Quote :

"In those cases, the issues isn't whether someone nearby is actually being bothered and complains, but that the noise is loud enough that someone nearby could be bothered. I'm asking about scenarios where little or no noise escapes at all. The only people exposed to the noise are inside the building because they choose to be there."

Please tell me where these magic sound vaults exist? Because if they are a public, licensed establishment, they are subject to existing noise statutes in NC.

Basically it sounds like you are asking what can the law do about a place that is breaking the law but no one knows about it. Good lord, dude, that happens every day with every law. Just like there will be people that continue to smoke in bars and restaurants.

1/5/2010 2:46:04 PM

Funny, I always thought that the loud noise produced by musical performances could cause harm, but I guess our nanny-state overlords already require all music venues to keep the noise to completely harmless levels.
(Somebody tell Spinal Tap that they can no longer turn it up to eleven.)

1/5/2010 3:04:09 PM

They're 80 and they're in England. Nobody cares about 80 year olds in England.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 3:06 PM. Reason : *]

1/5/2010 3:05:53 PM

Just wondering, how many of you would have a problem with allowing smoking if the building had a sign posted near the door reading something to the effect of:

"By entering this bar, you are accepting the risk of coming into contact with potentially harmful second-hand smoke. In doing so, you are giving legally-binding consent that you will not hold the owners, employees, or patrons of this establishment responsible for any ill health effects you may experience from the aforementioned second-hand smoke."

Bear in mind that this is specifically a bar... no children would be allowed inside.


To those of you who would not be okay with this, please answer the following, so I can better understand your perspective:
-Do you think that people are unable to make informed decisions and need to be protected, or do you just like trying to control things?
-Do you think that all contractual agreements should be disallowed in favor of a government decision, or just this one that you don't like in this specific instance?
-Do you consider it your right to go anywhere you want and have no one threaten your health or comfort?
-Do you realize that saying "yes" to that last question basically affirms that you consider yourself unable to make informed decisions or enter into contractual agreements and believe that the government needs to protect you from yourself?

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 3:08:02 PM

Quote :

"Funny, I always thought that the loud noise produced by musical performances could cause harm, but I guess our nanny-state overlords already require all music venues to keep the noise to completely harmless levels."

So clearly you aren't aware of the people with noise meters that walk around Koka Booth to monitor noise levels or why they removed the pillar speakers at Walnut Creek after the first season. Every music venue has to abide by noise ordinances.

You are terrible at this by the way.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 3:09:49 PM

Plenty of indoor venues get loud enough to cause damage

Haven't you ever been to a show

1/5/2010 3:12:35 PM

I've been to a show that was probably loud enough to cause damage

1/5/2010 3:38:22 PM

xplosivo has obviously never been to a show (OK maybe the symphony), and is obviously either a terrible troll, or a complete moron

1/5/2010 4:10:05 PM

^^
^^^
INORITE
WE SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO BEV PERDUE AND OUR LEGISLATORS ASKING TO BAN THIS INJUSTICE!!

1/5/2010 4:12:52 PM

Big difference. People who go to a show are going FOR THE MUSIC!

I don't go to a restaurant FOR THE CIG SMOKE.

you people....

1/5/2010 4:14:01 PM

^some people used to go out to the bar to have a smoke and a drink, but now it is illegal. Should we make loud music illegal too?

1/5/2010 4:17:05 PM

I go to restaurants for food

I don't go to bars for food

1/5/2010 4:17:52 PM

I have been to loud shows. I have watched people drink to excess. I have seen people smoke weed. I have watched people speed on I-40. In fact, I have watched innumerable laws being broken over the course of my life. I am not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.

All of you smoking supporters are trying to make the slippery slope argument with the smoking ban and it is simply not valid. Laws have been passed forever regulating carcinogens. We can't use lead paint anymore. We have to use unleaded gas now. (and even more specifically all car emissions are being regulated.) We have tried to curb the use of CFCs. We entrust the government to make laws that will benefit the greater good and in the case of smoking in public, yes, we are entrusting them to make a decision that drug addicts (smokers) are not capable of making themselves. Bummer that it affects you, but the reality is that your drug of choice creates a carcinogenic cloud around you that affects everyone else in the room. (and before McDouche pipes in with his dumbass alcohol argument again, generally the worst people in the bar will deal with is a drunk asshole. When cigarettes stop creating clouds and only make sporadic assholes in bars, I will welcome it back.)

And again, I will reiterate, if you need your nicotine fix, have at it, just don't set it on fire. And if you must burn it to enjoy it, then I suggest entertaining at home or purchasing a warm jacket.

1/5/2010 5:08:05 PM

This thread needs to be deleted

1/5/2010 5:29:54 PM

Quote :

"but the reality is that your drug of choice creates a carcinogenic cloud around you that affects everyone else in the room"

The reality is that everyone else in the room, by choosing to remain there, is consenting to the harm or risk of harm from the carcinogenic cloud.

If a boxer can consent to being punched in the face, knowing that severe damage or death could result, then patrons at a bar or restaurant can consent to inhaling unhealthy smoke.

1/5/2010 5:40:14 PM

indy could you die in a house fire before you get any worse

'prec

1/5/2010 5:51:16 PM

I don't see where he's saying anything unreasonable, to be honest

1/5/2010 5:59:11 PM

oh no this was just the most recent post of his i saw

i just have a general vendetta i guess

1/5/2010 6:00:20 PM

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM. Reason : fuck it]

1/5/2010 6:03:23 PM

Quote :

"I don't go to a restaurant FOR THE CIG SMOKE. you people...."

What you want doesn't matter, it's what the restaurant/bar owner wants that does since it's his/her bar/restaurant and when you eat/drink there you are a guest in his establishment. Anyone and everyone in support of the indoor smoking ban doesn't fully grasp that.

One of the arguments I thought was pretty stupid was saying you need to keep the kids out of the cigarette smoke... how many responsible parents are taking their kids to bars?

1/5/2010 6:10:25 PM

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/80665602.html

What fucking say does the FDA have in telling this company how to run their business? Don't they have the freedom to deliver Listeria filled cheese to the stores as they see fit and isn't it my personal responsibility on whether I want to risk buying their cheese or go out and buy my own farm and make my own cheese?


Do the anti smoking law morons have a legitimate rebuttal at all or are you going to just say "thats different" and leave it at that?

Quote :

"One of the arguments I thought was pretty stupid was saying you need to keep the kids out of the cigarette smoke... how many responsible parents are taking their kids to bars?"

You dumb ass, bars aren't the only places where cig smoking is(rofl) was allowed.

Quote :

"If a boxer can consent to being punched in the face, knowing that severe damage or death could result, then patrons at a bar or restaurant can consent to inhaling unhealthy smoke."

I'm a pretty awesome guy and all, but so far, no restaurant owners ever paid me to come out and eat in their cig smoke infested dumps.




[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 6:14:41 PM

^ hi there!

1/5/2010 6:15:40 PM

For all the childish WE WON!! WE WONN!!!! GO FUCK YOURSELF!! gloating going on in this thread, is it actually directed at anybody?

Many of the people I see arguing against this ban (myself included) are not currently smokers.

1/5/2010 6:17:13 PM

^^^I really don't care if people start selling aids infested cheese so long as they label it as such. If you are going to a bar that allows smoking you know that coming in. NOT THE SAME.

And you completely missed the point of the bar + children reference, you troll.

1/5/2010 6:17:36 PM

^^^^ What products do they produce, specifically?

1/5/2010 6:18:07 PM

can't go get shitfaced without muh clothes smellin'

1/5/2010 6:20:26 PM

Quote :

"If you are going to a bar that allows smoking you know that coming in. NOT THE SAME"

Who is to tell them they have to label anything as such other than cheese? Again, you dodged the question. The bar doesn't tell you their sanitation standards either, but you take for granted that a government authority guarantees you as safe as possible eating experience. Why should it be at all different for smoking. Why are you so active in this thread against the smoking law but you've yet to answer for sanitation laws? Is it because you have no answer?

1/5/2010 6:22:22 PM

so, has anyone seen someone smoking in a bar and reported it yet?

also, has anyone discovered any bars where the owner just doesn't give a fuck, and let's people smoke yet?

1/5/2010 6:25:01 PM

Sanitation laws are to protect you against crap you don't see, wouldn't expect, and don't want in your food.

It's to ensure you don't get sick due to something unexpected/unacceptable in food or other consumables. With respect to something like smoking which is legal, optional, and leisure-time activity, it's clearly damaging and unhealthy.

But the reason why it's legal is because there's a warning on it, and there's really no chance anybody's going to try and subsist on a cigarette. If you buy cigarettes, unless you can't read and have never heard any news ever, you know that what you're getting is harmful.

Same for entering a bar. If you know people are smoking there, you know the content of the air. That's a separate issue than the food being prepared properly, which is not something you can easily check/verify on your own in some cases.

1/5/2010 6:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Who is to tell them they have to label anything as such other than cheese? Again, you dodged the question. The bar doesn't tell you their sanitation standards either, but you take for granted that a government authority guarantees you as safe as possible eating experience. Why should it be at all different for smoking. Why are you so active in this thread against the smoking law but you've yet to answer for sanitation laws? Is it because you have no answer?"

Some bars do tell you a sanitation score because some of them serve enough food to also be classified as a restaurant. But even if they don't whether or not you'll get sick from eating meat you don't know about has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with whether or not you know a place allows smoking or not.

1/5/2010 6:39:00 PM

You need to stop wavering on whether this is a bar owners freedom to conduct business as he sees fit issue or a personal responsibility of the individual issue.

Is this why you guys are now touting the "you know what you'll get argument" rather than the business owner argument?

The reality is, I really don't know what I'm going to get. Bar owners don't test their air and let me know what the concentration levels of various carcinogens are...because they don't have to. My tax dollars go towards the roads that deliver profit generating citizens to these 'private' establishments, I demand to know what the danger really is.

1/5/2010 6:59:51 PM

privatized shit is the American right- if you want the government to control everything and tell you everything, then we have a completely different argument going on here

1/5/2010 7:02:23 PM

It's still the business owner argument. I believe that the business owner should be able to sell aids infested cheese to smoking customers so long as the smoker knows he's buying aids infested cheese.

1/5/2010 7:05:35 PM

Quote :

"that's crazy. You guys have really had people blow smoke right into your faces?"

No, this is crazy.

I have a friend that is an avid anti-smoker. One day we brought her to a hookah bar to eat lunch and some of us wanted to smoke hookah. She decides to try it and then decides she likes it. She then proceeds to hog the hookah and purposefully blow smoke in everyone's faces. Like, climbing over the table to reach the person across from her better sort of shit. After a few minutes of this we took the hookah away from her and put her in time out

1/5/2010 7:08:14 PM

^ that single example leads me to believe that all non-smokers are inconsiderate assholes.

1/5/2010 7:16:37 PM

Quote :

"I don't go to a restaurant FOR THE CIG SMOKE."

Actually, a few years ago one of my friends told me he really enjoys the smoke when he goes out. I thought it was kind of strange however I almost felt the same.

Also... i'm not reading every post in this thread, but was there mention of some sort of warning sign? There is one! It's called the absence of a no smoking sign!

1/5/2010 7:37:13 PM

Quote :

"I believe that the business owner should be able to sell aids infested cheese to smoking customers so long as the smoker knows he's buying aids infested cheese."

Rofl, you know your argument has failed when you have to resort to these positions.

1/5/2010 8:21:03 PM

1/5/2010 8:26:04 PM

Quote :

"Rofl, you know your argument has failed when you have to resort to these positions."

I don't have to. What, exactly, is wrong with a bartender serving a smoking man aids infested cheese assuming the man knows the cheese has aids? (other than the aids infested cheese being pretty hard to get)

1/5/2010 8:26:32 PM

Japan should ban restaurants from serving pufferfish

Even though its basically like aids infested cheese where you really hope the chef has removed all of the aids

1/5/2010 8:27:22 PM

Might as well allow bartenders to serve loaded .45s to two drunks arguing as well? Am I rite?

Japan has strict regulations on certifying chefs to work with the pufferfish. WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERING WITH A BUSINESSES RIGHT TO SERVE A DANGEROUS FOOD IF THEY WANT TO?

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:28:10 PM

Because that's completely the same thing [/sarcasm]

1/5/2010 8:28:49 PM

handguns are illegal, even by police and people with concealed carry permits, in places that serve alcohol, or if they have any alcohol in their systems

unlike cigarettes

Quote :

"Japan has strict regulations on certifying chefs to work with the pufferfish"

and cigarettes have warning labels

the pufferfish still kills people, even when the government mandates what chefs are allowed to serve it...but people willing take the risk...whats so different about that and the cigarette analogy (and to some extent the aidsy cheese analogy)?

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:29:08 PM

It's exactly the same thing you bumbling fool. The genesis of your argument is the government has no business telling a private business how to run its business. Period.

^ I've never been in a bar or restaurant that had a warning label. You choosing to smoke and choosing to acknowledge the warning on a pack of cigarettes has no bearing on me.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:30:16 PM

^ PLACED THERE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S MANDATE


JESUS


YOU FUCKING PEOPLE




[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:30:48 PM

Quote :

"he genesis of your argument is the government has no business telling a private business how to run its business. Period."

No, thats how you want to pigeonhole my argument. THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL ALLOWING THE RESTAURANT TO SERVE A FOOD THAT CAN EASILY KILL PEOPLE. INSTANTLY. Did they ban pufferfish from restaurants like they banned smoking?

try not to let yalls emotion driven hatred for smokers "cloud" your judgment on the issue

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:31:38 PM

I think a good compromise would be a continuous rating of the air quality in an establishment of the various carcinogens at any given time. If bar and restaurant owners want to operate in a fashion that harms the public to some unknown level, they should be required to install systems that continuously monitor the air so citizens can choose to leave if they want.

If I'm eating my burger in a small diner where no one is currently smoking, do I just have to abort my meal when one of you douche bags roll in (hahah, no, not anymore suckers, but I digress)?

1/5/2010 8:35:08 PM

I'm a smoker and I don't enjoy smoke when I'm eating. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with RESTAURANTS banning smoking, while bars left it up to their owners. Obviously thats a moot point since the ban passed, but some people in this thread act like every single person who smokes does so either to ruin non-smokers' times, because it makes them look cool, or some other retarded reason aside from the two main things:

1. Cigarettes are legal if you're over 18
2. Nicotine addiction is hard to kick

1/5/2010 8:37:33 PM

Quote :

"No, thats how you want to pigeonhole my argument. THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL ALLOWING THE RESTAURANT TO SERVE A FOOD THAT CAN EASILY KILL PEOPLE. INSTANTLY. Did they ban pufferfish from restaurants like they banned smoking?"

When I enter a business, even if smoking is allowed, that doesn't mean I am waiving my right to have you harm me with your smoke any more than I am waiving my right to not have my face singed off by a magic trick gone wrong. If a business owner doesn't explicitly prohibit fighting, I don't waive a right to not be assaulted because I entered his business. The difference between assault and smoking is that assault is codified in the laws as being unlawful. Would it make you pro smokers sleep better if we codified a level of cigarette smoke, a carcinogenic..a fucking cancer causing agent...that is consider assault an allow private citizens to sue in cases where other citizens are harmed by violating these levels? Because thats more or less what we're talking about here. It's just way easier to say, alright, we're not going to allow the air to be filled with this shit, take it outside.


The eater of a puffer fish has no bearing on my health or well being. It doesn't matter anyway as a quick wikipedia reading will show just how dangerous the puffer fish is. Compared to smoking, it's safer than driving.

Quote :

"but some people in this thread act like every single person who smokes does so either to ruin non-smokers' times, because it makes them look cool, or some other retarded reason aside from the two main things:"

No, I don't think anyone in here is of that opinion.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:44:10 PM

Quote :

"When I enter a business, even if smoking is allowed, that doesn't mean I am waiving my right to have you harm me with your smoke any more than I am waiving my right to not have my face singed off by a magic trick gone wrong. If a business owner doesn't explicitly prohibit fighting, I don't waive a right to not be assaulted because I entered his business. The difference between assault and smoking is that assault is codified in the laws as being unlawful."

And the difference in smoking and fighting is one is legal, one is illegal. All the examples of things occurring in a bar or restaurant that are 100% illegal anywhere in the country like assault, battery, etc aren't great examples to compare to smoking which is legal to people 18 years of age. Which I might add, is a younger age than you are required by law to be if you want to go into a bar and drink alcohol.

1/5/2010 8:49:26 PM