2

and no

10/23/2006 4:07:08 PM

Quote :

"Sanitary rules exist so that I can eat assured that there won't be pubes or specks of shit in my food. However, people know exactly what is in cigarettes and are aware of the dangers of smoking."

You're still speaking from the patron point of view.

In WVa, where mining might be the only job you can realistically work due to a number of reasons, I think that the mine operators shouldn't have to be required to be safe in their day to day business.

You free marketers might say "well, if they aren't safe, people will move and won't work there"

knowing full well that this just isn't the case for everyone. Plenty of people with mouths to feed, and their own stomachs to fill, would just deal with the risk of death or serious injury in hopes that they don't become a statistic.

You guys are trying to make the "they can choose to work wherever" argument and it tends to fall flat on its face when reality is considered.

10/23/2006 4:07:20 PM

Quote :

"The free market theories don't always hold up. "

It would if people found smoking so hindering that they were willing to eat elsewhere to avoid it. They could complain to managers and refuse to patronize the place. Obviously, people found that not a sufficient amount of people feel so strongly about it that they'd better resort to the barrel of a gun to get what they want.

10/23/2006 4:09:20 PM

I'm not talking from the patron point of view.

10/23/2006 4:10:29 PM

Quote :

"In WVa, where mining might be the only job you can realistically work due to a number of reasons, I think that the mine operators shouldn't have to be required to be safe in their day to day business."

The vast majority of places in the world have more than one bar or restaurant. Thats where your argument falls flat on its face.

10/23/2006 4:12:45 PM

State409c's logic does hold up - if you say that it is just to protect the workers of any industry from unnecessary risk, then banning smoking is logical - nobody needs to smoke in a bar.

10/23/2006 4:14:43 PM

Why don't they wear masks instead? It would be better becase they wouldn't be breathing on our food either.

Problem solved.
____

Also, since most waitresses smoke, its cute that you're trying to protect them when they're not on smoke break.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 4:19:07 PM

Quote :

"State409c's logic does hold up - if you say that it is just to protect the workers of any industry from unnecessary risk, then banning smoking is logical - nobody needs to smoke in a bar."

there are inherent risks in every industry. Besides, the logic of nobody needs to smoke is a bar comes from someone who obviously doesn't smoke.

10/23/2006 4:21:52 PM

Quote :

"Also, since most waitresses smoke"

is this fact? or just a guess?

10/23/2006 4:22:29 PM

i'm still waiting to hear how sanitation rules exist to protect employees

10/23/2006 4:26:31 PM

Quote :

"You guys are trying to make the "they can choose to work wherever" argument and it tends to fall flat on its face when reality is considered."

what about considering the reality that nobody is forced to work in a bar

like it or not, people have a choice of where to work...nobody is forced to work at a certain place, not even in coal mine country

10/23/2006 4:28:24 PM

Quote :

"i'm still waiting to hear how sanitation rules exist to protect employees"

because it allows them to work in a safe environment, just like any other safe workplace law thats ever been passed.

of course the sanitation laws are also in place to protect patrons, im not disputing that, but to say that the "have nothing to do with worker safety" is pretty naive.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : d]

10/23/2006 4:30:02 PM

sober what "safe workplace laws" would you recommend to improve the safety of Alaskan King Crab fishermen?

10/23/2006 4:34:11 PM

Quote :

"because it allows them to work in a safe environment, just like any other safe workplace law thats ever been passed."

how do sanitation laws make them safer?

10/23/2006 4:37:37 PM

Quote :

"And lung capacity going up 8% in an amazingly short amount of time. I guess that really doesn't matter to your health."

Not really. It might for some people with weak lungs, but then they shouldn't be working in a bar anyways. Healthy people don't really need all of the oxygen their lungs breathe in, and all it would inhibit them from doing is holding their breath when they drive under a really long tunnel, and this isn't a permanent effect, it goes away once you stop working at the bar.

Hell it's more of a minor inconvience than the whole eye/throat scratchiness.

10/23/2006 4:39:30 PM

Quote :

"is this fact? or just a guess?"

You know it can be both, right?

I will admit to it being just a guess, but considering antidoctal evidence of pretty much everyone I know that has waited tables, I'd say its probably a lock that >50% do.


___

Kris, when you posted that, all I could think of was Al Gore saying "people should breathe in less oxygen anyway. They don't need to produce all that excess CO2. Therefore, smoking is neutral.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 4:40:04 PM

Quote :

"sober what "safe workplace laws" would you recommend to improve the safety of Alaskan King Crab fishermen?"

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/97163_58.html#Recommendations

how about these:

Quote :

"Recommendations The etiologic factors for Alaska commercial fishing deaths are complex (Appendix II, Matrix #1). Gear type, fatigue, and environmental conditions also contribute to the severity of work-related incidents. The CFIVSA primarily emphasizes the use and availability of safety equipment during and after a disaster at sea (Appendix II, Matrix #2). The findings presented in this report demonstrate considerable reductions in fatalities in some sectors of this industry, while persistent problems remain in other areas. We recommend augmenting this approach to commercial fishing fatalities by preventing these disasters in the first place, as well as continuing to prepare to react to them if they should occur. Additional efforts must be made to reduce the frequency of vessel capsizings and sinkings, particularly during crabbing operations, and to prevent fishermen from falling overboard. The Alaska Interagency Working Group for the Prevention of Occupational Injuries, established in 1991, provides an opportunity for various Federal, State, and municipal agencies involved in occupational safety and health to meet. In addition to fostering better cooperation between agencies, this group can develop and assist industry in implementation of intervention strategies that will prevent some of the injuries and illnesses that occur in Alaska's work places. During the March 1997 Working Group meeting, several subcommittees were formed, including a commercial fishing subcommittee, which includes governmental agencies, nonprofit (and nongovernmental) organizations, and industry representatives. The purpose of this new fishing industry-specific working group is to identify the root causes of fishing casualties, to develop countermeasures for each root cause, and to report their findings. The working group will also formulate recommendations to reduce these fatalities and participate in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. The critical etiologic factors the subcommittee has identified that must be addressed for definitive, primary prevention efforts in this industry are vessel stability and hull integrity to keep vessels afloat, licensing and training of operators and crew to ensure a minimum level of competency, management regimes, avoidance of the most harsh sea and weather conditions, falls overboard, and unsafe diving practices (Appendix II, Matrix #3). Vessel Stability and Hull Integrity Recommendation #l: A requirement for periodic stability reassessment and vessel inspection of all vessels should be seriously considered, as equipping and retrofitting can substantially affect the stability of vessels. Recommendation #2: Minimum specifications for watertight components and bulkheads sufficient to keep swamped or capsized vessels afloat should also be developed, implemented and evaluated. Since vessel-related events continue to claim the most lives, they warrant the greatest attention. It has been shown previously that the presence of crab pots on deck provide the most potentially dangerous safety condition and that older wooden vessels are most commonly involved in capsizings [Storch 1974]. While the requirements of the CFIVSA have greatly improved the chances of a successful rescue after a vessel capsizes or sinks, the capsizing events themselves should be generally preventable, as vessel stability is measurable and predictable. By integral design enhancements and subsequent modifications (e.g., retrofitting of sponsons); by careful attention to loading, possibly with additional (empirical) stability tests when loaded; by considering use of collapsible crab pots; and by anticipating and planning for the uses of the vessel and for necessary adaptations to environmental factors, vessels can be made much less susceptible to capsizing/sinking due to sudden changes in weather. In their 1991 report [NRC 1991] the NRC recommended that the USCG establish minimum standards for vessel design and construction or conversion of vessels. As stated previously, the NTSB conducted a Safety Study of Uninspected Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety in 1987 [NTSB 1987]. It recommended seeking legislative authority to require that stability tests be conducted and that complete stability information be provided to the captains of commercial fishing vessels (NTSB Recommendation M-86-11) [NTSB 1987]. Currently, there are stability requirements for new or altered (after September 15, 1991) vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length. While stability requirements for vessels less than 79 feet have been controversial, development of stability criteria for these smaller vessels is imperative, even if it requires an entirely different method and approach than that used for large vessels. Licensing and Training of Skippers Recommendation #3: A thorough assessment should be made of current training requirements and efforts, and deficiencies should be immediately corrected. The NRC recommended that the USCG establish regulations requiring that each person involved in vessel operations acquire skills necessary to their duties through a certification program and licensing requirement [NRC 1991]. NTSB also recommended in its report that the USCG seek legislative authority to require the licensing of captains of commercial fishing vessels, including a requirement that they demonstrate minimum qualifications in vessel safety including rules of the road, vessel stability, firefighting, water tight integrity, and the use of lifesaving equipment (NTSB Recommendation M-85-68) [NTSB 1987]. The USCG has submitted a licensing plan and inspection program to Congress [USCG 1992b]. The licensing plan requires knowledge of stability for the master of a vessel. The persistent contribution of vessel instability to vessel casualties (in the face of no implementation of such a licensing program and to the consequent deaths of fishermen should be addressed. Human Factors Recommendation #4: Consideration should be given to establishing adequate watchkeeping and staffing requirements for all vessels. Minimum watchkeeping and staffing requirements currently exist for uninspected fishing vessels over 200 gross tons. It has been well documented that long hours and fatigue are a major part of fisheries in Alaska [NRC 1991]. The hazards of deep-sea fishing vessels have been summarized previously by asserting that the causes of vessel casualties include negligent navigation and fatigue [Schilling 1971]. Training of Crew Recommendation #5: Consideration should be given to requiring the successful completion of basic fishing safety training, such as those programs currently offered by the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA), before an Alaskan (state) crew license or a commercial fishing permit is issued. "

10/23/2006 4:42:25 PM

con't

Quote :

" In addition to the safety gear requirement, the CFIVSA requires assurance from the master of each vessel that safety drills involving the use of safety equipment are conducted at least once a month. The individual conducting the safety drills must be trained in the proper procedures. AMSEA, formed in 1985 to address many of the risks described here, has played a major role in preparing Alaska's fishermen to meet these needs. AMSEA provides an intensive 18-24 hour course covering emergency preparedness, response, and survival training which includes the use of this survival equipment and instructions for conducting emergency drills on deck. As of the end of 1996, AMSEA had trained 3300 fishermen. A retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of this training showed that it had a measurable effect in reducing drownings among commercial fishermen [Perkins 1995]. In other studies it has been recommended that improving worker training, using PFDs, maintaining safety equipment, and developing improved clothing and personal flotation devices can save lives [Driscoll et al. 1994]. Management Regimes Recommendation #6: All current and proposed management regimes should be examined from a safety and health perspective. The management of fisheries must ensure the preservation of the resource, while optimizing the opportunities for fishermen, and allowing local authorities and fishermen the freedom to exercise judgement about the advisability of fishing in current conditions so as not to exert undue pressure to fish in poor weather. Harsh Sea and Weather Conditions Recommendation #7: Weather information should be more closely heeded. Weather buoy observations are now accessible via the Internet and should be used in conjunction with nomographic estimates for icing hazard, [USCG 1986; Ball 1978], enabling the trained skipper to make an informed decision whether to sail, return to port, or seek a protected anchorage before the worst conditions occur. Icing of the ship's superstructure can rapidly compromise the stability of any vessel and predispose it to capsizing. Icing nomograms show the relationship between air temperature, surface wind speed, and water temperature to the rate of ice accumulation, and can be used to predict icing hazard [Ball 1978]. The National Weather Service includes vessel icing forecasts with their regular weather broadcasts as a service to fishermen. The forecasts are given in four categories: light, moderate, heavy, or very heavy freezing spray [Ball 1978] (Appendix III). Falls Overboard Recommendation #8: All fishermen should wear PFDs when on the deck of any vessel [NIOSH 1994b]. In overboard events where the victim is entangled in the gear, or is not observed falling overboard, a PFD might not result in a successful rescue. However, in 45% of the fatal man-overboard (MOB) cases from 1991 to 1996, the victim was not tangled in gear and was observed falling overboard, and should have been floatable and recoverable if the vessel had been adequately prepared for an emergency. Also, anecdotal concerns by fishermen about entanglement in lines by many PFD's are not supported by the events. All entanglements resulting in a fatal MOB event involved the entanglement of an extremity (arm or foot) rather than clothing covering the torso. An expanding number of compact PFD options unlikely to interfere with deck operations (self-inflating vests, pile-lined jackets, and suspenders), have become commercially available during the past decade. Recommendation #9: MOB alarms should be thoroughly evaluated and widely deployed if such evaluations demonstrate that the devices are effective. Man overboard alarms are worn by fishermen to alert others that they have fallen overboard. The devices operate by automatically setting off an alarm when the fishermen fall into the water. These devices, which can be linked to personal EPIRBs and vessel automated cutoff ("deadman") switches, have recently become commercially available. They show promising results in efficacy studies, although their effectiveness in saving someone from drowning remains unevaluated. Recommendation #10: Thorough study of the handling of lines, especially during deployment of crab pots, should be conducted to reduce worker exposure to this hazard. The frequency of line entanglement resulting in man-overboard events is high. As indicated elsewhere in this bulletin, many of these events are not likely to be mitigated by PFD usage. Diving Events Recommendation #11: A training curriculum should be developed, implemented, and evaluated for fishermen who are harvesting seafood or clearing lines or nets by diving. Dive-related fatalities have emerged as a new problem in Alaska. Recently a new dive fishery for sea cucumbers has emerged in Southeast Alaska and Kodiak, and some fishermen for other species have encountered trouble when they dive to check their vessels or to clear nets or lines. During 1992-1993, six persons died while diving for sea urchins off the coast of Maine. Authorities identified inexperienced divers and persons unfamiliar with operating vessels in adverse sea and weather conditions as the groups at greatest risk [CDC 1994]. As a result, Maine passed emergency regulations to require (1) persons to be a resident of Maine to participate in the fishery, (2) divers must show proof that they are certified in basic open water diving from any recognized national association, (3) both divers and tenders must attend a competency class, and (4) tenders must be licenced by attending a competency class. Since the implementation of this program in 1994, only one diver has been killed [Fetterman 1997]. "

10/23/2006 4:42:53 PM

^i read through that and didnt see anything about banning cigarettes

but seriously, alaskan crabbing is arguably the most dangerous job on earth...there will always be some danger in that job regardless of the regulations/improvements because they are working in 35 degree waters with 15 foot waves and handling hundreds/thousands of pounds worth of equipment

also nobody is forced to do that for a job

people do it because the money is good

kinda like some people work at bars because they know they can potentially get a couple/few hundred dollars in tips

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 4:43:31 PM

i answered your exact question.
you were asking the following question in a smart-assed way: "how is it possible to improve the safety of workers, and what business is it of the governments".

as seen in that extreme example, the government has a long history of stepping in when they think the workplace, any workplace, is dangerous or not.

You could take the same stance - "nobody has to be an alaskan crab fisher, so why should we waste time and money trying to protect those that choose to be one"?

10/23/2006 4:54:50 PM

so basically you answered my exact smart-assed question by being a smartass and being over literal

people are alaskan king crab fishermen because they want to make money...they know there are risks...they are willing to deal with those risks because they want the money

they could easily work somewhere else

nobody is forcing them to crab fish

however regulations like smaller, easier-to-handle (and therefore safer) pots, or only fishing during calmer (safer) weather would make the job safer, but thats not gonna happen because its a business for money

people work at bars to make money...they have other options...if smoking is legal in public places in a particular city/state, the bar owner should have the right to decide if he allows smoking or not in his bar

10/23/2006 5:01:13 PM

Quote :

"so basically you answered my exact smart-assed question by being a smartass and being over literal"

You do this in damn near every post you make.

Quote :

"what about considering the reality that nobody is forced to work in a bar like it or not, people have a choice of where to work...nobody is forced to work at a certain place, not even in coal mine country"

You're right. No one is literally forced by gunpoint to do a job. But when the difference is starving or working, you tend to want to work in the safest place possible.

Believe it or not, some people have to get jobs on a whim due to financial situations that aren't so nice. And one of the easiest jobs to get that pays decently (you know, the kind of money needed to pay off college debt, or health problem debt) is a waitress. And employees should be able to work in a smoke free environment.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:15 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 5:11:50 PM

Quote :

"But when the difference is starving or working, you tend to want to work in the safest place possible."

Fortunately for society, there are many more businesses that employ people than just bars

Quote :

"And employees should be able to work in a smoke free environment."

And if the owner decides so, patrons should be able to smoke in their bar

you make it sound like there are all these people scrounging for crumbs and the only business within 1,000 miles of their house is a bar

plus you make it sound like its easy to get a job waiter/waitressing at a bar...like its not a hard position to fill...well if I'm a profit-motive bar owner, am I going to care more about keeping my customers happy who spend $1,000 a month in my bar by letting them smoke, or by worrying about some dime-a-dozen waiter/waitress when that job is, according to you, very easy to fill?

and last i heard it was fairly easy to get a job working labor in construction (outdoors means virtually no 2nd hand smoke risks)...or a fast food restaurant where they pretty much dont allow smoking...or a number of other industries that employ all the people that dont work in bars

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 5:16:04 PM

Quote :

"Fortunately for society, there are many more businesses that employ people than just bars"

Yup, but can you name me another occupation that provides a similar sort of income with little to no experience?

Quote :

"you make it sound like there are all these people scrounging for crumbs and the only business within 1,000 miles of their house is a bar"

It's evident you're out of touch with reality when you make statements like these.

Quote :

"plus you make it sound like its easy to get a job waiter/waitressing at a bar...like its not a hard position to fill...well if I'm a profit-motive bar owner, am I going to care more about keeping my customers happy who spend $1,000 a month in my bar by letting them smoke, or by worrying about some dime-a-dozen waiter/waitress when that job is, according to you, very easy to fill?"

I try not to deal in terms of anecdotes when they are so malformed as this one that the thought should have been aborted before you typed it down.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 5:28:58 PM

Quote :

"Yup, but can you name me another occupation that provides a similar sort of income with little to no experience?"

how about fast food? construction? food delivery person?

or god forbid they actually attempt to work in something more challenging/something that requires experience

tell me State409c...why the fuck are you so adamant that so many people are forced to work at bars?

But shit there are already restaurants that are no-smoking...if you can only get a job as a waitress, and you dont want to be around cigarette smoke, go work at one of those bars

btw, do you work at a bar?

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 5:31:47 PM

You mean bars and restaurants?

And people working in fast food and as food delivery people make as much money as a decent waiter/waitress?

Hahah.

Quote :

"But shit there are already restaurants that are no-smoking..."

Do we have any in Wake County yet?

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:35 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 5:34:49 PM

Quote :

"And people working in fast food and as food delivery people make as much money as a decent waiter/waitress? Hahah."

so waiters/waitresses make great money even if its a slow night? plus yeah some of the Takeout Taxi type drivers can get $100-$150 a night

Quote :

"Do we have any in Wake County yet?"

got some in mecklenburg...i dont know about wake

Quote :

"btw, do you work at a bar? "

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 5:39 PM. Reason : f]

10/23/2006 5:38:18 PM

Quote :

"but the government has no business passing laws about it"

i disagree simply because someone else smoking DOES affect me. that's why i support laws against smoking, same as i support laws against drunk driving, because a drunk driver CAN affect me

10/23/2006 6:00:07 PM

but again...drunk driving is more like the pyrotechnics accident

drunk driving will always be a remote threat if you drive a car, even if its day light hours

however you can COMPLETELY eliminate the threat of being affected by 2nd hand smoke by simply NOT GOING TO OR WORKING AT BARS WHERE THEY ALLOW SMOKING

10/23/2006 6:23:37 PM

Quote :

"i disagree simply because someone else smoking DOES affect me. that's why i support laws against smoking, same as i support laws against drunk driving, because a drunk driver CAN affect me "

your stupidity on the internet can affect me, therefore, the government should pass laws against your stupidity.

10/23/2006 7:10:04 PM

oh hell no

you fucking pussy ass whiney anti smoking bitches need to go to hell

if you take away my right to smoke a cig at a bar or something i'm gonna be pissed

10/23/2006 7:19:20 PM

Quote :

"your stupidity on the internet can affect me"

I can't negatively effect your health.

Quote :

"nk driving will always be a remote threat if you drive a car, even if its day light hours "

This isn't a very good analogy.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 7:40 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 7:39:25 PM

^Do you work at a bar?

10/23/2006 7:49:20 PM

Quote :

"oh hell no you fucking pussy ass whiney anti smoking bitches need to go to hell if you take away my right to smoke a cig at a bar or something i'm gonna be pissed"

You know, there is really no need to post in the Soap Box if you're incapable of adding anything relevant.

10/23/2006 7:59:39 PM

Quote :

"Believe it or not, some people have to get jobs on a whim due to financial situations that aren't so nice."

And you're telling me that out of all the jobs out there, the only one they can get is at a bar or the smoking section of a resturant? They could easily get another job.

Quote :

"And employees should be able to work in a smoke free environment."

I'd bet a lot of employes get attacked or even killed by drunken patrons. Perhaps we should outlaw drinking in resturants and bars?
An employer should strive to make his workplace as safe as possible for his employees, but some risks come with the job, just like drinking and smoking in bars, and just like truck drivers risk death in automobile accidents.

10/23/2006 8:19:33 PM

we must mandate straight-jackets for the entire population

10/23/2006 8:34:26 PM

Quote :

"I'd bet a lot of employes get attacked or even killed by drunken patrons. "

You'll forgive me if your hunch isn't enough fact for me.

Quote :

"And you're telling me that out of all the jobs out there, the only one they can get is at a bar or the smoking section of a resturant? They could easily get another job."

For many people, sure. Someone, after all, has to work the job.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 9:24 PM. Reason : x]

10/23/2006 9:23:06 PM

Quote :

"Yup, but can you name me another occupation that provides a similar sort of income with little to no experience? "

Hmm..why would it pay more if it didn't require any experience or education?

Could it be that the job is shitty? Like all the smoke and drunk people?
Could it have to do with...markets?

10/23/2006 9:36:43 PM

Quote :

"Yup, but can you name me another occupation that provides a similar sort of income with little to no experience? "

Gee, I wonder what other jobs out there could possibly pay better than $2.13 / hour.

Quote :

"Do we have any in Wake County yet? "

http://triangle.citysearch.com/roundup/40966

Quote :

"I can't negatively effect your health. "

Reading your stupidity could raise one's stress level and many a medical study has shown that high stress levels are bad for your health.

Quote :

"You'll forgive me if your hunch isn't enough fact for me. "

Hell I've seen people assaulted while working in retail, you're not seriously suggesting that assault is not a danger of having drunk customers are you?

Quote :

"For many people, sure. Someone, after all, has to work the job. "

Who HAS to work the job vs who CHOOSES to work the job? There are plenty of teens, college kids and people with real experience to fill those roles.

10/23/2006 10:38:26 PM

Quote :

"Gee, I wonder what other jobs out there could possibly pay better than $2.13 / hour."

Quote :

"Reading your stupidity"

Quote :

"Hell I've seen people assaulted while working in retail, you're not seriously suggesting that assault is not a danger of having drunk customers are you?"

Put a cop behind the bar, problem solved.

10/23/2006 10:44:07 PM

Quote :

"Hell I've seen people assaulted while working in retail, you're not seriously suggesting that assault is not a danger of having drunk customers are you?"

If only bars could hire meatheads to work the door and walk around the bar looking out for people that are dangerously drunk and forcibly removing them from the bar...

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 11:40:09 PM

Quote :

"You know, there is really no need to post in the Soap Box if you're incapable of adding anything relevant. "

lol, this n00b cares

10/23/2006 11:45:21 PM

that's not an effective means of deflecting comments on your stupidity and waste of life.\

and before you call someone a n00b, at least make sure they didn't register three years before you.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 12:06:27 AM

god nutsmackr, no offense, but you are like the biggest faggot i know on tww sometimes

10/24/2006 12:09:44 AM

i'd rather be gay than a dumbass with down syndrome.

10/24/2006 1:59:01 AM

omg nutsmackr came out of the closet in this thread...

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:47 AM. Reason : wow]

10/24/2006 2:45:21 AM

I support the smoking ban in bars and restaurants. It's a clean air act for businesses; and let me just say, it works.

This notion of "avoid the bar" is stupid. It's one thing to avoid a particular bar, but when pretty much all bars (and restaurants for that matter) are chock full of smokers, that's different. In NC you can't go anywhere without getting a few bad whiffs. Smoking is ubiquitous.

Since when does the government not have a legitimate say in regulating the commons? It's just public decency. Should your kids have to get a good whiff of the smokers' fumes as they walk by, just so they can go eat?

It's one thing to be conservative and laissez faire, but the smoking ban has nothing to do with the market versus the government. It's an ordinance that is no different than public nudity restrictions or child labor laws.

Quote :

"however you can COMPLETELY eliminate the threat of being affected by 2nd hand smoke by simply NOT GOING TO OR WORKING AT BARS WHERE THEY ALLOW SMOKING"

LOL!

With the overwhelming number of restaurants and bars in the greater RTP area, that'd leave one with what -- like, two options?

TreeTwista to the world: "All you non-smoking pansies just need to eat nowhere but Joe's Vegan House of Mud if you're so goddamned concerned about lung cancer!"

10/24/2006 4:36:24 AM

Quote :

"Put a cop behind the bar, problem solved. "

You could put a fan behind the bar or a decent ventalation system in instead of banning smoking too. Your employees could wear masks, or you could also simply require that you make it known (and have employees sign waivers) that they will be exposed to smoke since they chose to work in a smoking environment.

Quote :

"This notion of "avoid the bar" is stupid. It's one thing to avoid a particular bar, but when pretty much all bars (and restaurants for that matter) are chock full of smokers, that's different. In NC you can't go anywhere without getting a few bad whiffs. Smoking is ubiquitous. "

See link above, and I know that's not even close to a comprehensive list.

Quote :

"Since when does the government not have a legitimate say in regulating the commons? "

The government does have a say in regulating the commons. But the air inside a bar is no more the commons than the air inside your home.

Quote :

"It's just public decency. Should your kids have to get a good whiff of the smokers' fumes as they walk by, just so they can go eat? "

If you care that much about your kids health, perhaps you shouldn't be taking them out to eat in the first place.

Quote :

"With the overwhelming number of restaurants and bars in the greater RTP area, that'd leave one with what -- like, two options? "

Two options are still options. Your failure to exercise your freedom of choice is no different than the conservative idiots who demand that everything on TV be sanatized to their liking rather than change the station.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 9:28 AM. Reason : kh]

10/24/2006 9:27:04 AM

Quote :

"See link above, and I know that's not even close to a comprehensive list."

I saw the link, and it indeed was about 5 places.

Quote :

"You could put a fan behind the bar or a decent ventilation system in instead of banning smoking too."

Even the good ones don't work very well.

Quote :

"Your employees could wear masks, or you could also simply require that you make it known (and have employees sign waivers) that they will be exposed to smoke since they chose to work in a smoking environment."

So, a miner that has to have a job to survive should be forced to sign a waver stating that there are no safety inspections and he has a risk of dying because of it?

Quote :

"The government does have a say in regulating the commons. But the air inside a bar is no more the commons than the air inside your home."

Are you kidding, or just grasping for straws?

Quote :

"Two options are still options. "

This is pretty moronic, you gotta admit.

10/24/2006 9:51:21 AM

Quote :

"Since when does the government not have a legitimate say in regulating the commons? It's just public decency. Should your kids have to get a good whiff of the smokers' fumes as they walk by, just so they can go eat?"

A bar != the commons

Why do some of you people who are for this ban think you have the right to be able to go into a private business and dictate their policies?

A bar DOES NOT equal a public or common place...there are age requirements and BELIEVE IT OR NOT, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF GOING THERE OR NOT

it would be totally different if we were talking about smoking out in public...but we're talking about BARS and restaurants...you guys act like you have no choice in where you go to eat or drink...gimme a break

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO SMOKE, DON'T GO TO A BAR

^and there are a lot more than 2 options for places to go that dont allow smoking

Aside from the dozens of bars just in the Raleigh area that have porches, ie outdoors, clean air...there are plenty of places that don't allow smoking...aside from just fast food restaurants, you have sandwich shops, etc...it just seems that as a non smoker, you want to take away the freedoms of all smokers because of your erroneous reception of entitlement

Quote :

"It's an ordinance that is no different than public nudity restrictions or child labor laws."

lol this guy cannot possibly be serious

by your rationale, a strip club must be public nudity

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 10:25:06 AM