^seriously?....you're reaching a bit now.


[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM. Reason : 11]

4/30/2009 10:20:10 AM

the obvious solution is to get the government to ban alcohol from being served at bars, due to the obvious health risks associated with alcohol...this is about health and well-being, and not a thinly veiled personal agenda to be able to get drunk without your clothes smelling, right?

4/30/2009 10:21:52 AM

for page 11

Quote :

"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. "

How is that reaching? Please elaborate and support your claims if you have a rationale for it.


^i've said many times now that i think the health and well-being argument is the lamest of the potential arguments so your extravagant statement has no legs. although i can see where you're coming from since its easier to address things through extremes rather than the crux of the issue at hand.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : health]

4/30/2009 10:24:17 AM

yeah maybe i should throw out completely off topic extreme arguments, like banning black people...that will really help focus on the crux of the argument

4/30/2009 10:26:29 AM

Quote :

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

I asked politely for you to clue me in. Maybe I missed a post, but all I saw you reply was if people wanted to eat unsanitary food, they could/would. Did I miss something, was that your clue?

4/30/2009 10:28:18 AM

Quote :

"How is that reaching? Please elaborate and support your claims if you have a rationale for it. "

well, anybody can choose to go, or not to go to a smoking place. If you deny a certain type of people, you are taking away thier choice to go there....simple

4/30/2009 10:28:19 AM

this addresses the root of your argument since the main basis for those who are defending the smoker's rights are that they infringe on the choice of the owner to do with his establishment as he pleases. All i'm doing is searching for consistency. You can still feel free to address it or keep ignoring the questions I posed in the quoted section above.

4/30/2009 10:28:40 AM

^^^there is a market for smokers

there is no market for unsanitary food

its very very very simple

^nobody is saying the owner should be able to do ANYTHING he pleases, you seem to be the main one resorting to extremes to try and make your point

4/30/2009 10:29:16 AM

Quote :

"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."

So your beginning argument in the first paragraph is that establishments aren't catering to both if they allow smoking inside because the non-smokers have to deal with it. Then your argument in the second paragraph is that places can cater to both by only allowing smoking sections outside? Both situations are simply different levels of catering. You either allow smoking throughout, only in one section, only outside, or not on your property at all.

Quote :

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

I have no idea what this has to do with this argument.

4/30/2009 10:29:32 AM

Quote :

"I have no idea what this has to do with this argument."

Really? You're talking about a private property owner having the right to do whatever the fuck he wants on his property, apparently including banning blacks.

4/30/2009 10:31:44 AM

^
I'll go there.

Quote :

"should bar owners have the right to deny blacks from their establishment? Its private property, isn't it"

Yes. Unless it's the only bar around, which presents an unreasonable denial of liberty. It's all about what's reasonable. In 1950, it wouldn't have been reasonable. In 2050, when/if racism is nearly non-existent, then I contend that it would be reasonable. Racism isn't a crime. It's ugly, illogical, and generally unhealthy, but in and of itself, it is merely thought -- and people are free to think whatever they wish.
They are free to congregate with whomever they wish. They are free to buy and sell beer/food with whomever they wish.


[Too many posts to respond to -- some of you made points that I'm sure you think are good ones, but I have other work to do now. Stay tuned for my replies and refutations to all of your bullshit.]

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 10:32:06 AM

let's just hope the house sticks to their guns and doesn't approve the senate version.

legislation for legislation's sake...yay!

4/30/2009 10:32:20 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "I have no idea what this has to do with this argument." Really? You're talking about a private property owner having the right to do whatever the fuck he wants on his property, apparently including banning blacks."

What exactly are business owners banning in this case? Seems like you are the one arguing to band business owners from allowing smoking on their property.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 10:32:51 AM

Quote :

"It's all about what's reasonable. "

And with that, I'm done with this thread for awhile.

4/30/2009 10:36:19 AM

Quote :

"^^^there is a market for smokers there is no market for unsanitary food"

I guarantee you there would be if it was allowed to be so. Some people would choose to take the risk and eat at less sanitary graded place based on price alone. the issue is that this isn't allowed to happen.

Quote :

"well, anybody can choose to go, or not to go to a smoking place. If you deny a certain type of people, you are taking away thier choice to go there....simple "

So, based off this example, does an establishment have to deny the right of a group of people to attend their establishment in order for it to be deemed unfair or inappropriate, because last time i check, with this legislation, smokers would still be allowed to attend. I'm not resorting to extremes and am merely searching for the line that exists for you between okay and not okay, which is necessary in order to fully understand one's position.

Quote :

"So your beginning argument in the first paragraph... Both situations are simply different levels of catering. "

That both situations are merely different levels of catering was my exact point. This being the case one is not forcing an establishment to cater to only one market as was suggested by the question posed.

4/30/2009 10:36:40 AM

Quote :

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

I Don't have time to argue this ad nauseum, I have a law review article to write. That being said, I leave it at this:

First, saying that you KNOW your food is fine because of a sanitation rating is absurd. The restaurant sanitation system in this country is nothing more than a veil. I can't imagine how many restaurants bomb a review only to clean their act up enough to pass a re-evaluation test. And even if a restaurant is generally responsible in these matters, no sanitation rating is about to protect you from a chef who drops food on a floor and subsequently sends it out for consumption. Its not going to protect you from an employee that doesn't wash his hands and leaves a nice treat of fecal coliform on your pasta. Ive traveled extensively in places with no sanitation ratings and have never been sick from an establishment's food. Why? Because I have a fucking immune system.

Second, although the law certainly distinguishes between private property and private establishments that cater to entertainment and food sales (primarily on matters of discrimination), they are still both privately owned. Where are you going to draw this line? Should a person who rents out a room in their home not be allowed to smoke in their own home to protect the tenant (even when they knew what they were getting into). Should we prohibit smoking in private homes with children? What about a spouse who doesn't smoke?

Third, as for your public health argument, I would love to see some unbiased empirical data that illustrates the harmful effects of second hand smoke taken in small doses. The simple fact is fact is, unless you go to a bar VERY frequently, you aren't gonna be inhaling all that much throughout your life. And if you are going frequently, you probably either work there or happen to be a lush. If you work there, you shouldn't have taken the job then. If you are a lush, the self inflicted damage you have done to your liver should counter any argument you have about your safety.

Fourth, in regards to any nuisance argument, nuisance laws are designed to protect the public and private landowners from a harm that "spills over" from another persons private property. Such as noise ordinances, surface water drainage, and erosion control measures impacting land an riparian rights. Unless smoke is billowing from a building, the second hand smoke "nuisance" is confined to that building. The only "nuisance" is one to a person who voluntarily entered the establishment.

By the way, I don't smoke and I am not a libertarian.

4/30/2009 10:45:03 AM

this shit needs to be locked

4/30/2009 10:45:22 AM

i'm still looking for a seperate but equal list of non-smoking bars

4/30/2009 10:51:10 AM

i posted a link somewhere earlier in this thread that i believe were all the bars and restaurants in either north carolina, or mecklenburg county, that didnt allow smoking....can't remember if it was county or state wide though

yeah its mecklenburg county, and while some of the places listed are fast food places, etc (non-bars), there are over 1400 non-smoking eateries in mecklenburg county alone

http://mecklenburg.digitalhealthdepartment.com/smokefree.cfm

seems like people have their choice of a ton of non-smoking options

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 10:56:16 AM

how is this thread still in chit chat?

4/30/2009 10:57:59 AM

Quote :

"That both situations are merely different levels of catering was my exact point. This being the case one is not forcing an establishment to cater to only one market as was suggested by the question posed."

But why do we need laws to say which legal markets businesses can cater to and to what degree was obviously my point? If there are already options in the market that cater to each type of market, why do you need the law to tell these business owners which market is best?

4/30/2009 10:58:47 AM

Quote :

"Third, as for your public health argument, I would love to see some unbiased empirical data that illustrates the harmful effects of second hand smoke taken in small doses."

http://www.mc.uky.edu/TobaccoPolicy/ResearchProduct/HairStudyCouncilReport.pdf

4/30/2009 10:58:49 AM

^that would be a lot more relevant to his question if it studied patrons and not employees

4/30/2009 11:01:08 AM

Oops, there went your argument noob

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080505094136.htm

Money quote

Quote :

"The secondhand smoke's effect on all measures was profound, he says. "Even brief secondhand smoke exposure not only resulted in blood vessel injury, but it also interfered with the body's ability to repair itself by making the EPCs dysfunctional. It is quite amazing that only 30 minutes of exposure could cause such demonstrable effects." The study also showed that the deleterious effects of the exposure remain in the body for at least 24 hours, much longer than previously thought."

Look, we know you guys don't give a shit either way, because after all, we can fuck off and go somewhere that it is banned.



[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:01:57 AM

and there goes your argument about hanging out outside, going inside to get a beer, and then going back outside, unless it takes 30 minutes to get a beer

4/30/2009 11:02:49 AM

So how dumb does that make all of the anti-smokers who go sit in smoky bars and restaurants when there are clearly alternatives available?

I'd say pretty fucking dumb.

4/30/2009 11:03:34 AM

yeah you'd think if they were so legitimately concerned with their health, they wouldn't continue to go to bars that allow smoking when there are tons of other restaurants they could go to, drink a few beers, and not be exposed to smoke

4/30/2009 11:05:53 AM

Quote :

"So how dumb does that make all of the anti-smokers who go sit in smoky bars and restaurants when there are clearly alternatives available? I'd say pretty fucking dumb."

Yeah, and those dumb fucking workers who are just trying to earn some scratch to live should find some other line of employment too.

4/30/2009 11:07:02 AM

can i get a count of how many people's opinions have been significantly changed by this thread?

4/30/2009 11:07:16 AM

the exact inverse of number of people who feel like they've only used infallible arguments. None will be changed, its just a circle jerk of hubris. but some times thats what you need.

4/30/2009 11:10:15 AM

Threads like these, especially on the wolf web, aren't here to change opinions, they are here simply to confirm that people aren't capable of actually changing their opinion no matter how much conflicting information or arguments they are presented with.

4/30/2009 11:10:23 AM

Quote :

"there is a market for smokers there is no market for unsanitary food its very very very simple"

Except, of course, you're 100% incorrect. There are tons of people who like their burgers almost raw, their milk raw and unpasteurized, etc. It's illegal to serve those foods in restaurants, however, and for good reason - the same reason why they're trying to make smoking in those places illegal.

4/30/2009 11:13:08 AM

who the fuck goes out to a bar and orders milk

and my very valid point is that nobody goes out to a restaurant with the intention of eating something that will make them sick

plenty of people go out to bars with the intention of smoking

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:16:00 AM

You aren't making any sense man.

4/30/2009 11:23:33 AM

^^ Don't change the subject. You claimed something that was untrue. I proved you wrong.

Some of your arguments are valid, but that one's not.

And as I've said before, I don't know that I totally agree with banning smoking in bars... but I'll be glad when it happens, because I'm greedy. That's me being honest.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:23:36 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, and those dumb fucking workers who are just trying to earn some scratch to live should find some other line of employment too."

Yep. They certainly should if that is an issue for them.

Quote :

"Except, of course, you're 100% incorrect. There are tons of people who like their burgers almost raw, their milk raw and unpasteurized, etc. It's illegal to serve those foods in restaurants, however, and for good reason - the same reason why they're trying to make smoking in those places illegal."

The people who want to order that food don't want it so it will make them sick, they want it because they know if properly handled and served it is safe and appeals to them. Twista's point was that nobody is in the market for food that will make them sick.

4/30/2009 11:24:20 AM

Quote :

"you claimed something that was untrue. I proved you wrong."

no, bullshit, i claimed something that is true, you misconstrued what my argument was...i'm not changing the subject, i'm explaining my point to you since you didnt get it the first time

^exactly

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:25:14 AM

They're in the market for food that COULD make them sick that they want to eat anyway, which is exactly the deal with smoking. Could make you sick, but you want it anyway. I'd say that's pretty clear.

4/30/2009 11:25:16 AM

The no demand for unsanitary has been disproved multiple times by now. the fact of the matter is that those in opposition have no counter for it, so they either gloss over it or ignore it all together. you can't blame them, though, because once you become so entrenched in a position where you exclude the use of common sense its too late to admit you're wrong to save face. all or nothing baby, right guys?

Quote :

"Twista's point was that nobody is in the market for food that will make them sick."

No. His point was that sanitation laws are okay to exist because no one would rather have the alternative, meaning, people would always choose a safer environment for food over a more harmful one. this is simply not the case. now its being back pedaled and you're being reductive saying that no one would choose to be sick, which is obvious. i'm not asking for you to be right, but some intellectual honesty would be nice guys.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:26:29 AM

speaking of excluding common sense

Quote :

"yeah you'd think if they were so legitimately concerned with their health, they wouldn't continue to go to bars that allow smoking when there are tons of other restaurants they could go to, drink a few beers, and not be exposed to smoke"

but according to you guys, there are tons of people who go eat at restaurants with the intention of getting sick

Quote :

"No. His point was that sanitation laws are okay to exist because no one would rather have the alternative"

No, I already explained what my point was. I'm pretty sure I know what point I was trying to make

4/30/2009 11:27:38 AM

Quote :

"Yep. They certainly should if that is an issue for them."

So you're telling me they should accept a lower standard of living because the unknown risk from high and prolonged exposure to second hand smoke is too high for them to work where they'd like to work?

It isn't like (especially in this economy), someone can just say, I'd like to work at establishment Y making the same income I was making at establishment X, but without the smoking.

4/30/2009 11:29:57 AM

Quote :

"The no demand for unsanitary has been disproved multiple times by now."

and

Quote :

" No. His point was that sanitation laws are okay to exist because no one would rather have the alternative, meaning, people would always choose a safer environment for food over a more harmful one. this is simply not the case. now its being back pedaled and you're being reductive saying that no one would choose to be sick, which is obvious. i'm not asking for you to be right, but some intellectual honesty would be nice guys."

LOL


We already have a system that allows for a business to have varying levels of sanity and how many of those restaurants with poor sanitation ratings do you see staying in business very long?

4/30/2009 11:36:12 AM

Quote :

"So you're telling me they should accept a lower standard of living because the unknown risk from high and prolonged exposure to second hand smoke is too high for them to work where they'd like to work?"

I'm saying that the risk of second hand smoke is well documented and obvious, and is a clear implied risk of working at an establishment that allows smoking well before you even apply for the job.

Plentu of other jobs carry implied risks, why single out the implied risk of being around smokers?

4/30/2009 11:38:18 AM

Quote :

"We already have a system that allows for a business to have varying levels of sanity and how many of those restaurants with poor sanitation ratings do you see staying in business very long?"

they don't stay in business because they are not allowed to do so. due to regulation they are forcibly shut down despite people who are willingly acting as patrons . See ten ten or gumby's for example.

Quote :

"but according to you guys, there are tons of people who go eat at restaurants with the intention of getting sick"

i've said at least 6 times today that health is a weak argument and isn't my issue. once again this rebuttal holds no water.

Quote :

"No, I already explained what my point was. I'm pretty sure I know what point I was trying to make"

its easy to explain it after the fact, but that doesn't make it your true intent. i think your true meaning was received correctly by all those who opposed it.

4/30/2009 11:44:04 AM

Quote :

"Plentu of other jobs carry implied risks, why single out the implied risk of being around smokers?"

Ah...finally, we can get back to the common sense above all else argument...because it's common sense. All those other jobs you talk about can't have their implied risk removed easily like banning smoking. The cost to society would simply be too great to try and do that (say, a mine worker), and still, legislation exists to get as close as reasonably and economically possible.

Quote :

"I'm saying that the risk of second hand smoke is well documented and obvious, and is a clear implied risk of working at an establishment that allows smoking well before you even apply for the job."

You already said that, you guys say that every time. Seriously, in an economy where many many manufacturing jobs have been shipped out of the country, what line of work exists for a large group of people that don't have white collar skills that they can do that pays as well as a good restaurant/bar job?

4/30/2009 11:45:57 AM

vote postponed until next wed.

4/30/2009 1:45:38 PM

Quote :

"i think your true meaning was received correctly by all those who opposed it."

The true meaning was that nobody goes out to eat with the intention of getting sick, whereas plenty of people go out with the intention of smoking. It's hard to oppose that when its true. Trying to convince me that you know my thoughts better than I do isn't helping your argument.

Quote :

"what line of work exists for a large group of people that don't have white collar skills that they can do that pays as well as a good restaurant/bar job?"

If you're a non-smoker, why not apply at one of the many restaurants or bars that doesn't allow smoking inside

4/30/2009 2:18:46 PM

Quote :

"vote postponed until next wed."

I read the Dems were scared they didn't have enough votes to pass it, so they put it off.

4/30/2009 2:35:13 PM

Quote :

"If you're a non-smoker, why not apply at one of the many restaurants or bars that doesn't allow smoking inside"

And I am sure there are people out there who do just that. Clearly, every non smoker couldn't do this, as such, there are certainly those that get forced into just eating the risk and the health impact so that they can pay the bills.

4/30/2009 2:42:22 PM

McDonalds is nonsmoking, and they are always hiring...


do you want to make more money, or work in a nonsmoking environment

what about retail?



there are always options

4/30/2009 2:46:31 PM