Thread: My Stupid Fucking State Just Passed A Smoking Ban

It happened in Ontario when I was living there and, surprisingly, in Quebec when I was living there. With the latter, it was a real shock because part of the hilarious stereotypical identity of being Quebecois involves chainsmoking, but the ban passed with barely a complaint, and suddenly you could see to the back of the bar you were in.

Personally, I think it's a fine choice and a good idea, because smoking is something that has detrimental health effects on people who are around the smokers, not simply those doing it themselves.

I don't know if it's the same in Virginia, but in Ontario you can smoke indoors so long as it's a private club.

Well I know that since the smoking ban here (UK) a lot of people have quit smoking and smoking-related illness has already gone down. It's also given rise to something called 'smirting' (a form of flirting where you get to know people through conversations held in smoking areas).
I don't actually smoke (anymore) and I'm still against it, like you, on principle. I think property owners should have the right whether they allow it or not. At least a bunch of chain-smokers aren't going to go and run over a couple of kids on their drive home.

What if I want to get drunk without poisoning my lungs?

Do you know how hard it is to find a non-smoking bar?

I'm a smoker and I am for this as long as their are clearly defined smoking area's outside ANY place that smoking is not allowed. Fuck California.

Originally Posted by MalReynolds

What if I want to get drunk without poisoning my lungs?

Well, what if you do? If there don't happen to be any non-smoking bars near you, I don't think it's your right to have the government step in with legislation that bans smoking in all establishments, everywhere, so you can have the conditions you want while you get drunk. Bar owners should have the right to decide whether they'll allow their guests to smoke on their property; if all the bar owners near you have decided they'll allow it, that's their business and their right. Tough luck. Get drunk elsewhere if you don't like the conditions in any of your local bars.

And yes, I do know how hard it is to find a non-smoking bar, because I too often want to drink in a smoke-free environment, so I too have often looked for non-smoking bars. My experience: Not actually that hard to find.

States are passing this left and right. My state past it over a year ago. It sucks and it is retarded, but it is a fact of life. Get used to it.

I was fucking goofing, SYME

Jesus.

Can't wait for him to go through menopause so his goddamn ovaries will fall out and he'll knock that bullshit off.

Originally Posted by Kozzle

Ok so wait...you're telling me that non-smokers have to be restricted in choices as to WHERE to go opposed to EVERYONE being able to go ANYWHERES except smokers just have to smoke outside?

What I'm telling you is that if a person owns a bar or restaurant, that person should be the one to decide whether to allow smoking by their guests. Just as when you own a home, you get to decide whether to allow smoking by guests in your house. Yes, this would mean that there would be some places where smoking is allowed, and thus where non-smokers (at least the ones who are bothered by smoke) wouldn't want to go. So what? Bars and restaurants are private property. They are privately-owned businesses, not public services. If they want to allow smoking, the ought to be able to even if some people would be unwilling to patronize the establishment as a result. They should be allowed to cater to whatever segment of the public that they want to cater to (be it wide or narrow), not forced to create an environment in which the largest possible number of people will be willing to eat/drink. You don't have some inalienable right to have the government maximize your restaurant choices by banning anything you don't like in a restaurant.

Your problem seems to be that you think that the #1 Most Important Issue here is guaranteeing maximum restaurant choice for everyone; preventing any situation where a person might be dissuaded from entering certain restaurants. I don't see guaranteeing maximum restaurant choice for non-smokers as a particularly important legislative goal. The fact that there are some restaurants where smoking is allowed, and where non-smokers are therefore unwilling to go, doesn't strike me as a problem that needs to be solved by government intervention. It doesn't strike me as a problem at all.

Originally Posted by Kozzle

On top of that you blame people for inhaling second hand smoke form someone else's lit cigarette?

wow....

Okay, let's construct a hypothetical scenario here. You're walking down the street and you say to yourself "I want something to eat" (or "I want a drink"). You see a restaurant (or bar) and walk in. Stepping through the door, you see that there's a haze of cigarette smoke in the air, the place smells like cigarettes, and there are people smoking cigarettes. At this point you may suspect that you have entered an establishment where the owner has decided to allow smoking. You have two choices: You can say "Doesn't bother me" and go take a seat, or you can say "Uh-oh, I don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke" and turn around, leave, and walk down the street to an establishment with a "No Smoking" sign on the door (which, as I pointed out above, are the majority of establishments). No-one is forcing you to choose either of these two options; it is entirely up you. It is entirely your own decision. Now, if you choose to go sit down and breath in that smoke when you could have just easily turned around and left, what on earth would possibly make you think that you are justified in blaming the smokers for exposing you to that smoke? It may have come from their cigarettes, but YOU chose to go sit down in it when you could have just as easily chosen not to!

I don't "blame" people for inhaling second-hand smoke; but I recognize that anyone who is being exposed to second-hand smoke is being exposed to it because they willingly chose to expose themselves to it when they could just as easily have gone somewhere else. They are responsible for their exposure to that smoke. They said to themselves "I will go sit in this smoke-filled room even though I could leave instead". As I said above, the smokers didn't drag them into the place and tie them to a chair and force them to breath in the smoke. What is so hard to understand about this? So I have no sympathy for people who willingly go into smoke-filled rooms that they didn't have to go into, and then try to pretend that they've somehow been victimized by those evil smokers. Second-hand smoke in bars/restaurants is something that people expose themselves to by choice, and by choice alone.

Originally Posted by Kal El

Syme it's a tale as old as the USA itself and I still don't know why you even bother bitching about it.

I wish fewer people had this attitude about discussing or debating current events, political ideas, and so on. Sometimes people discuss issues because they have opinions and have an interest in discussing/debating them, even if they realize that having the discussion isn't actually going to change anything in the real world. Yes, I do realize that talking about this smoking ban in the CD forums isn't going to make it go away in real life. Thank you for pointing that out, in case I was hoping that the state legislature was reading this and would repeal the law when they saw how unhappy I was with it.

I can see that you have no interest in discussing this issue; that's fine. I guess some people don't want to talk about something unless talking about it will change it, and have no interest in just having a discussion or debate over an issue. If you don't want to discuss the issue or see other people discuss it, then just stay out of the thread. Do you have some policy about trying to stop any discussion about an issue that isn't going to be changed by the discussion?

Originally Posted by Kal El

Here's a concept that works, governments worrying about less important issues while other important issues such as increasing unemployment, falling consumer spending, and and general decreased economic activity are rampant and largely ignored.

Syme it's a tale as old as the USA itself and I still don't know why you even bother bitching about it.

You realize you don't have to read this thread right? Let some intelligent people throw ideas back and forth and fuck off.

I don't think that he's expressly forbidding you, it's just that your original post was really whiny. I mean, I like internet debating as much as the next guy, but not when the set tone is one where I'm going to be going toe to toe with a name-calling doo-doo head.

Being said, I'll keep reading this thread because I do like the debate. I just won't engage in the shenanigans. I might run snide side commentary, though.

I mean, no one is forcing you to respond to his posts, either.

There is some serious internet business going on itt

A smoker is never going to agree with a smoking ban and a non-smoker is never going to disagree with a smoking ban (unless they are sympathetic), so there is no point in people arguing itt

Oh my God why can't anyone seem to realize that I'm fucking kidding good lord. I fucking used the phrase "Doo-doo" head.

COME ON.

COME ON.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

A smoker is never going to agree with a smoking ban and a non-smoker is never going to disagree with a smoking ban (unless they are sympathetic), so there is no point in people arguing itt

I'm not a smoker, as I said in the OP. And as I said in a later post, I don't even like being in a smoky bar; I try to find bars where no smoking is allowed. I wouldn't even say I'm "sympathetic" to smoking; what I'm sympathetic to is property owners getting to decide what they'll allow their guests to do, be it smoking or whatever else.

And again, some people like to discuss issues and throw ideas around for it's own sake, not necessarily because they think they can change the mind of people who disagree. If you think it's pointless, that's fine. There are plenty of other threads where such pointlessness isn't occurring.

A restaurant is one thing but I think they should have left bars out of the rule.

Had a smoking ban in the UK for ages, the country is a better place because of it.

Originally Posted by ClownPrinceOfCrime

A restaurant is one thing but I think they should have left bars out of the rule.

You're not even old enough, so don't even start.

Originally Posted by Kal El

This is basically the point i've been trying to make. I am all for debate about current issues and politics, but this topic is just... well it's basically been done a thousand times before (obviously not on this site) and I've heard all the arguments for and against, so it's really just beating a dead horse with a stick.

Wait so because this is a topic that has been brought up many times in other places it's not worth debating here? What the fuck kind of logic is that? People should just say oh, this has been argued before let's just accept the laws and not care if they go against our beliefs. This is something people have a fundamental problem with and its NOT just the smokers it's people who think that we should have to freedom to choose to go to a bar that allows smoking or a bar that doesn't allow smoking. The state shouldn't be forcing their decision upon everyone. Jesus christ last I checked this was supposed to be a free country. People are just getting more and more used to having less rights than we once did.

Originally Posted by Kal El

You're not even old enough, so don't even start.

I'm not old enough to go to a bar and that doesn't change anything.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Wait so because this is a topic that has been brought up many times in other places it's not worth debating here? What the fuck kind of logic is that? People should just say oh, this has been argued before let's just accept the laws and not care if they go against our beliefs. This is something people have a fundamental problem with and its NOT just the smokers it's people who think that we should have to freedom to choose to go to a bar that allows smoking or a bar that doesn't allow smoking. The state shouldn't be forcing their decision upon everyone. Jesus christ last I checked this was supposed to be a free country. People are just getting more and more used to having less rights than we once did.

I'm sorry that you see different than me, it's my opinion. Why does it even matter to you what I think? Yes this is a free country, but at the same time it could be considered a public health issue, and that is why most States and municipalities are invoking bans on smoking. Last time I checked just because it's supposed to be a "free country" doesn't mean that there are restrictions in place. If it was a "free country" people would be able to murder one another, rape one another, rob banks, get wasted and crash their vehicles, drive their vehicles while being blind, etc. The country isn't free. You pay taxes, you abide by laws, you elect people to basically be in charge of you, in the end, it's called life, deal with it.

I'm not old enough to go to a bar and that doesn't change anything.

Yes it does change something, you can't go to most bars unless they follow along with provisions of having under legal drinking age patrons.

Kal El you are seriously the whiniest cocksucker I've come across on the internet. You've heard the debate a thousand times before and have heard both sides...so what? That has nothing to do with the debate taking place here. Is it really that much of a problem for you if this thread continues along normally and people debate about it? For fucks sake no one is forcing you at gunpoint to read this thread.

You want to see the difference between you and Mr. E itt? He came, gave his opinion that its pointless, and left. You came, gave your opinion, whined because someone disagreed with you, whined some more, agreed that it was pointless, and continued whining.

And don't reply with your usual annoying childish cop outs.