my position on it is that things change over time

people used to be able to smoke on airplanes, inside the malls, and courthouses

1/5/2010 8:50:39 PM

you can probably still smoke in the mall in Wilson

the other ones seem pretty ridiculous in hindsight, although going to court is a lot more mandatory than going to a bar

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 8:52:14 PM

Quote :

"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"

Most of those deaths are fishermen who catch a pufferfish and decide they can remove the toxins themselves without training. A death caused by restaurant served fugu is extremely rare. Fugu restaurants even have to put locks on their dumpsters to ensure homeless people don't go dumpster diving and die.

1/5/2010 8:53:48 PM

its still kind of like cheese with aids

1/5/2010 8:54:52 PM

1/5/2010 9:03:12 PM

1/5/2010 9:05:33 PM

This is the shit that tears me up about some of you people. You quote my post, then you make your own statement, when I already stated what you said:

Quote :

"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."

No shit smoking is currently legal. The idea is you harm yourself just like I am allowed to drink myself into oblivion and die from alcohol poisoning if I feel like it. Both of these we can do in a bar. One of these harms an extraneous party, and it isn't my alcohol poisoning. Thats why I said lets just call cig smoke in an enclosed area what it is, it's an assault. Personally, I'm not outright allergic to it, but if I do go in a bar that is reasonably smoky, it takes me several minutes before I feel like I'm breathing normally. Why should those with asthma be excluded from taking their business anywhere that is open an operating for the public for profit? That's discrimination basically.

1/5/2010 9:07:43 PM

this ban is discrimination to smokers' lifestyle choices

1/5/2010 9:08:34 PM

You out of argument ammo already huh James?

1/5/2010 9:12:29 PM

no just out of patience for this thread for the moment

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM. Reason : CT?]

1/5/2010 9:12:58 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"

If smoking is allowed and you don't want to risk second hand smoke effecting you, then it's up to you to leave. A smoking smoker as just as much right to smoke in a smoking allowed bar as you have to be there, and if you have a problem with his smoking he doesn't have to forfeit the ability to smoke. If you don't want to go to a bar that allows smoking then don't go to one. There's absolutely zero reason the government show ban indoor smoking in bars. It's bad for the economy, and bad for people's rights.

1/5/2010 11:17:10 PM

Quote :

""When people continuously miss the point of the debate, as you just have, others tend to want to repeat it. Many, if not most, opponents of this law actually do prefer fresh air when eating or drinking, but the issue isn't fresh air. The issue is the excessive and unnecessary use of government force to prohibit a harmless* activity on private property. *("harm" as in "legal harm that one consents to", like smoking, boxing, body-piercing, etc.)” "

The point is that smoking isn’t harmless, and consent of others is meaningless when you’re talking about drug-addicted people pushing for use of a substance whose use by these same people negatively affects, and potentially can addict, the people around them.

For example, the original drunk driving limit was .15 BAC (which is pretty wasted for most people…). Let’s say this was still how things were. What you are currently arguing is that every time i got into my car in the afternoon to leave work, i’m consenting to share the road with people who have a BAC of up to .15, and that I must always accept this risk, because people have a right to have their freedom to drive drunk protected, despite the significant risk increase to me. And this still doesn’t capture the element of cigarettes that there is a 100% chance that you are exposed to second-hand smoke in an establishment that allows smoking (but there is not a 100% chance i’d be exposed to a drunk driver under those 1910 era laws), or the types of effects from this exposure.

Quote :

"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."

As has been pointed out, you don’t know the content of the air. Would you be okay if bars were required to display a large, visible sign that said something to the effect of “due to second-hand smoke issues, the air in this establishment contains cancer-causing chemicals that can seriously affect your health” when smoking is allowed?

Quote :

"some people used to go out to the bar to have a smoke and a drink, but now it is illegal."

It’s not illegal, they just have to go outside to smoke now.

1/5/2010 11:52:08 PM

Quote :

"For example, the original drunk driving limit was .15 BAC (which is pretty wasted for most people…). Let’s say this was still how things were. What you are currently arguing is that every time i got into my car in the afternoon to leave work, i’m consenting to share the road with people who have a BAC of up to .15, and that I must always accept this risk, because people have a right to have their freedom to drive drunk protected, despite the significant risk increase to me. And this still doesn’t capture the element of cigarettes that there is a 100% chance that you are exposed to second-hand smoke in an establishment that allows smoking (but there is not a 100% chance i’d be exposed to a drunk driver under those 1910 era laws), or the types of effects from this exposure."

Because choosing driving on the road with drunk people is the same thing as choosing to go to a bar where you might inhale some second hand smoke...

(The bar is private property, the roads are public)

1/5/2010 11:55:25 PM

The amount of stupid arguments on both sides of the fence in this thread is astounding

1/6/2010 12:06:08 AM

^^ so your issue is private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want, without limitations?

Quote :

"Because choosing driving on the road with drunk people is the same thing as choosing to go to a bar where you might inhale some second hand smoke… "

in the sense of an analogy, as you have explained yourself, it’s the same thing.

1/6/2010 12:28:46 AM

^^that's why I think I'm done with this thread

1/6/2010 12:31:24 AM

Quote :

" so your issue is private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want, without limitations?"

As long as they aren't violating anyone else's natural rights they should be able to do pretty much whatever they want. I'd like them to at least be honest about what they're doing and make a good product, but if I buy a bad product it's as much my fault as the company who made it.

Allowing smoking in bars doesn't violate anyone's rights, it doesn't hurt anyone who isn't willing to put up with it. The people who aren't willing to put up with it aren't entitled to the experience of that bar smoke-free. If a certain bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar, his opinion matters a lot more than yours, mine, Bev Perdue's, Barrack Obama's, etc on that issue. It's his choice to make.

1/6/2010 12:36:04 AM

^ That’s a viewpoint that our society rejected nearly a century ago, when the first labor laws were passed.

And “natural rights” is a pretty nebulous concept.

But

Quote :

" As has been pointed out, you don’t know the content of the air. Would you be okay if bars were required to display a large, visible sign that said something to the effect of “due to second-hand smoke issues, the air in this establishment contains cancer-causing chemicals that significantly increase your risk of dying of cancer, or other diseases” when smoking is allowed?"

And i’m also curious what types of things you feel SHOULD be ban-able for a private business?

1/6/2010 12:47:48 AM

lol such a productive thread

1/6/2010 12:49:26 AM

Quote :

""If you were to create a capricious “collateral hazard score” for the two activities, cigarette smoking would be significantly higher." JUST including second hand smoke? Get your head out of your ass. "

sorry, but the science supports my viewpoint here.

1/6/2010 12:53:16 AM

Quote :

"As long as they aren't violating anyone else's natural rights they should be able to do pretty much whatever they want. I'd like them to at least be honest about what they're doing and make a good product, but if I buy a bad product it's as much my fault as the company who made it."

In a Utopian world, this would be preferable. But it is not reality. It has been proven time and again that business owners can not always be trusted to do what is best and what is right. That is the entire point of pretty much every consumer protection/health law in the country.

You want to act like the no smoking rules violate the rights of the private business owners, but when other laws to protect customers are brought up (sanitation, etc.), you claim it's a different beast. It's not. If you don't like the government passing laws to protect people when they can't be trusted to protect themselves, and I don't think you can trust drug addicts to make rational decisions, then you might as well move out of this country because we have been passing laws of this kind since day fucking one people arrived here. It just so happens we have finally gotten around to cigarettes. (don't forget, opiates were legal 100 years ago and I imagine that there were people pissed about the closing of the local opium den. They got over it, so will you.)

1/6/2010 12:53:42 AM

Quote :

"And i’m also curious what types of things you feel SHOULD be ban-able for a private business?"

Fraud, secession, being hitmen. Shit that hurts other people without their consent (you tacitly consent to damages caused by secondhand smoke the second you willingly and knowingly walk into a bar that allows smoking)

1/6/2010 2:38:19 AM

im not going to rat them out, but there is a bar in rocky mount that let everyone smoke in the side room with the video poker machines tonight so we didnt have to freeze our asses off.

1/6/2010 3:05:33 AM

^^ what do you mean by “consent”?

can someone consent to have themselves murdered? Is there an age limit to who can consent to what?

1/6/2010 3:07:44 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent

since i gave up any rights i had to their body/possessions when i enter the leviathan, i have no say on whether or not they can take their own life.

1/6/2010 3:59:03 AM

I don't know about the rest of you, but the complete idiots in this thread that are trying to defend this bullshit law are hopeless. I mean, they simply don't get it. Perhaps they're ignorant, or stupid, or just blinded by their own self-righteousness.

moron has the most backwards view of consent I think I've ever heard. This is what he's said (more than once)

Quote :

"and consent of others is meaningless when you’re talking about drug-addicted people"

Got it? If you're addicted to a drug, (nicotine, caffeine, pain-killers, whatever...) YOU MAGICALLY LOSE YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO CONSENT.

I mean, wow. Just.... wow. If you want to waste your time arguing with someone that actually believes that addiction takes aways your right to consent, then go ahead.

moron, your username is quite apt.

1/6/2010 12:44:52 PM

Quote :

"and consent of others is meaningless when you're talking about drug-addicted people"

Quote :

"Got it? If you're addicted to a drug, (nicotine, caffeine, pain-killers, whatever...) YOU MAGICALLY LOSE YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO CONSENT."

that's, uh, not what he said

you are, of course, entitled to disagree, but you should probably make sure you actually understand the words before making the decision to respond...i can see how you extrapolated what you did from his statement, but i hope you're capable of going back and reading correctly what he wrote

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 12:55:18 PM

lots of and ing itt

1/6/2010 1:00:44 PM

^^
Here's three more:

Quote :

"I understand the whole 'personal rights' issue, but when you are talking about an addictive substance that wouldn’t have gained the prominence that is has without major corporations intentionally deceiving the public about their product, it’s more complicated of an issue than if its someone’s personal right to smoke cigarettes."

Quote :

"that's why millions of intelligent, successful people (myself included) do it."

Quote :

"haha, don’t kid yourself, you are just addicted."

Quote :

"If there's such a huge market for non smokers then bars can do what they have been doing for a while (if they so choose): don't allow indoor smoking."

Quote :

"The problem is that nicotine is extremely addictive, so these people are obviously going to be more aggressive with getting their drug habit accepted than non smokers. The 'free market of ideas' is broken in this case."

He is clearly suggesting that addiction fundamentally changes the entire scenario on all sides. (Which is the biggest load of bullshit in this thread.)

1/6/2010 1:05:20 PM

Cig smoke smells bad

1/6/2010 1:05:37 PM

^^ i wasn't arguing for or against anything, just noting out that you seem to occasionally have trouble understanding the point

1/6/2010 1:10:18 PM

my experiences drinking at PR and djing at Jackpot have both been less enjoyable since this ban started

1/6/2010 1:11:38 PM

^cry me a fucking river.

1/6/2010 1:13:40 PM

I wonder if I went back through this thread and found all of the supporters of the ban, how many of them I've personally seen leaving a bar to drive home drunk. lols

1/6/2010 1:15:05 PM

Quote :

"people used to be able to smoke on airplanes"

They should still be able to, if you don't like it tough luck no one FORCES you to fly on that airplane

1/6/2010 1:28:21 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if I went back through this thread and found all of the supporters of the ban, how many of them I've personally seen leaving a bar to drive home drunk. lols"

And I wonder how many people leaving the bars driving drunk are also smokers. You act like the fact that someone is smoking makes them less likely to drive drunk. Driving drunk has ZERO to do with this discussion. You keep bringing it up. It's like you are retarded or something. Are you retarded?

1/6/2010 1:31:33 PM

u mad

1/6/2010 1:38:45 PM

Quote :

"And I wonder how many people leaving the bars driving drunk are also smokers. You act like the fact that someone is smoking makes them less likely to drive drunk. Driving drunk has ZERO to do with this discussion. You keep bringing it up. It's like you are retarded or something. Are you retarded?"

Obviously the two are independent. I never suggested otherwise.

I'm just saying it's funny that some people are so health-conscious for themselves and others, but then take risks with drinking (any amount) and driving.

1/6/2010 1:41:35 PM

In that same light, neither does cheese aids, mouth shitting, etc...

Why is it being mentioned? It's a relevant analogy.

1/6/2010 1:42:19 PM

Quote :

"He is clearly suggesting that addiction fundamentally changes the entire scenario on all sides. (Which is the biggest load of bullshit in this thread.)"

I can tell you this, there isn't a court in America, the UK, etc. that will rule a contract void because a party consented under the influence of cigarettes...

1/6/2010 1:46:09 PM

^
B-B-B-BUT IT'S MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111 RAWR!!
ONE PUFF OFF A CIG, AND YOUR MIND IS RUINED!!! YOU BECOME A NICOTINE ZOMBIE!!!
SMOKERS HAVE NO RIGHTS, BECAUSE THE ADDICTION RULES THEIR BRAINS!!!!!!!
WE CAN'T LET SMOKERS CONSENT, OR VOTE, OR ANYTHING -- THEY ARE SIMPLY CRAZY!!!! RAWR!!

(With such blatent and irrational anti-smoking bigotry, it's no wonder how people support this ban.)

1/6/2010 1:53:59 PM

Quote :

"They should still be able to, if you don't like it tough luck no one FORCES you to fly on that airplane "

i assume you're joking, but i'm not bored enough to go back through the thread to figure out which side you're actually on...in case you're not, though, i certainly hope you realize that smoking was eliminated on airplanes for many reasons, the least of which (at the time) had anything to do with whether or not the other riders were annoyed with the smoke (though this WAS a consideration, i'm sure)...more than likely, the presence of open flames near oxygen storage WHILE FLYING THROUGH THE FUCKING AIR was a bigger consideration

1/6/2010 2:21:20 PM

Quote :

"the presence of open flames near oxygen storage WHILE FLYING THROUGH THE FUCKING AIR was a bigger consideration"

lolololol

1/6/2010 2:23:17 PM

I think this bears repeating...

Quote :

"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. "

It's hardly even a compromise. The bar owner just needs to print one piece of paper and put it on the window near the door, and we're back to how things used to be before the law. (Bullshit "is this a private club or a restaurant or a bar" complications aside, for now... for our purposes, everyone knows this place is a fucking bar.)

1/6/2010 3:11:01 PM

Quote :

"As long as they aren't violating anyone else's natural rights they should be able to do pretty much whatever they want"

If a business owner doesn't prohibit me from his establishment, then I have a right to be there, however the smokers are in fact harming me with their smoke. This much is fact. It doesn't matter how slight the harm is, it is still harm. It's no different than if I punch you in the kidneys. Sure, the long term damage isn't a big deal, but you probably don't want to piss blood for a night no more than I want to have trouble breathing. Should you be forced to leave the establishment because you don't like being punched?

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2010 8:26:55 PM

What I want to know is, will the plane take off?

1/7/2010 8:30:57 PM

Quote :

"If a business owner doesn't prohibit me from his establishment, then I have a right to be there"

Ha! Wow. Really? Let me think about that one....

Quote :

"the smokers are in fact harming me with their smoke. This much is fact."

Any adult who remains around smoke is consenting to that harm. This much is fact.

Quote :

"It's no different than if I punch you in the kidneys....Should you be forced to leave the establishment because you don't like being punched?"

It could be a designated punching area, like a boxing ring or fight club. Same with a restaurant having a designated smoking area at their bar. If you wander into the ring, you might get punched, and if you wander into the bar, you might be harmed from smoke.

[/feeding the troll]

1/7/2010 10:51:07 PM

Except for assault is illegal, nice try.

1/7/2010 10:58:44 PM

Quote :

"t's no different than if I punch you in the kidneys."

you just contradicted yourself with your last post

1/7/2010 11:02:04 PM

We can all make partial statements!

1/7/2010 11:02:53 PM