"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis

4/30/2009 7:33:24 AM

Quote :

"A century ago, it could be said that, "legally speaking, women have absolutely no right to vote." Are you seriously that weak of a troll? You use the legal status quo to defend the legal status quo? Give me a fucking break. You just lost all credibility. (You fucking idiot.)"

women's suffrage and the intricacies of implied consent are two completely different things. i'm sure even libertaritrolls like yourself will agree with that statement.

status quo or not, it's still the fucking law.

(You fucking idiot.)

4/30/2009 7:34:08 AM

Quote :

"These bans are 100% immoral"

rofl, what's immoral is a smoker can pollute my air but I can't pollute his face with my fist

whats immoral is a business owner allows him to pollute my air and absolutists like you feel this is completely ok

i love when ideologies get so cemented that common sense doesn't just take a back seat, it gets hooked to the bumper and dragged down the road

Quote :

"Individual responsibility makes america stronger"

Well, so long as that individual responsibility is the non smoker doing his part not to be polluted, but not so far as the smoker doing his part not to pollute

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 7:38:43 AM

I think we should go back to the days before minimum wage and labor laws when capitalism's gears were oiled by the blood of the workers.

4/30/2009 7:40:03 AM

My mind is blown by how self important the smoking defenders get about this shit. It's black and white and fuck every shade in between. Take your bitch ass outside and smoke, come back in and enjoy a drink and conversation with everyone else not wanting to play the lung cancer game.

4/30/2009 7:41:48 AM

WAIT. WOMEN CAN VOTE NOW?

4/30/2009 7:43:16 AM

My mind is blown by how self important the non-smoking defenders get about this shit. It's black and white and fuck every shade in between. Take your bitch ass to one of the many non-smoking establishments and quit trying to enact laws that we don't need.

4/30/2009 7:49:11 AM

^
Exactly.

Quote :

"women's suffrage and the intricacies of implied consent are two completely different things. i'm sure even libertaritrolls like yourself will agree with that statement."

So? That what analogies are. The comparison isn't between "women's suffrage" and "the intricacies of implied consent" you fucking idiot, it's between "the-relationship-between-women-not-being-able-to-vote-and-the-justification-that-its-currently-the-law" and "the-relationship-between-refusal-to-avoid-reasonable-harm-not-counting-as-consent-and-the-justification-that-its-currently-the-law". If I remember correctly, you had trouble with analogies before. Perhaps you should go back to elementary school.

(You fucking idiot.)

Quote :

"what's immoral is a smoker can pollute my air but I can't pollute his face with my fist"

That's not your air. The air in a confined enclosed private property is not your air.

Quote :

"whats immoral is a business owner allows him to pollute my air and absolutists like you feel this is completely ok"

Again, it's not your fucking air, but even air that is no longer confined to the private property that allows smoking, and dilutes into the atmosphere isn't unreasonable pollution. I don't see you trying to ban gasoline engines or wood-fires, do I?

Quote :

"i love when ideologies get so cemented that common sense doesn't just take a back seat"

But you are the one with no common sense. You think that mob rule and nanny-state rule support common sense? Get a clue.

Quote :

"Well, so long as that individual responsibility is the non smoker doing his part not to be polluted, but not so far as the smoker doing his part not to pollute"

No. It's both. Duh. And it's not that simple.

Quote :

"Ok -- so who's supposed to practice it? The smoker or the one who doesn't like the smoke?"

Both, duh.

The smoker must be individually responsible by not smoking on public or private property where smoking is disallowed. Also, the smoker must be individually responsible by paying for 100% of any of their health care costs caused by their smoking.

The non-smoker must be individually responsible by avoiding private properties where smoking is allowed, should they not want to be around smoking. Also, the non-smoker must be individually responsible by refusing to pay for any health care costs for others that did decide to smoke or be around smoke.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:10 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 7:53:58 AM

4/30/2009 7:57:08 AM

^
Thanks for the Ayn Rand publicity.

4/30/2009 7:59:54 AM

the point here should be that it is the OWNERS bar, not the representatives and their constituents...

they should be able to decide what happens there. If there is smoke and you don't like, GTFO

I don't go to a bar and tell them to turn off their shitty music if that is how I perceive it

I don't go to a restaurant and tell them how to decorate the place or cook their food


you can bitch and moan till your red in the face about health concerns... that doesn't change a damn thing about the fact that it is THE OWNERS BAR, not yours... if you don't like it, then don't go. When you open your own bar, you can make it a nonsmoking pirate bar for all I care- you know why? IT'S YOUR BAR

4/30/2009 8:16:22 AM

Owners rights is just a convenient argument for self important smokers in lieu of actually recognizing the health concern issue and the infringing on someone else's rights issue.

Quote :

"That's not your air. The air in a confined enclosed private property is not your air. "

You best fucking believe it's my air. There only material difference between an owner allowing patrons to harm other patrons via smoke pollution, versus say pumping oxygen displacing nitrogen in the air, is the level of acuteness. That an asthmatic can't frequent a place of business because of the behaviors of others, not to mention the micro-damage being wrought on everyone else because of this owners right concept is really sad. How is regulating smoking any different than regulating how food should be handled?

Quote :

"I don't see you trying to ban gasoline engines or wood-fires, do I?"

As soon as it becomes trendy to bring your wood to a bar or restaurant and have a pow-wow then you best fucking believe I'll be calling for that ban.

Quote :

"But you are the one with no common sense. You think that mob rule and nanny-state rule support common sense? Get a clue."

If the mobmajority rule nanny state legislation has the effect that it doesn't actually prevent smokers from smoking and it improves the health and well being of employees and patrons of the establishment then it's hard to say this is anything but common sense.

Quote :

"No. It's both. Duh. And it's not that simple. "

It is that simple, it just blows up your personal responsibility/common good argument because in this case the common good wrought out of the personal responsibility that is so dear to libertarian ideology meets an impasse.




This whole argument needs to be shown for what it is, it's tin foil hatism and this latent fear that this is yet another right being eroded away by the big powerful government. Let's ignore for a hot minute that smokers can and will still smoke (just 10 feet away on the other side of the wall) because this interfers with this raging fear we need to keep up of the government and it's rights taking machinery. At the same time, we also need to ignore the public health aspect and not talk about other aspects of an establishment that already are regulated. If that doesn't work, then we'll just talk in extremes about the removal of all rules and regulation and let the free market decide.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 8:24:44 AM

I'm gonna love the lack of smoke..but I still don't agree the gov't should be telling bar owners what to do.

4/30/2009 8:26:46 AM

THEY ALREADY DO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO

THEY CAN'T SERVE ALCOHOL WITHOUT A PERMIT

THEY CAN'T SERVE IT AFTER 2AM IN NORTH CAROLINA

THEY CAN'T LEAVE FOOD THAT SHOULD BE COLD OUT TO BECOME LEUKWARM AND A HAVEN FOR BACTERIA

THEY CAN'T POUR GREASE DOWN A PUBLIC SEWER DRAIN

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 8:28:46 AM

you mad?

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 8:29:38 AM

^^your last argument has already been adressed


you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not

and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you

4/30/2009 8:30:27 AM

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not and if you don't like it, then leave- that decision is totally up to you"

Quote :

"Member Address Phone Email Sen. Charles W. Albertson 523 LOB (919) 733-5705 Charlie.Albertson@ncleg.net Sen. Austin M. Allran 516 LOB (919) 733-5876 Austin.Allran@ncleg.net Sen. Tom Apodaca 1127 LB (919) 733-5745 Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net Sen. Bob Atwater 312 LOB (919) 715-3036 Bob.Atwater@ncleg.net Sen. Marc Basnight 2007 LB (919) 733-6854 Marc.Basnight@ncleg.net Sen. Doug Berger 526 LOB (919) 715-8363 Doug.Berger@ncleg.net Sen. Phil Berger 1026 LB (919) 733-5708 Phil.Berger@ncleg.net Sen. Stan Bingham 2117 LB (919) 733-5665 Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net Sen. Harris Blake 517 LOB (919) 733-4809 Harris.Blake@ncleg.net Sen. Julia Boseman 309 LOB (919) 715-2525 Julia.Boseman@ncleg.net Sen. Andrew C. Brock 1119 LB (919) 715-0690 Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net Sen. Harry Brown 521 LOB (919) 715-3034 Harry.Brown@ncleg.net Sen. Peter S. Brunstetter 522 LOB (919) 733-7850 Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net Sen. Debbie A. Clary 515 LOB (919)715-3038 Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net Sen. Daniel G. Clodfelter 408 LOB (919) 715-8331 Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net Sen. Charlie Smith Dannelly 2010 LB (919) 733-5955 Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net Sen. Don Davis 525 LOB (919)733-5621 Don.Davis@ncleg.net Sen. Katie G. Dorsett 2106 LB (919) 715-3042 Katie.Dorsett@ncleg.net Sen. Don East 1120 LB (919) 733-5743 Don.East@ncleg.net Sen. Tony Foriest 411 LOB (919) 301-1446 Tony.Foriest@ncleg.net Sen. James Forrester 1129 LB (919) 715-3050 James.Forrester@ncleg.net Sen. Linda Garrou 627 LOB (919) 733-5620 Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net Sen. W. Edward (Eddie) Goodall 332 LOB (919) 733-7659 Eddie.Goodall@ncleg.net Sen. Steve Goss 1028 LB (919) 733-5742 Steve.Goss@ncleg.net Sen. Malcolm Graham 620 LOB (919) 733-5650 Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr. 518 LOB (919) 733-7223 Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net Sen. David W. Hoyle 300-A LOB (919) 733-5734 David.Hoyle@ncleg.net Sen. Neal Hunt 1102 LB (919) 733-5850 Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net Sen. Jim Jacumin 1113 LB (919) 715-7823 Jim.Jacumin@ncleg.net Sen. Clark Jenkins 308 LOB (919) 715-3040 Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net Sen. Ed Jones 623 LOB (919) 715-3032 Edward.Jones@ncleg.net Sen. Eleanor Kinnaird 2115 LB (919) 733-5804 Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net Sen. Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. 621 LOB (919) 733-4599 Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net Sen. Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. 300-B LOB (919) 715-3001 Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net Sen. Jean Preston 1121 LB (919) 733-5706 Jean.Preston@ncleg.net Sen. William R. Purcell 625 LOB (919) 733-5953 William.Purcell@ncleg.net Sen. Joe Sam Queen 1117 LB (919) 733-3460 Joe.Queen@ncleg.net Sen. Tony Rand 300-C LOB (919) 733-9892 Tony.Rand@ncleg.net Sen. David Rouzer 520 LOB (919)733-5748 David.Rouzer@ncleg.net Sen. Bob Rucho 1118 LB (919) 733-5655 Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net Sen. Larry Shaw 311 LOB (919) 733-9349 Larry.Shaw@ncleg.net Sen. John Snow 2111 LB (919) 733-5875 John.Snow@ncleg.net Sen. R. C. Soles, Jr. 2022 LB (919) 733-5963 RC.Soles@ncleg.net Sen. Josh Stein 410 LOB (919)715-6400 Josh.Stein@ncleg.net Sen. Richard Stevens 406 LOB (919) 733-5653 Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net Sen. A. B. Swindell 629 LOB (919) 715-3030 AB.Swindell@ncleg.net Sen. Jerry W. Tillman 628 LOB (919) 733-5870 Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net Sen. Don Vaughan 622 LOB (919)733-5856 Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net Sen. David F. Weinstein 2108 LB (919) 733-5651 David.Weinstein@ncleg.net"

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:37 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 8:33:44 AM

is there a list of raleigh bars that are smoke-free? (i don't google/search)

4/30/2009 8:38:00 AM

Quote :

"you can't see your food being made/know where it is coming from- you know walking into a bar if it is smoking or not "

Thank you for making my argument. Because of sanitation regulations, I don't have to worry or know where my food is coming from, I don't have to interview the restaurant owner and decide if he is lying to me about his supply chain or his food handling practices or if they have slackened because of cost cutting measures. I KNOW that it is safe to eat there thanks to sanitation ratings, I don't have to go a time or two and wait to get sick or not.

^^ Thanks for that btw, I am going to mail them wholeheartedly supporting this legislation.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 8:40:09 AM

^^
There are many.
Which brings up an issue that makes my blood boil:
The private sector has successfully addressed the issue of people wanting smoke-free establishments. There are many, many non-smoking restaurants and bars to choose from. If this weren't the case -- if nearly every restaurant and bar allowed smoking, and most people don't smoke or want to be around smoking, then an authoritarian government ban on smoking, while still immoral, would be perhaps reasonable -- a necessary evil -- because most people wouldn't have the choice to eat or drink out. But, there are plenty of non-smoking options -- so do we all view this as "problem solved"? No. Some of you see this and think, "Well, most places disallow smoking, so let's go ahead and force everyone to." This is so fucking backwards it makes me scream.

^
Could you possibly miss the point any worse?

4/30/2009 8:44:31 AM

Question for all, which bars in the downtown area ban smoking? Which restaurants?

4/30/2009 8:46:59 AM

so, using your logic, people should have the right to do heroin and meth and whatnot without fear of legal repercussions, right?

4/30/2009 9:03:25 AM

Quote :

"which bars in the downtown area ban smoking? Which restaurants?"

and i'm more intrested in bars, not something like chili's or applebee's

4/30/2009 9:08:21 AM

Quote :

"makes my blood boil"

honest-to-goodness, the idea of you being pissed off just thrills me

i can see you stamping your feet and sticking out your lower lip with every post

4/30/2009 9:17:53 AM

Quote :

"so, using your logic, people should have the right to do heroin and meth and whatnot without fear of legal repercussions, right? "

duh

4/30/2009 9:19:41 AM

^
I agree. Of course that should be legal. Is evan trying to make a point?

Quote :

"honest-to-goodness, the idea of you being pissed off just thrills me"

Well no shit, you're a troll.

4/30/2009 9:23:36 AM

I love the "I'm all for legislation if it's what I want" crowd.

how hard is it to not go to a place if you don't want to be around smoke? Instead of personal choice, you need the gov to do it for you.

4/30/2009 9:30:28 AM

Quote :

"Well no shit, you're a troll."

and you're a rabid libertarian who lives in a world far removed from reality...what's your point?

4/30/2009 9:33:23 AM

Quote :

" Because of sanitation regulations, I don't have to worry or know where my food is coming from, I don't have to interview the restaurant owner and decide if he is lying to me about his supply chain or his food handling practices or if they have slackened because of cost cutting measures. I KNOW that it is safe to eat there thanks to sanitation ratings, I don't have to go a time or two and wait to get sick or not."

lol.... Boat FULL of fail

4/30/2009 9:35:51 AM

Quote :

"how hard is it to not go to a place if you don't want to be around smoke? Instead of personal choice, you need the gov to do it for you."

Like I just pointed out, a smoker lives by this same mantra, they can't be responsible enough to not poison other people with their cancer, so the government is going to do it for them.


^ Thats such a great addition to the argument...you're a regular William Jennings Bryan!

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 9:45:33 AM

salisburyboy addressed specific points brought up to refute his arguments more than these libertarian ideologues do. its fine to attach yourself and support the platform of a political movement but once you cross the zone from reality and rationalism you become a radical and it makes nutso libertarians just as bad as nutso republicans or utlra liberal democrats. Once someone reaches that point they erode their own credibility, and can never regain it because no matter how much you speak with them, at the end of the day, you'll be frustrated and they'll still be crazy.

Quote :

""Individual responsibility makes america stronger.""

and given your arguments it would seem you find full functioning mechanics of a democratic majority to be the sign of a weak america.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM. Reason : quote]

4/30/2009 9:45:40 AM

^ That is all this boils down to. If the fear of or the perceived fear of a right being eroded trumps idea of the common good dear to all libertarians, even if that fear is unfounded or misappropriated, then they complete forget the other half of their ideology and construct the biggest soap box imaginable, load up on the bull horns, and start shouting until they are blue in the face.

I really can't get over how these folks turn a complete blind eye to the abject health issue that smoking causes, not to mention the nuisance, to innocent third parties to trumpet the private property talking point, conveniently ignoring existing excellent rules and regulations that helped make this country the wonder that it is.

4/30/2009 9:51:12 AM

Cigarettes are a legal commodity.

So there are two clear markets: cigarette smokers and non-smokers.

Bars and restaurants choose to cater to either one market, the other market, or both.

Why do we need a law to say that they must only be able to cater to one legal market?

4/30/2009 9:51:36 AM

Quote :

"Like I just pointed out, a smoker lives by this same mantra, they can't be responsible enough to not poison other people with their cancer, so the government is going to do it for them. "

If smokers were busting up into non-smoking establishments puffing then you would have a valid point...as of now, not so much.

people that are so concerned about their health, but still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation must not really be that concerned.....I don't know about you, but if I feel that strongly about a certain situation being bad for my health, I don't put myself in that situation.

4/30/2009 9:54:40 AM

Quote :

"people that are so concerned about their health, but still CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation must not really be that concerned"

just to play devil's advocate here; how does a smoker have the right to smoke in a place before a non-smoker has the right to have a smoke free environment?

FTR here is my stance, as previously stated in this thread:

Quote :

"smoking is a personal choice. being around smoking is a personal choice. banning smoking in an establishment you own should be a personal choice. i don't see how there's any way around that."

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 9:58 AM. Reason : quote]

4/30/2009 9:57:46 AM

i like when people use the smoking = unsanitary foods strawman...shows how out of touch they are with reality

^let the business owner decide what he wants the policy to be in his business

4/30/2009 9:57:50 AM

Quote :

"Bars and restaurants choose to cater to either one market, the other market, or both."

They don't truly cater to both. If you allow smoking its not as if you ban non-smoking. So catering to both isn't truly applied in most situations. the minority group, smokers, gain hegemony by having the entire area infiltrated with smoke which the majority, non-smokers, find to be a nuisance. Most spots that have smoking and non-smoking assigned areas are mostly for show and not effective as you can still smell the smoke in the non-smoking area. However, I will concede that few places, very few, have distinct areas where smokers are and then a separate portion of the building for non-smokers. tyler's tap room in apex comes to mind.

Be that as it may, when you forbid smoking on the inside of your bar you are not forcing only one market to be catered to. Smokers are still allowed to go there and in most cases can smoke in the abundant outside seating that is available or they can excuse themselves from the inside and smoke outside. These places are allowed to cater to both markets just as reasonably as those places that allow smoking inside.

For the record my issue isn't the health aspect. I find that to be the weaker of the arguments, although valid.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 9:59 AM. Reason : health.]

4/30/2009 9:58:16 AM

Quote :

"There only material difference between an owner allowing patrons to harm other patrons via smoke pollution, versus say pumping oxygen displacing nitrogen in the air, is the level of acuteness."

I think you're referring to the concept of reasonable harm/danger. Certainly you understand that some harm and danger is reasonable, right?

If I gently bump into you on the subway (touching your person without your consent is a harm -- a minor one, but a harm none-the-less,) and you didn't want to be touched -- then I've negligently harmed you. I neglected to take adequate measures to control myself from making [non-consensual] contact with you. But wait. I'm not guilty of battery or assault because every competent judge will dismiss it as "reasonable harm".

Similarly, if you are in my living room and I light up a cigar and you unwillingly inhale some second-hand smoke before you immediately get up and leave because you don't want to be endangered by unhealthy second-hand smoke -- then I've endangered you. I willingly released unhealthy and dangerous smoke into the air that you are breathing, exposing you danger/risk. But wait. I'm not guilty of battery, assault, or reckless endangerment because every competent judge will dismiss it as "reasonable danger".

This is not a difficult concept -- but some of you are completely ignoring it.

I mean, you implied that "pumping oxygen displacing nitrogen in the air" was similarly endangering to tobacco smoking. Of fucking course you are wrong. As has been mentioned over and over again, individuals can immediately tell that smoking is going on because they can see it and/or smell it. Displacing oxygen with odorless and colorless nitrogen is in NO WAY comparable. When will you idiots get a clue? Every one of your points have been shot down*. You lose.


*

Quote :

"salisburyboy addressed specific points brought up to refute his arguments more than these libertarian ideologues do. "

Are you fucking retarded? The exact opposite is true. We've shot down every one of your points, but you've not countered many of ours. Get a god damn clue, man -- you are losing this argument!

Quote :

"you find full functioning mechanics of a democratic majority to be the sign of a weak america"

When they trample on the individual rights of unpopular minorities, the mechanics of democratic majority ARE NOT functioning properly. You are the one that is unamerican, here. You.

Quote :

"just to play devil's advocate here; how does a smoker have the right to smoke in a place before a non-smoker has the right to have a smoke free environment?"

That's only if the place is private and they have permission from the property owner. My living room, for instance, is private. If I allow smoking, then no one else has the right to have a smoke free environment there. This is really not that hard to understand. (I agree with your stance OTR and see that you are just playing devil's advocate here...)

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 9:59:26 AM

^^^ i completely agree. i was just asking how he felt smokers have the right to a place before non-smokers, as he basically stated, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go. a "we were here first" type sentiment.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason : k]

4/30/2009 9:59:32 AM

word

4/30/2009 10:03:34 AM

Quote :

"just to play devil's advocate here; how does a smoker have the right to smoke in a place before a non-smoker has the right to have a smoke free environment?"

Some places allow smoking, some don't. The nonsmoker can CHOOSE not to patronize a smoking establisment, just like the smoker must agree to not smoke in a non smoking place.

It all boils down to choice...be it property owner or individual.

4/30/2009 10:05:26 AM

^ ok. i agree with you there. i must have misinterpreted your post.

4/30/2009 10:06:44 AM

Quote :

"If smokers were busting up into non-smoking establishments puffing then you would have a valid point...as of now, not so much."

But, and here is the thing you ignore as your retreat to your owners rights argument...no one is permitting them from smoking outside and returning to the establishment. However, if I wanted to go inside to get a beer and go back outside to enjoy it, outside of a gas mask, I'm still subjected to your poison.

Quote :

"i like when people use the smoking = unsanitary foods strawman...shows how out of touch they are with reality"

So clue me in.

Quote :

"I think you're referring to the concept of reasonable harm/danger. Certainly you understand that some harm and danger is reasonable, right? "

No I don't, not when the "some harm and danger" argument comes from an individuals decision to do the harming and danger. We aren't talking about a freak accident where lightning strikes, someone spills some beer right in front of you and you slip on it, a glass breaks, or any other things that could be considered "reasonable harm" when you leave the 'safety' of your abode. I again like to ask, what the fuck kind of society do we live in that we let another individual decide what my level of reasonable harm is and leave it up to me to live in my cave?

Quote :

"If I gently bump into you on the subway (touching your person without your consent is a harm -- a minor one, but a harm none-the-less,) and you didn't want to be touched -- then I've negligently harmed you. I neglected to take adequate measures to control myself from making [non-consensual] contact with you. But wait. I'm not guilty of battery or assault because every competent judge will dismiss it as "reasonable harm"."

Terrible analogy. If you go into a subway and make it part of your enjoyment to bump into people to the point of leaving bruises, you'll either have your ass kicked or removed by the police.

Quote :

"Similarly, if you are in my living room and I light up a cigar and you unwillingly inhale some second-hand smoke before you immediately get up and leave because you don't want to be endangered by unhealthy second-hand smoke -- then I've endangered you. I willingly released unhealthy and dangerous smoke into the air that you are breathing, exposing you danger/risk. But wait. I'm not guilty of battery, assault, or reckless endangerment because every competent judge will dismiss it as "reasonable danger"."

It's already been established by previous regulation that a private place open to the public for business is not the same thing as a private individuals home. Smoking regulation is no different than food regulation.

Quote :

"I mean, you implied that "pumping oxygen displacing nitrogen in the air" was similarly endangering to tobacco smoking. Of fucking course you are wrong. As has been mentioned over and over again, individuals can immediately tell that smoking is going on because they can see it and/or smell it. Displacing oxygen with odorless and colorless nitrogen is in NO WAY comparable."

You dumbass, as part of that statement I pointed out the "acuteness" of the harm and you attack the statement anyway. Of course I can tell that it is going on, but I most certainly can't tell to what degree I am getting fucked because of it. Last I checked, carbon monoxide was colorless and odorless.


[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 10:07:01 AM

there are plenty of people who like smoking and who want to go to bars that allow smoking

i've never once heard of a group of people who want to go somewhere with unsanitary food

4/30/2009 10:09:02 AM

Quote :

"no one is permitting them from smoking outside and returning to the establishment."

If the owner says no smoking on the entire property, people would have to comply....No problems there. Again, if I was as worried about it as you seem to be, I damn sure wouldn't even put myself in the situation.

Quote :

"So clue me in."

it's very easy to find out if a place allows smoking and in turn to choose if you want to go there or not...it's not, however reasonable to expect consumers to do thier own research on food quality and sanitation at a given place, so the gov does it and posts results in the form of grades. It effectively aids in your CHOICE whether or not to go somewhere....If you wanna go eat somewhere with a low grade, have at it.

4/30/2009 10:14:07 AM

Quote :

"Are you fucking retarded? The exact opposite is true. We've shot down every one of your points, but you've not countered many of ours. Get a god damn clue, man -- you are losing this argument!"

Its funny, salisburyboy always said the same thing. That he had defended every pont and proven them wrong and that he was 'winning'. Many can attest to that. So, sure, as long as you think that you're right then surely everyone else must be losing.

I'll say this again, i think that the health argument is weak, and it does not act as my primary support. Interestingly enough I find the this tramples the liberty of this great nation argument equally as weak, so perhaps it is good that those two arguments are used to combat each other as opposed to pure reason.




[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : fuck it]

4/30/2009 10:15:12 AM

Quote :

"if I wanted to go inside to get a beer"

Yeah -- inside SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Why the fuck do you think you have a right to smoke-free air in someone else's private property where they allow it? Do you think you have a right to smoke-free air in my living room?

Quote :

"It's already been established by previous regulation that a private place open to the public for business is not the same thing as a private individuals home."

Established? As in the debate is over? Bullshit. The reasons for and extent to which private businesses differ legally from private residences is not settled policy.

Quote :

"Last I checked, carbon monoxide was colorless and odorless."

But not when it's in accompanied by smoke -- WHICH WAS YOUR POINT. ...damn, you're dumb.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 10:18:06 AM

Quote :

"i've never once heard of a group of people who want to go somewhere with unsanitary food"

You find me a place that is open for business with unsanitary food, then we can have that discussion. OH WAIT, YOU WON'T FIND THAT PLACE THANKS TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

Quote :

"Yeah -- inside SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. Why the fuck do you think you have a right to smoke-free air in someone else's private property where they allow it? Do you think you have a right to smoke-free air in my living room?"

Remind me again how it is private property when they are open to the public for business? Last I checked, they were benefiting from all the infrastructure improvements (paid for by the citizens, smoking and non alike) that allow them to profit from the public. I'd still like to see you square the private property argument with public health regulations related to food. Let me guess, your best effort is to let people get sick because of some yoyos fuck up and wait for the free market to handle that situation, right?

Well let me tell you what happened in podunk China Grove where I am from. Two elderly folks vanished from Earth when the dumbasses in the kitchen decided to kill and gut a goat after business hours and did a shitty job of cleaning up. The establishment shut down, the free market worked, but it only took the death of a couple of grandparents for it to happen. A win for your cause, right?!

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 10:18:32 AM

i tried to clue you in to the stark difference in allowing smoking, versus allowing unsanitary foods, but you're clueless

4/30/2009 10:19:17 AM

should bar owners have the right to deny blacks from their establishment?

Its private property, isn't it.

Quote :

"i've never once heard of a group of people who want to go somewhere with unsanitary food""

Perhaps they would if restaurants were actually given that cost. The reason being that the food would likely be less expensive if this pesky regulation was removed and then individuals would be allowed the choice and freedom to decide if they wanted to consent to more perceived level of risk as a caveat to the opportunity to eat for a lower cost.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason : perhaps]

4/30/2009 10:19:36 AM