Quote :

"you are right, McD, I shouldn't brad because karma IS a bitch."

The legal system isn't some bizarre tit-for-tat game where you try and punish groups you come into conflict with

1/4/2010 4:27:19 PM

Quote :

"All those smokers got what was coming to them for years and years of their bullshit. "

Relate to me the story of when a smoker forced you into a smoke-filled building and I'll allow you your braggadocio.

1/4/2010 4:29:10 PM

I bet some smoker branded him with a cigarette burn and he hasn't been right since.

1/4/2010 4:29:52 PM

Quote :

"maybe you should stick to making websites like a fucking goon"

you can tell you've lost an argument when the best you come up with is an insult that isn't even valid

i pity you, i do...it's like you've got a smart person in there, just waiting to crawl out, but you keep smothering him (or her, based on how your panties are in a wad over this whole thing) in self-righteous anger and pathetic attempts to convince the masses how every law is an attempt by the government to limit our civil liberties

poor mickey d

1/4/2010 4:30:56 PM

dude you just don't pay attention do you

1/4/2010 4:31:29 PM

MAH ASS IS ITCHIN'

1/4/2010 4:32:34 PM

Quote :

"braggadocio"

haha, did you have to look that up, or did you use it in one of your songs, mr. songwriter?

1/4/2010 4:33:04 PM

i like how people are accusing me of being some wacky libertarian when i've been one of the only outspoken socialists on this site for years

1/4/2010 4:33:25 PM

^who gives a shit. who gives a fuck.

1/4/2010 4:34:54 PM

Quote :

"haha, did you have to look that up, or did you use it in one of your songs, mr. songwriter?"

Is that your smoking story?

Also, I am aware that making a living through music is a character flaw. I don't need you to tell me that.

1/4/2010 4:37:02 PM

Quote :

"^who gives a shit. who gives a fuck."

Well seeing as how nobody's listening to my arguments and instead going "LOLBERTARIAN" and giving me a boiler plate response, I guess anybody who wants to say something relevant would give a fuck

1/4/2010 4:41:07 PM

Quote :

"i like how people are accusing me of being some wacky libertarian when i've been one of the only outspoken socialists on this site for years"

you like to say you're a socialist, but you contradict yourself...yes, the PRIMARY goal of socialism is more government control over INDUSTRY and the (more) equal distribution of wealth...but the secondary goals pertain strongly to social welfare and the good of the whole versus the good of the individual...by design, socialism limits your precious liberties

smoking cigarettes is UNDENIABLY unhealthy for the individual and undoubtedly unhealthy for the those around each individual...additionally, smoking increases health care costs, which is bad for everyone...a good socialist would advocate the banning of smoking altogether, since there are zero positive health benefits (unless you want to go off on that "smoking is an appetite suppressant and so it keeps people from getting fat" bullshit tangent, in which case you'll prove your opinion to be of absolutely no value whatsoever)

you're an armchair revolutionary, spouting rhetoric like you've had some kind of epiphany and now understand the way everything is supposed to be...your ideas are inconsistent and dependent on the situation (which would be okay since flexibility is an admirable trait, but only if you didn't pretend to hold to some particular ideology)...you are what's convenient and only when you can come up with some cause to argue for

it's like you're not aware of the fact that your shit is just shit and not actually an homage to your ability to successfully digest food...jeebus

1/4/2010 4:51:58 PM

ahahaha oh my god i can't even make it through that paragraph

let me guess

doesn't understand socialism
doesn't understand libertarianism
doesn't understand practically anything i've said

probably accuses me of being a college marxist or armchair revolutionary somewhere in there

1/4/2010 4:53:12 PM

Quote :

" Well seeing as how nobody's listening to my arguments and instead going "LOLBERTARIAN" and giving me a boiler plate response, I guess anybody who wants to say something relevant would give a fuck"

It's not that no one is listening to your arguments, it's that you keep making the same flawed argument over and over and over. You continue to act like you are defending the rights of business owners, however, when confronted with multiple examples of similar restrictions, you reject them out of hand and usually call the original poster a name. It's old. You are just pissed because this law affects something YOU want to do. Period. You can piss and moan about freedom and socialism all you want, but at the end of the day, you wouldn't give two shits about the business owners if it was something that you yourself supported.

1/4/2010 4:53:58 PM

Quote :

"You are just pissed because this law affects something YOU want to do."

I quit smoking read the fucking thread

1/4/2010 4:54:52 PM

^for two weeks! talk to me when it's been two years. two months, even. LOL

McD, you've officially failed at this thread.

1/4/2010 4:56:55 PM

Well I'm not going to start smoking again you can be sure of that

Willing to make a bet of any size whatsoever that I won't have another cigarette for the next half of a year. Already committed to that. I'm pretty good at being disciplined about these sorts of things.

1/4/2010 4:58:18 PM

^^ exactly. 2 weeks, while I am happy for you, isn't all that long. (and as others have pointed out, probably explains all the sand in your pussy.)

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 4:58:44 PM

well like I said before, good luck.

That shit ain't easy, but some people have a better time than others with quitting. more power to ya.

1/4/2010 4:59:11 PM

Quote :

"Relate to me the story of when a smoker forced you into a smoke-filled building and I'll allow you your braggadocio."

1/4/2010 5:00:33 PM

^misses the point entirely.

1/4/2010 5:00:56 PM

I deserve no respect for quitting a habit I chose to pick up, it's just personal preference. I don't want to smoke that anymore.

That being said a smoke-free bar actually benefits me, ESPECIALLY given that I'm trying to quit.

1/4/2010 5:00:58 PM

I would say that you do deserve respect for realizing that you were making bad decisions and doing something about it.

1/4/2010 5:01:51 PM

^^^ Not this point:

Quote :

"All those smokers got what was coming to them for years and years of their bullshit."

1/4/2010 5:03:58 PM

They weren't necessarily bad decisions they just became not the right decisions anymore

I used to really enjoy a cigarette over coffee. Anybody who hasn't experienced this has no idea what the fuck a cup of coffee is.

That being said I don't want to chance dying at 40 so I gave it up and will continue to give it up until I can return to once-in-a-blue-moon use without feeling compelled to smoke more frequently

1/4/2010 5:04:51 PM

The point, winyl, is that smokers don't care who their habit effects. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and they are whining for their rights. All that indifference led them to where they are today.

You try to make the point that there were plenty of non-smoking options before the law, when that is just not true. It's just not, sorry bud.

1/4/2010 5:09:12 PM

Quote :

"You try to make the point that there were plenty of non-smoking options before the law, when that is just not true. It's just not, sorry bud."

Why is this an issue that warrants government intervention? We're talking about a leisure activity, drinking. You're saying there weren't ENOUGH non-smoking options provided by the market for this completely optional activity, so you want a government regulation to create them for you by coercing private business owners.

wowee

1/4/2010 5:10:31 PM

I guess it depends on what we're talking as far as options go.

Non-smoking bars downtown? I can name a few.

Non-smoking coffee shops? I can name a few.

You're correct that the options weren't 50/50, but to say that there weren't plenty is incorrect.

1/4/2010 5:11:19 PM

^^you are the only one talking about drinking, this is a smoking thread.

^No, there were not plenty of options and many of the non-smoking options (bar/restaurants) didn't arrive or change their policies until the last 5 years or so. 10 restaurants out of hundreds is not a good enough ratio, IMO, especially when the majority of people are non-smokers!

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : more like hundreds]

1/4/2010 5:15:25 PM

Quote :

"^^you are the only one talking about drinking, this is a smoking thread."

The primary issue is whether or not you have a right to enjoy drinking in a smoke-free environment, is it not?

Quote :

"10 restaurants out of hundreds is not a good enough ratio, IMO, especially when the majority of people are non-smokers!"

You don't have a right to eat at a restaurant. It's called a privilege. If no business owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, what right do you have to demand that they do in any way other than taking your business elsewhere?

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 5:18:30 PM

I can name plenty of places in the Charlotte area which didn't allow smoking indoors before this stupid law. People had options for a smoke-free environment because some private business owners didn't want to allow smoking within their walls that's the way it should be. Now, if for whatever reason I want to enjoy my first ever indoor smoke with a cup of coffee, I'd either have to violate the law or take a trip down to SC and find a place that allows smoking.

Quote :

"10 restaurants out of hundreds is not a good enough ratio, IMO, especially when the majority of people are non-smokers!"

Well apparently enough people thought it was minor enough of an inconvenience that they continued to go to places which allowed smoking.

1/4/2010 5:20:13 PM

I want to eat my hamburger in a restaurant where I don't have to breathe in smoke!

You guys can bitch and moan about business owners rights all you want. That is really the only valid argument, but at this point it doesn't matter because what's done is done. There will NOT be enough outcry to reverse the law, so it is what it is.



[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 5:20:14 PM

Quote :

"That is really the only valid argument, but at this point it doesn't matter because what's done is done. There will NOT be enough outcry to reverse the law, so it is what it is."

Nobody's trying to reverse the decision in this thread. We're airing our opinions about the decision seeing as how this is a "discussion board"

1/4/2010 5:23:45 PM

Quote :

"NO! you might want to think about putting the pipe down too, bro. I want to eat my hamburger in a restaurant where I don't have to breathe in smoke!"

What pipe? If you didn't want to eat in a non-smoking restaurant before i can name plenty of places in Charlotte where the best hamburgers were available that didn't allow smoking. You had that choice before this law, and you would still have that choice without that law, however, if I decided that a smoke would complement my meal for whatever reason, I'm not at liberty to test that indoors in NC, even if I own the business I want to test it in

1/4/2010 5:24:41 PM

I edited the pipe part cause it was mean. It was not directed at BigEgo.

Everyone is free to discuss their opinions as they see fit, that is how we roll in America (for the most part).

It just so happens that my opinion is law and yours is not.

1/4/2010 5:27:07 PM

the thing that gets me most about this law is the fact that country clubs, where the politicians like to hang out are, free of this ban

lol


hey OP...did your snitch ass go out and burn up 911?

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 5:29 PM. Reason : sdf]

1/4/2010 5:29:13 PM

Cook-out is open air.

1/4/2010 5:30:39 PM

I want to send Bev Perdue an email reflecting my opinion of the law, and why she shouldn't have allowed it to pass, but I'm afraid I'll be taken away in one of Creedy's Black Bags

1/4/2010 5:38:14 PM

...but Creedy was British and America was in the middle of the Second Civil War

1/4/2010 6:18:24 PM

Quote :

"McD, you've officially failed at this thread."

1/4/2010 6:24:42 PM

I just love this "there was nowhere for me and my non-smoking friends could go to eat/drink/whatever without being surrounded by a cloud of smoke". Perhaps it was the fact that i was a smoker that makes those places stand out more to me, but I could name places that serve almost any style of cuisine that were non-smoking as long as i have been in Raleigh or known of them

1/4/2010 6:40:14 PM

Quote :

"...but Creedy was British and America was in the middle of the Second Civil War "

Not the point, I typed something up and I'm afraid to send it because I'm sure it'll come back to bite me. The image in my head went straight for the black bag since I've seen that movie ~15 times.

1/4/2010 7:16:31 PM

Quote :

"You don't have a right to eat at a restaurant. It's called a privilege. If no business owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, what right do you have to demand that they do in any way other than taking your business elsewhere?"

To the extent that I don't have a right is to the same extent that a business owner is beholden to the laws. Period. The majority, the vast majority, spoke, and if a business owner wants to continue to do business in this state, he has to respect the laws. They are free to leave the state and go to any other state of their choosing.

1/4/2010 9:01:53 PM

Quote :

"The majority, the vast majority, spoke, and if a business owner wants to continue to do business in this state, he has to respect the laws."

It passed by 6 votes in the House. 6 votes. 52.5%. With a governor veto that bill probably doesn't pass (I believe NC Law says you need a 3/5 majority?). Not what I'd call a vast majority...

1/4/2010 9:53:05 PM

Clearly, the populace calling into their reps had nothing to do with this law passing. I wasn't talking about the actual vote. Nice try though.

You can assume a good 50% or more of the reps that voted against did do because of lobbying efforts.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 9:56:41 PM

Quote :

"The establishment's obligation is to: 1) post signs saying that smoking is not allowed 2) remove all ashtrays or other smoking receptacles 3) direct anyone smoking to extinguish the lighted tobacco product"

Very similar to NY. And has been seen in NY, the bar owner (that just doesn't give a fuck) will do these things. However, they don't have to refuse service to anyone that is smoking. They don't even have to make the smokers leave.

What happens next?
The fine then falls on the smoker. Without an officer there in the bar to enforce that, the bar owner keeps on not giving a fuck. The smoker keeps smoking and ashes in a plastic cup full of water, goes on unfined / unpunished, and then laughs. The law becomes a strong suggestion.

meh

1/4/2010 10:11:32 PM

smoke weed amirite

1/4/2010 10:15:06 PM

Quote :

"You can assume a good 50% or more of the reps that voted against did do because of lobbying efforts."

I can make stupid statements like that, too!

1/4/2010 10:15:07 PM

It's a wild guess rooted in common sense. Feel free to challenge it with whatever mechanism your pea brain can muster. Come on, 20% of the population smokers yet only a little more than 50% voted for the legislation.

1/4/2010 10:22:59 PM

So just because you're a non-smoker you have to agree with that legislation? That's pretty stupid logic there

1/4/2010 10:24:20 PM