Not really...you say being in the presence of smoke is the same as getting punched in the kidneys...then you point out correctly that one is actually illegal (battery technically, not assault), and one isnt...thats contradiction

1/7/2010 11:06:09 PM

1/7/2010 11:06:30 PM

Quote :

"Not really...you say being in the presence of smoke is the same as getting punched in the kidneys...then you point out correctly that one is actually illegal (battery technically, not assault), and one isnt...thats contradiction"

You can read my earlier posts. The bone of contention for the libertarians and liberty at all cost morons is the business owner should have a right to allow something that is legal in his bar. I said if it will let them sleep at night, we can codify into law a certain concentration of cig smoke that would be considered assault and free the owner from having to be the police. If I'm at a bar and you blow smoke in my face, I can have you arrested for assault.

Then indy the libertarian nutjob pretended like anyone should be able to open up a business and allow fighting, murder, or whatever is the owner deemed he wanted to allow.

1/7/2010 11:11:00 PM

Well battery is illegal anywhere, except when you consent ie a boxing ring. Smoking on the other hand is legal if you're >= 18 years of age. Kidney punches (which ironically aren't even legal in boxing) aren't quite analogous to allowing a legal product to people >= 18 in a bar where often you must be >= 21 to even enter.

The "if the owner wants to allow it, they should allow anything" argument is definitely reaching, and has been shot down many times throughout this thread. Smoking is LEGAL in public or in one's home by someone old enough. None of the other comparisons that I've seen are really legal anywhere

1/7/2010 11:12:45 PM

Dude, pull yourself away from the game for a second and read my entire post.

1/7/2010 11:18:02 PM

I get that, but I went back and read this post

Quote :

"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?"

And I don't see how thats a valid comparison to smoking in a bar

I'm not arguing some of the stringent arguments that some libertarians apparently are, its not just "this is my establishment, I can allow whatever"...its "this is my establishment, I can allow anything thats already legal, ie tobacco"

I don't expect to change your mind on the overall issue, I don't think anyone has really changed their mind this entire thread, but I'm not arguing that somebody should be able to allow murder in their business, I'm saying they should be able to allow whats already legal

1/7/2010 11:21:10 PM

Quote :

"cigarettes aren’t addictive"

- indy

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.) "

haha, your hyperbole just means you know i’m right, you’re just trying to stall until you can come up with some retarded serpentine logic to justify your cognitive dissonance.

Of course it changes the issue. It’s why we don’t normally let insane people stand trial, it’s why you don’t let an alcoholic guard alcohol. You know as well as i do that nicotine is generally rated as one of the most addictive substance, surpassing alcohol, and marijuana. I don’t fault anyone for being addicted to it, because we all are addicted to something in some way, but that doesn’t mean you can’t recognize that people with a powerful chemical addiction may not see things rationally when it comes to that addiction.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 11:24:02 PM

I can make a nice analogy and come up with some detailed story to illustrate my point, but

It's been generally accepted that the state has the right to legislate decency, and it is considered decent not to blow smoke in someone's face.

1/7/2010 11:27:50 PM

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. "

legally this is not true. You may choose to wrongly view things this way, but don’t be surprised when you look like an idiot.

1/7/2010 11:29:26 PM

^^^So nicotine makes people do the crazy things they do on alcohol and drugs? Comparing the potential dangers of allowing an alcoholic or drug addict some type of control or authority is ludicrous...might as well say people who drink coffee shouldn't be given jobs

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ^^^]

1/7/2010 11:29:53 PM

Quote :

"So nicotine makes people do the crazy things they do on alcohol and drugs? Comparing the potential dangers of allowing an alcoholic or drug addict some type of control or authority is ludicrous...might as well say people who drink coffee shouldn't be given jobs"

huh?

where did i remotely imply that people in nicotine do crazy things like people on alcohol or drugs? There was nothing close to that in what i said.

1/7/2010 11:31:26 PM

you mention insane people standing trial and alcoholics "guarding alcohol", then compare them to the addiction of nicotine

apparently you were mentioning these things for some other reason than to compare them to tobacco?

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:36 PM. Reason : its not a direct implication, but its damn sure remotely implying a comparison]

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ./]

1/7/2010 11:33:15 PM

Right, it’s an analogy. That doesn’t mean i think smokers are drunk or insane. Do you not understand the concept or an analogy?

If i say racket:tennis::checker:checkers, that doesn’t mean that I think a tennis racket and a checker piece are the same thing, does it?

Now with this in mind, try re-reading my post, and perhaps you will understand it. If not, then I suggest consulting any 9th grader taking an English class for some assistance.

1/7/2010 11:36:52 PM

uh oh... failed ghost edit, or twista is trying to break the thread!

1/7/2010 11:37:45 PM

def not trying to break the thread

I just don't see why you would even bring up insane people standing trial, when you're now trying to say it has nothing to do with comparing them to tobacco users

why bring it up in the first place? heroin addicts have said nicotine is the hardest drug to kick...HEROIN ADDICTS...i bring that up to show how addictive nicotine can be...you brought up YOUR examples to intentionally or unintentionally compare drugs and alcohol to something with the equivalent mental effect of a cup of coffee

Quote :

"people with a powerful chemical addiction may not see things rationally when it comes to that addiction"

to me this clearly sounds like you're comparing someone's rational thinking abilities with nicotine to a lot more serious, and mind altering, drugs...might as well say Starbucks regulars may not see things rationally, just like a crack head

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2010 11:42:23 PM

Quote :

"to me this clearly sounds like you're comparing someone's rational thinking abilities with nicotine to a lot more serious, and mind altering, drugs...might as well say Starbucks regulars may not see things rationally, just like a crack head "

I’m going to go out on a limb and pretend you’re not trying to troll…

I’m saying that you can’t trust an alcoholic to give you an honest opinion on alcohol, you wouldn’t trust a religious fanatic to give you an honest opinion on science or really even religion, you wouldn’t trust a liberal to give you an honest opinion on Bush, and you can’t trust a cigarette addict to give you an honest assessment of smoking. Of course they are going to try and say whatever it takes to justify their addiction, just like a coffee drinker might say what it takes to justify their addiction, or a WoW player might opine on WoW in a very favorable manner.

So why is it when it comes to smoking as a public health issue, we are expected to cave to drug addicts trying to defend their habit? We don’t do this for anyone else, why start with smokers? Because it’s “how things have always been?"

1/7/2010 11:52:44 PM

^I agree with the general point of that post...but its still knowingly, or unknowingly, comparing the reasoning and judgment of alcoholics, or religious fanatics, or partisan hacks, who are obviously jaded by drugs or politics or religion, to people who ingest nicotine

thats just crazy...I'm sure you agree that someone addicted to caffeine or nicotine alone is going to be a more rational and clear thinking person than someone addicted to and on drugs or wasted off alcohol etc

but the reason you "cave to (nicotine) addicts" legally is because IT IS LEGAL. i almost just wish the non smokers would go back to their "i want to be able to get drunk without my hair and clothes smelling" rationale instead of trying to compare things like drug addiction, alcoholism, kidney punches, murder, etc to things like nicotine that don't really have any effect on somebody's mind except a short term boost in concentration, and are actually legal in public

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2010 11:56:38 PM

^^
Why did you blatantly misquote me?

1/8/2010 12:00:57 AM

Quote :

"thats just crazy...I'm sure you agree that someone addicted to caffeine or nicotine alone is going to be a more rational and clear thinking person than someone addicted to and on drugs or wasted off alcohol etc "

On average, this is probably true, but not really relevant.

Quote :

"but the reason you "cave to (nicotine) addicts" legally is because IT IS LEGAL. i almost just wish the non smokers would go back to their "i want to be able to get drunk without my hair and clothes smelling" rationale instead of trying to compare things like drug addiction, alcoholism, kidney punches, murder, etc to things like nicotine that don't really have any effect on somebody's mind except a short term boost in concentration, and are actually legal in public "

The effect is more than a “short term boost in concentration.” It is an addiction, this is a specific word with a specific meaning.

I don’t get where people are getting the bizarre concept that being in the presence of a toxic cloud is consent to be poisoned by that cloud… lol wow.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 12:11:29 AM

on average? thats all you'll concede is on average? on AVERAGE you think someone on NICOTINE OR CAFFEINE is more rational than someone drunk or high on drugs???

besides its about as relevant as bringing up asking religious freaks about religion

thats about on par with asking militant non-smoking freaks about smoking

Quote :

"The effect is more than a “short term boost in concentration.” It is an addiction, this is a specific word with a specific meaning."

sure but whats the effect on somebody's abilities to reason? about the same as a cup of coffee...obviously someone sitting beside you drinking coffee doesn't effect your respiratory system...but it sure as fuck doesn't make the person beside you completely irrational, and it makes comparisons to drunks and druggies completely retarded

Quote :

"I don’t get where people are getting the bizarre concept that being in the presence of a toxic cloud is consent to be poisoned by that cloud… lol wow."

you ever walk outside near where any cars are driving? lol wow

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:12:31 AM

Quote :

"sure but whats the effect on somebody's abilities to reason? about the same as a cup of coffee...obviously someone sitting beside you drinking coffee doesn't effect your respiratory system...but it sure as fuck doesn't make the person beside you completely irrational, and it makes comparisons to drunks and druggies completely retarded"

haha wow.

Where did I say, or imply in the slightest, that it makes them “completely irrational?”

lol

They have a significantly increased chance of being irrational about their drug of choice.

Quote :

"you ever walk outside near where any cars are driving? lol wow "

Are you suggesting we don’t have laws governing the emissions on cars? Because you would be wrong. Are you against those too?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 12:18:11 AM

i'm pretty sure you "implied in the slightest" when you compared people under the effects of nicotine, to people under the effects of drugs and alcohol

And maybe you didn't use the exact phrase "completely irrational" but hey, use whatever semantics reasons you want to deny what you compared

Quote :

"Are you suggesting we don’t have laws governing the emissions on cars? "

Are you denying that being near automobile exhaust, even with emissions regulations, isn't "being in the presence of toxic clouds"? Because you would be wrong.

When you walk on the sidewalk do you consent to being exposed to poisonous automobile exhaust? You're god damn right you do, and thats not even in a privately owned business, thats on a public sidewalk...wheres the dual outrage?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:20:21 AM

Quote :

"When you walk on the sidewalk do you consent to being exposed to poisonous automobile exhaust? You're god damn right you do, and thats not even in a privately owned business, thats on a public sidewalk...wheres the dual outrage? "

There is outrage, that’s why we have emissions laws, that’s why they’re trying to get cap-n-trade, that’s why there’s a tax credit for owning a hybrid. It’s why we have the EPA to make sure companies don’t pollute too much.

It’s also why i can stand near a busy street and breath air FAR fresher and less carcinogenic than the air in a previously smoking bar.

If i suspect a car is unduly polluting my air, i have recourse in that situation.

If you’re arguing that we should treat second-hand smoke like car emissions, then I agree.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 12:41:22 AM

1/8/2010 12:42:31 AM

Quote :

"thats just crazy...I'm sure you agree that someone addicted to caffeine or nicotine alone is going to be a more rational and clear thinking person than someone addicted to and on drugs or wasted off alcohol etc"

When it comes to preventing them access to their drug of choice, yes, nicotine (and to a lesser extent caffeine) addicts can become incredibly irrational. Their bodies are craving a drug and they need their fix. And regardless of the relative effects of the individual drugs, there is fundamentally no difference between a smoker doing whatever they need to in order to have a smoke and a heroin addict doing whatever they need to do to get their next shot.

1/8/2010 12:49:20 AM

^^^I'm simply arguing that while you continue to argue for the smoking ban as a public health benefit, as not being "forced" to accept a cloud of poisonous smoke, you're being exposed to poisonous smoke clouds when you walk from the parking lot to the front door of your favorite bar.

Now maybe you're a HUGE alcoholic, but most people I know spend more time outside around streets and roads than inside bars poisoning their livers. How outraged are you about all the outdoor smoke exposure to auto exhaust? Isn't walking down the sidewalk more of a right than going into a privately owned bar? Don't people have more of a right to walk down the street to the store for milk and bread, than to go into a bar and get shitfaced?

Quote :

"there is fundamentally no difference between a smoker doing whatever they need to in order to have a smoke and a heroin addict doing whatever they need to do to get their next shot"

oh jesus fucking christ you cant be serious

you ever heard of somebody robbing a bank/store for money for their nicotine fix? you ever heard of people getting murdered because they needed money for a pack of cigarettes? get real

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:50:15 AM

Considering that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that taking a walk outside is very hazardous to your health opposed to being anywhere else, I don’t see why I should be particularly concerned with this.

There is considerable evidence to suggest being in the presence of second hand smoke is very bad for your health.

So, the reason that I, nor any other normal person, has created a “militant-outside-air” thread is because there is no evidence that outside air is particularly bad for you.

1/8/2010 12:54:22 AM

Quote :

"I'm simply arguing that while you continue to argue for the smoking ban as a public health benefit, as not being "forced" to accept a cloud of poisonous smoke, you're being exposed to poisonous smoke clouds when you walk from the parking lot to the front door of your favorite bar."

The difference is that the cloud of smoke people are dealing with outside, while sucky, is still in the open. The issue with the smoking is that the clouds of smoke are in an enclosed room. That exacerbates the issue quite a bit. And as written, the new law tends to agree by allowing smoking outside. That is still totally legal. I, personally, wish that they would add restrictions about how close to an entrance you can smoke, but that is because I *really* hate cigarettes. But I respect the fact that you are doing it outside and I don't think we should regulate that because I, as a non-smoker, can walk away. The issue comes from being trapped in a room with it.

1/8/2010 12:54:57 AM

Quote :

"there is no evidence that outside air is particularly bad for you."

lol the rationale in this thread is hilarious...not even worth debating anymore...at least not tonight!

^but who is forcing you to go into a particular bar? sidewalks are public areas, if anything they should ban smoking in public areas like sidewalks and NOT privately owned bars...are kids or pregnant women or people allergic to cigarette smoke ever required to go into a bar? nope, but they probably are required to walk down the sidewalk to the store or wherever else...seems counter intuitive

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:55:43 AM

^ so you maintain that walking through the outside air is analogous to being around second-hand smoke?

Will you state clearly in this thread that is your belief?

1/8/2010 1:09:50 AM

Quote :

"but who is forcing you to go into a particular bar?"

Because I might want to go to that particular bar. Maybe my team's fan club meets there. Maybe they have trivia or something. There could be any number of reasons why I want to go to that particular bar. And the law, as written, makes it possible for everyone to go out to any bar. The non-smokers can enjoy being in the bar without the clouds of smoke and the smokers can still have their cigarettes by walking 20 ft to the door. You can still smoke when you go out, you are just being slightly inconvenienced. (and this inconvenience is FAR less intrusive than what non-smokers have been dealing with forever.)

1/8/2010 1:09:54 AM

^You're confusing the idea of "need" with the idea of "want".

You will virtually never be required in life to enter a bar. It's a luxury.

1/8/2010 1:11:09 AM

^^^Here is what I will state clearly for you since you obviously don't get it

You have the right to walk down a public sidewalk, to walk through a public park, to pass through a public area without being harmed, even though you're being exposed to toxic auto exhaust. These are public areas, areas that are completely free and accessible to the entire public, from you, to me, to children, to pregnant women, to anybody.

Then lets look at bars. Privately owned bars who specialize in poisoning your liver over time. Why would you rather have the "right" to go into somebody's private speakeasy as opposed to walking down a public sidewalk? Seems to everyone like you want to overstep your boundaries.

^^And the bar owner might want to allow something legal like smoking cigarettes in his/her privately owned bar. This is obviously a moot point since the law is now different, but basically ^what he said

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 1:14:22 AM

^ that was the basis for “separate but equal” back in the days.

1/8/2010 1:14:54 AM

Racism was the basis of the smoking ban? I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

1/8/2010 1:16:23 AM

Once upon a time smoking was allowed in movie theaters, college classrooms, highschool campuses, and even doctors offices, because the minds of drug-addled nicotine users convinced people it was okay and safe (as well as the cigarette companies). It’s very true that no one ever “needs” to use these establishments, but our society and laws have never been about defending a harmful behavior by one group to another group.

Smoking has been eliminated in a great many places, and i’m sure these same arguments were rehashed, but restaurants were just the last real remaining holdout for the public health nuisance.

Quote :

"Why would you rather have the "right" to go into somebody's private speakeasy as opposed to walking down a public sidewalk?"

I have the right to do both of these things as long as i’m not breaking the law. In no society is it generally accepted that anyone has the right to knowingly impart harm on anyone else. It is even illegal in our society to try to make contracts that surrender this right not to be harmed. The only reason smoking has been exempted from this social norm, is because broader society, through the work of evil and greedy cigarette company executives, legitimately thought smoking was safe. You can bet your mother’s life that if people had known about the effects of second hand smoke when cigarettes first became popular, it would already be illegal to use them in any indoor public space.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:24 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:18:17 AM

If you're really concerned about public health, why do you frequent bars in the first place? Why do you poison your temple with alcohol in the first place? Seems like the people who truly care about their health weren't out drinking at the bar to begin with. But now North Carolina agrees you have that right. The same state who has made a huge chunk of their money off of selling tobacco. Interesting. I guess they are giving into people like you in an attempt to make bars more money, and therefore get more revenue from taxes.

One of the same governments passed this law who also passed separate but equal laws...

1/8/2010 1:20:57 AM

^ haha, i actually don’t drink. The only reason I go to bars is because when I get hungry at 9 PM, they are the only food-serving establishments open (and because I like to hang out with my friends that DO drink).

And drinking is only bad for you when done extensively. The research generally shows a beer or 2 a day isn’t harmful in any detectable way, and may be helpful, and in most bars, most people aren’t getting completely hammered like at your typical college party.


[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:25:04 AM

riiiiiiiiiight...all the other places that serve food close at 9

get that weak shit the fuck out of here

Quote :

"And drinking is only bad for you when done extensively."

and an hours' worth of 2nd hand smoke, while not beneficial, isn't going to kill you

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 1:26:45 AM

any place that serves food that is close to me does, yes.

Quote :

"and an hours' worth of 2nd hand smoke, while not beneficial, isn't going to kill you "

very true, but an hours worth of second hand smoke 2 or 3 times a week has an effect over time that increases your risk for disease.



[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:27:50 AM

what city do you live in where bars are the only places that serve food after 9pm?

let alone the fact that bars in general have "bar food" and you're killing yourself just as fast eating burgers and buffalo wings every night as you are getting some smoke in your lungs

1/8/2010 1:28:44 AM

raleigh, nc you may have heard of it

and you’re visiting the wrong bars then. I recommend checking out Lynnwood Grill at some point.

But, its irrelevant if either drinking or food is bad for you, because these things don’t inherently have a negative effect on the people you’re with.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:30 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:29:34 AM

yeah, used to live there...remember getting food delivered at 4 in the morning...i guess things changed DRASTICALLY in the last 7 years since i moved away

^i know a few bars around the way with really good food...but in general, "bar food" is not the same quality as "restaurant food"

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:31 AM. Reason : still calling total BS on your 9pm claim]

1/8/2010 1:30:16 AM

Quote :

" haha, i actually don’t drink. The only reason I go to bars is because when I get hungry at 9 PM, they are the only food-serving establishments open (and because I like to hang out with my friends that DO drink). "

I guess it’s hard for someone with no friends to understand, but most people do have friends that they like to associate with.

and srsly, who delivers food at 4AM?

The latest chinese food place (im not a chinese food fan btw) i know if closes at 3AM.

Quote :

"but in general, "bar food" is not the same quality as "restaurant food”"

very true, but “bar food” is better than “no food” and far less hassle than “buying something at the grocery store and waiting for it to cook at 10+PM food"

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:34 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:31:42 AM

if all your friends asked you to jump off a bridge, you'd bitch about smoking being allowed on that bridge

Quote :

"who delivers food at 4AM?"

when I was at State, Gumby's delivered til 3 and PizzAmerica delivered until FIVE AM

but i guess all those places close at 9pm now, even on weekends................

Quote :

"The latest chinese food place (im not a chinese food fan btw) i know if closes at 3AM."

and last i checked, bars in north carolina start kicking people out at 2am, so...

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:35 AM. Reason : /]

1/8/2010 1:33:38 AM

My friends have asked me to jump off a bridge, and I politely declined.’

so people who don’t smoke should eat pizza every night? is that another nugget of ‘twista wisdom?

^ chinese food place != bar and that was for delivery

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:34:40 AM

Quote :

"(im not a chinese food fan btw)"

and just when i thought you were a weirdo because of your militant non smoking standpoint, you say you're not a chinese food fan either? sad

Quote :

"so people who don’t smoke should eat pizza every night? is that another nugget of ‘twista wisdom?"

NO YOU SHOULD EAT BAR FOOD EVERY NIGHT! AND WAIT TIL AFTER 9PM TO EAT DINNER EVERY NIGHT!

PizzAmerica had pizza, sandwiches, salads...but maybe if you had friends you'd have gone there in your life and learned that

I guess bar food is better for you than salad, that must be 'moron wisdom'

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 1:36:28 AM

People simply don't (or shouldn't) have the right to walk into an establishment that someone else owns and demand whatever comforts they so please at the expense of the comfort of those around them. What I don't get about the pro-anti-smoking-bill people is why they think that they have such a privilege... you can't simply demand that anyone bend to your whim in their own bar when you're the one walking into the bar. This means that you are the one making a conscious decision to potentially have your health damaged by smoke if you know the bar allows smoking when you walk into it (and you should, since they do post it... or someone who is concerned could simply peek inside the doorway or ask the guy at the door to get the answer). Or do you not consider yourself/others responsible enough to provide such implied consent? (if your answer to this is "yes, that IS how I feel", skip down to the "---" lower on this post)


The segregation argument is flawed because forcing owners to allow black people into the bar is not any reasonable inconvenience to any other patrons of that bar (obviously, racists who dislike it could be considered "unreasonable"). Forcing people not to smoke when the owner wants smoking to be allowed comes at the inconvenience of smokers (who partake in their otherwise legal habit because it makes them feel good... wanting to feel good from a legal substance is perfectly reasonable). Note also: These things make a strange analogy, since one of them is a forced allowance and the other is a forced ban. Words need to be chosen carefully.

Assuming this smoking law didn't exist, if you're a non-smoker who doesn't want to be bothered by smoke in a bar that allows smoking, why do you think you're special enough to merit inconveniencing all the smokers? If they want to smoke and the owner is okay with it, why does your own comfort trump their right to partake in a perfectly legal activity?

It's not a public health concern because a privately owned business is just that -- private. It's a private health concern, certainly, but that's hardly anyone's business who isn't inside the place. The smoke stays in the building and unless you're standing in the doorway breathing deeply, you're not going to be getting any of it from outside. Again, it's a matter of implied consent... if you've entered the building, you should already know that you could be getting some second-hand smoke... and if you don't like it, why not just leave and/or go to a non-smoking bar?

Being in a bar is not a life necessity (as something like driving on the roads or walking around in a grocery store might be), and it never will be. It's one of the most frivolous places one can be, in fact... and if you aren't being forced to be there by necessity, why complain to the government about it? If you're staying in a smoking bar, you've clearly made the decision that the luxury of a bar trumps your own health, in which case the second-hand smoke is your own damn fault. If you're leaving the bar, good for you, because you understand how implied consent works and grasp the idea of luxury vs necessity. If you really want it changed, try saying something to the owner. Tell them they're losing your business by allowing smoking (you don't even need to do this face to face. Bars have phone numbers.). They'll probably say "too bad", but plausibly enough complaints could result in some change.

...But of all the things to do, why ask the government to curtail the liberties of others for the sake of your own personal comfort? (that sentence sounded terribly libertarian... bleh) Seriously? Just plain selfishness, followed by thoughtlessness? Is it simply because you know it works, thanks to the sheer carelessness of elected officials? Do you fell that your own conscious actions should not have any consequences?


---

ONCE AGAIN, who would be okay with allowing smoking in bars (just bars, since children technically can't provide legal consent) if the following notice were posted near or on the doorway?:

"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."

For those of you that don't think that the act of entering a smoking bar is good enough to be considered implied consent to potential health damage... this solves your problem by turning it into a far more explicit consent.


:::

If there's some pro-smoking-ban argument that I haven't addressed yet, speak up. Preferably an argument that isn't flawed from the premise (like the kidney-punch analogy).


Edit: I realized I didn't explain the kid thing in explicit detail.
The ban is a-okay for any establishments in which children are permitted, since they can't give legal consent to things... actually, I think I did mention it already, but it bears repeating.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:56 AM. Reason : goddamnit, this is right at the bottom of the page... sorry but I may repost this on next page.]

1/8/2010 1:50:39 AM

Good post tromboner, once again. Probably too good for this thread, but I hope people read it.

1/8/2010 1:57:33 AM

^

1/8/2010 1:59:01 AM