconvenience they suffer when trying to choose a restaurant, is some kind of valid public policy goal? Since when is government in the business of making sure that such-and-such group of people have the largest possible number of restaurants/bars to choose from? Since when do you have an inalienable right to make private businesses cater to your preferences by creating an environment you like? If some restaurants have an environment you are uncomfortable with, that's not some injustice to be rectified by a law forcing them to change that environment. That's a perfectly legitimate consequence of the fact that there are all different kinds of people with all different kinds of tastes and preferences, and various restaurant/bar owners are going to decide to cater to various different kinds of people, and not all of them are going to cater to the particular group that you belong to. If you have certain preferences, it's your own responsibility to seek out establishments that cater to them, not get a law passed that forces all restaurants/bars to cater to them.
And again, what's this nonsense about other people being "required" to stew in their second-hand smoke? No-one is "required" to do any such thing. People need to stop pretending that they MUST go into a certain restaurant or bar, and if there's smoke in there, then they're somehow being forced to stay in there and breath it in.
Last edited by Syme; 02-22-2009 at 01:41 PM.
Happened to me in PA a little while ago.
Actually I don't mind stepping outside, even before it was banned in Scotland I still did it when at pubs with friends, just to be polite. The issue isn't about stepping out side, it is about who decides, the state or owner. I have never complained about having to step outside for a smoke, I honestly don't mind it.
Gwahir, I was never trying to vindicate the habit. Just pointing out that villifying 1 habit which is no worse than some others which don't get the same criticisms, or arent villified at all, is unfair. That is called discrimination. Granted, I didn't exactly frame my argument is clarity.
Syme, that was a good post. Hit the nail on the head.
About being to lazy to go outside to smoke a cigarette, what about in the winter, when it's raining or any kind of shitty weather. We had a rule about not smoking cigarettes inside but when winter came around we ended up starting to smoke inside now because going outside to smoke a cigarette in the freezing cold is so shitty.
This kind of argument is just going to make the pro-smoking-ban crowd say something like "WELL YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE FILTHY HABIT SO YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE EVEN IF ITS COLD". Don't bother trying to argue this by talking about how major or minor an inconvenience it is to have to go outside to smoke, because that's beside the point to begin with. Remember, this issue isn't about the convenience of smokers vs. the convenience of non-smokers; it's about the rights of private property owners to decide what to allow on their property, vs. a group of people who think that businesses should be forced to cater to their particular preferences and banned from catering to some other group's preferences. The convenience of one group or the other is irrelevant.
And it's not like pro-ban people are going to have a lot of sympathy for your plight as a smoker who has to go outside during wintertime; the whole pro-ban position is based around trampling on other people's private property rights in order to prevent them from ever encountering conditions they dislike in a restaurant, so do you really think anyone who isn't already opposed to a smoking ban is going to care that you have to stand in the cold for four minutes if you want to smoke during dinner?
Last edited by Syme; 02-25-2009 at 06:43 PM.
I know I have been tempted to say that the whole time but refrained from doing so for that very reason. It does miss the point though, it's all about the private property rights. It's just people were saying so much shit about how easy it is to walk outside and smoke acting like the weather is just gonna be fine all the time.
Ok, I live in Canada, and my entire smoking career (7 years) I spent smoking outside in the winter, with rare exceptions. You can whine and bitch about it, but it's really just an inconvenience and have no sympathy because I have been in that situation, and it is not all that bad.
As for the rights of property owners that cater to the public, it seems to make sense to me to have a non-smoking place because smokers and non-smokers alike will provide custom there, where in a smoking restaurant/bar, generally only smokers will go.
But that's not the point either.
Advancing my opinion - the government has been granted the right to impose laws on us by us. If the majority of people find the law acceptable and choose not to act or protest against it, then the majority seems to prove the law correct. If you are advocating for a laissez-faire style of government, one that doesn't interfere with the rights of property owners (easily skipping over attendant responsibilities, such as health and hygiene), then there is my fundamental disagreement, because I support the right for the government to impose law on private property. This is why things like dog-fighting or drug-creation are illegal on private property as well. The government has every right to impose laws that have the intention of public safety.
So in cases where participation is consensual between adults, you think the government still has the right to reign supreme? That my friend is tyranny of the masses.
hmm good point
let me ponder this for a while
But we DON'T live in a society where popularity is the one and only standard that determines whether a law is just. We DON'T live in a society were anything can be prohibited as long as 51% of the voting public agree. We live in a society where majority rule is definitely a part of the system--a strong part--but where individual rights are also part of the system, and are protected to some degree against, as benzss says, the "tyranny of the majority". If you just think it over a little bit, I'm sure you can come up with all manner of situations where people have certain rights even if the majority of the public don't want them to.
Do you really believe that if a majority of people support a law, that law is automatically just and that's the end of the discussion? Do you really believe that it's okay to criminalize any act that 51% of the populace disapproves of?
I agree that the government should be able to impose laws on private property; I simply don't think they should be allowed to do it without limitation. And to me, smoking bans in restaurants lie beyond those limitations, since it doesn't hurt anybody against their will or without their knowledge. Dog-fighting isn't at all the same, for obvious reasons (animal cruelty). As for manufacturing drugs on private property... in point of fact, I DO think people should be able to make/grow drugs at home. They should simply be held to the appropriate regulations if they are producing the drugs for anything other than personal use (i.e., if they intend to sell them). Just as it currently is with making your own liquor, for instance.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm in favor of laissez-faire government in general. I have no problem with the concept of government intervention, where it's necessary to protect people. I just don't think that restaurant smoking bans are necessary to protect people.
I think the "for the sake of public safety" argument is spurious when it comes to restaurant smoking bans, for reasons that I've already explained in this thread and which I have yet to hear anyone seriously challenge: Exposure to second-hand smoke is something that people CHOOSE to do to themselves, not something that other people inflict on them without their knowledge or consent. I'm all for the government protecting public health, but to me, that means doing things like combating the spread of infectious diseases or other things that cause people to be injured, killed, or made sick against their will and/or without their knowledge. To me, the legitimacy of public safety measures doesn't extend to the prohibition of unhealthy activities which only affect people who willingly and knowingly allow themselves to be affected by them. If it did extend to such activities, wouldn't the government be just as justified in telling people that they can't smoke even in their own homes? Or that they can't eat unhealthy foods? Or that it's a crime for them to not get enough exercise?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks