Super-long post for page 21:


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, as far as I know... 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 feel 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 (such as restaurants), since children can't give legal consent to things... actually, I think I did mention it already, but it bears repeating.

Edit 2: For the record, I've never smoked a single cigarette in my entire life.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 2:11 AM. Reason : PAGE 21]

1/8/2010 1:59:44 AM

It is a patently unjust law which deserves to be disobeyed. Were I an active smoker I would be highly tempted to do so.

Non-smoking bars and clubs already existed, forcing bans on things like this is just unjust, unnecessary, and frankly unenforceable without an absurd amount of added expense.

1/8/2010 2:02:17 AM

Really, this argument comes down to two separate issues with opposing solutions.

One is a freedom issue.

The other is a health/drug policy issue.

The solution to this problem is not as cut and dry as everyone is making it out to be. In the end, it's really a value call.

There is also the issue that this thread is peppered with some extremely stupid comments here and there. Unlike the preceding issues, the solution to this one is cut and dry.

[/thread]

1/8/2010 6:43:26 AM

1/8/2010 8:40:34 AM

Two things of note to me:

1) It's cracking me up, and should be a clear indication of a lack of any good argument, that some of the pro-smokers in this thread turn to vilifying every other "bad" thing they can get their mind to come up with words for. Smoking is bad?

What about cars (whose emissions are regulated and the market has declared an interest in removing all together),

bar food (which won't have any long term effects if you're not a fat ass),

alcohol (perfectly healthy in small doses), etc. What's next?

LOL. but anyway














And as I read Tromboner950's post about smoking, I get the feeling that his tone indicates that a majority of people are the smokers. That's not the case, or smoking would still be allowed. A majority of people, in general, don't smoke. So technically, the smokers are coming in to OUR bar and demanding whatever comforts they so please, namely smoking.

So I turn Tromboner950's argument around to look at the smokers. We've decided to ban smoking in these places at a state level because someone (smokers?) find that it's generally acceptable to smoke in bars, and we (the majority) don't feel that should be the case anymore. Everyone is bitching and moaning about the bar owner's rights, but I have yet to hear a bar owner complain, as long as he is still making the monies, I don't think he cares.

1/8/2010 12:12:19 PM

1/8/2010 12:14:28 PM

Quote :

"bar owner's rights, but I have yet to hear a bar owner complain, as long as he is still making the monies, I don't think he cares"

LOL

1/8/2010 12:17:01 PM

Quote :

"Everyone is bitching and moaning about the bar owner's rights, but I have yet to hear a bar owner complain, as long as he is still making the monies, I don't think he cares."

Google some articles about the issue, you'll find bar owners who complain. (Any of them who liked it and previously had smoking allowed bars are idiots though)

1/8/2010 12:17:08 PM

I'll assume your attempt to latch on to the last statement in my argument is an indication that you have nothing in response to the rest.

1/8/2010 12:19:16 PM

People on here keep whining about how if they're so concerned about people's health then why don't they ban alcohol and greasy food. WTF?

People aren't given a choice about what they breathe. They can choose what they eat or drink. And you can suck smokeless electronic cigarettes to your heart's delight, so go buy some of those you whiney bastards.

And yes, air pollution should be strictly limited as well.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM. Reason : sd]

1/8/2010 12:22:37 PM

Quote :

"'ll assume your attempt to latch on to the last statement in my argument is an indication that you have nothing in response to the rest."

Bad assumption. I have problems with more of it, like you claiming that smokers are coming into "our bar." You gave up any right you had to other people's stuff when you entered the leviathan to protect your own stuff. That's the owner of the bar's bar, and his decree is more important than your feelings on a legal matter.

1/8/2010 12:26:32 PM

Quote :

"People aren't given a choice about what they breathe."

lol, so before the ban there were zero non-smoking establishments and you were forced to go sit in smoke filled bars to have a decent meal?

oh you people

1/8/2010 12:28:55 PM

Quote :

"People aren't given a choice about what they breathe."

People are given a choice where they breathe

1/8/2010 12:31:09 PM

Exactly, and I now choose to breath CLEAN air in whatever bar or restaurant I want.

SUCK IT.

1/8/2010 12:33:12 PM

Quote :

"People aren't given a choice about what they breathe."

Actually, they often are -- certainly for smoking, at least:
If they are on government-owned public property or a privately-owned property where smoking is disallowed by the owner, then they are choosing to breathe air free of tobacco smoke. If they are on a privately-owned property where smoking is allowed by the owner, then they are choosing to breathe air that may contain harmful smoke. It's pretty simple, really.



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

1/8/2010 12:39:24 PM

Quote :

"That's the owner of the bar's bar, and his decree is more important than your feelings on a legal matter."

And it is the state government that licenses him to serve food, sell alcohol, have signage, and a 1000 other aspects of running that business. So in the end, it is the state's decree that is most important.

If the bar owner is that pissed off, shut the place down. It's that simple.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:41:23 PM

Quote :

"If the bar owner is that pissed off, shut the place down. It's that simple."

more likely the bar owners who disagree with the ban will just ignore it and not enforce it, so enjoy sitting in the still smoke-filled bars!

1/8/2010 12:45:48 PM

And the state's decree on something like this should be reversed. Smoking bans are bad for the economy

1/8/2010 12:46:45 PM

Quote :

"more likely the bar owners who disagree with the ban will just ignore it and not enforce it, so enjoy sitting in the still smoke-filled bars!"

And they can enjoy me in full-on bitch mode as I turn them in repeatedly.

Quote :

"Smoking bans are bad for the economy"

Says who?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:47:29 PM

but before the new year I couldn't go into a bar and NOT breathe smoke. I had to breathe smoke or pick another bar. It wasn't like ordering food or drink. I couldn't go in and say "yes, I'd like to breathe some smoke, plz"

Now I just have to deal with walking thru clouds of it outside, but at least there I can hold my breath as I pass thru. There are other ways of tobacco consumption that don't involve smoke, I'm starting to think smokers only like to smoke to annoy nonsmokers.

I mean really, I wonder how many started smoking simply as a form of rebellion-- against parents, or society. Of course there's the addiction once you start but WHY did you start? After a million studies saying its bad for you? Knowing it'll be difficult to stop? I have never found physical effects of smoking to be worth the addiction and money. Drinking is at least more fun with more immediate effects.

1/8/2010 12:48:25 PM

Quote :

"full-on bitch mode"

you got that right

1/8/2010 12:48:43 PM

In a February 2005 study conducted by Michael K. Evans, Ph.D of Evans, Carroll and Associates of
smoking ban in bars and pubs In Ontario, Canada, the results were striking. The analysis determined:
?? After the imposition of the smoking ban, sales at bars and pubs were 23.5% lower in
Ottawa, 18.7% lower in London, 24.3% lower in Kingston, and 20.4% lower in Kitchener,
than would have been the case with no smoking ban.
("The Economic Impact of Smoking Bans in Ottawa, London, Kingston, and Kitchener, Ontario", Michael K. Evans, Ph.D., February
2005)

In January 2003 the Dallas City Council passed a smoking ban in restaurants, hotels, bowling centers
and other public places effective March 1, 2003. One year later, the Dallas Restaurant Association asked
two professors of applied economics at the University of North Texas in Denton to examine the effects of
the smoking ban a year after implementation. The study found that the smoking ban:
?? Contributed to an $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales.
?? Restaurants experienced drops in alcohol sales ranging from 9% to 50%.
?? Caused at least 4 restaurant closings.
("The Dallas Smoking Ordinance One Year Later; A Report on the Impacts of the City of Dallas Smoking Ban on Alcoholic Beverage
Sales", Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. & Bernard L. Weinstein, Ph.D., October 1, 2004)

In July 2003 the state of New York banned smoking in all enclosed public places of employment. In May
2004 Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd. conducted a study on the impact of the ban on bars and
restaurants. The study found that that ban had cost the bar and tavern industry:
?? 2,000 jobs (10.7% of actual employment)
?? $28.5 million in wages and salary payments
?? $37 million in gross state product
(“Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on New York’s Bars”, Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd. May 12, 2004)

In Montgomery County between April and December 2004:
?? Sales tax receipts for restaurants with liquor licenses grew by only $110,480, or .025
percent, while receipts in neighboring Frederick County grew 7 percent over the same
period.
?? The number of restaurants with liquor licenses fell to 402 by the end of December 2004
from a high of 526 in March 2003.
?? The number of beer keg sales declined by 2,366 kegs.
In Talbot County between May 2004 and December 2004
?? Restaurant sales tax receipts fell by $2.9 million or 11 percent, while sales for similar
establishments in neighboring Caroline County increased by 36 percent and in Dorchester
County by 14 percent.
?? The number of restaurants/bars with liquor licenses remitting sales tax to the State
declined from a high of 39 establishments in November of 2003 to a low of only 29
establishments by the end of December 2004.
(Independent data analysis by the Restaurant Association of Maryland, Melvin Thompson)

1/8/2010 12:52:34 PM

just curious, do you consider it "bitch mode" to turn in drunk drivers?

It's the same thing. Drinking is legal, driving drunk is not. Smoking is legal, smoking in bars is not. (If you say that you wouldn't report a drunk driver then your character is already trashed in my opinion, so anything you say about, well, anything, is useless.)


^ I would be remiss if I didn't point out that all of your data is at least 5 years old. And I would agree that there could be a short term business loss. But long term, I bet there will be no long term negative effects.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:53:06 PM

Quote :

"It's the same thing. Drinking is legal, driving drunk is not. Smoking is legal, smoking in bars is not."

Being around a drunk driver on the road is a much larger danger than being near someone smoking for a short period of time.

Don't complain about getting toxins in your body if you're going to a bar to drink either.

1/8/2010 12:57:30 PM

The rampant tobacco bigotry and blatant sense of consumer entitlement by most supporters of this law are just further evidence that it is wrong. There really is no legitimate defense of this bullshit law.

1/8/2010 12:58:10 PM

How often are you in the near vicinity of a drunk driver versus in the near vicinity of smokers in bars and restaurants? I'm probably more likely to get lung cancer from second hand smoke than I am of getting t-boned by a drunk over the course of 73.5 years.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason : *]

1/8/2010 12:58:45 PM

Quote :

"just curious, do you consider it "bitch mode" to turn in drunk drivers? "

You said it was bitch mode. I was just agreeing with you.

1/8/2010 1:00:52 PM

tromboner winning the thread on this page

surprised you could manage the patience, man. you know nobody's going to actually read and understand that

1/8/2010 1:03:20 PM

1/8/2010 1:03:47 PM

Quote :

"I'm probably more likely to get lung cancer from second hand smoke than I am of getting t-boned by a drunk over the course of 73.5 years."

More than likely most of that smoke came from you putting yourself in a smoky bar/situation. That's your own fault. Is it in any fashion your fault that some drunk driver t-boned you on your way home from work?

One occurs because you decided to spend time in a private establishment which allows smoking. The other happens in a public environment which forbids driving while impaired. Not apples and apples.

1/8/2010 1:05:45 PM

Quote :

"Of course there's the addiction once you start but WHY did you start?"

I had taken some bonghits and this guy was like "hey if you smoke this cigarette it will increase your buzz" and it did

1/8/2010 1:06:13 PM

Quote :

"I had taken some bonghits and this guy was like "hey if you smoke this cigarette it will increase your buzz" and it did"

lmao truth

1/8/2010 1:06:42 PM

lol, weed is a gateway to tobacco

1/8/2010 1:09:28 PM

it was for me

1/8/2010 1:10:02 PM

Quote :

"I would be remiss if I didn't point out that all of your data is at least 5 years old. And I would agree that there could be a short term business loss. But long term, I bet there will be no long term negative effects."

People stopped getting ban happy for a while. There is no long term for the bars which end up closing when they are no longer/can no longer be profitable. It makes finding a long term a lot harder for the people who lose their job because of this when a lot fewer jobs are available in these economic hard times.

1/8/2010 1:10:22 PM

Would you suck a dudes dick for a cigarette?

1/8/2010 1:11:15 PM

Quote :

"And as I read Tromboner950's post about smoking, I get the feeling that his tone indicates that a majority of people are the smokers. That's not the case, or smoking would still be allowed. A majority of people, in general, don't smoke. So technically, the smokers are coming in to OUR bar and demanding whatever comforts they so please, namely smoking. "

Appeal to majority, tyranny of the majority, etc...

Also, I'd be interested in seeing some pre-ban bar statistics. While the majority of the general population might not smoke, it is entirely possible that many bars contain a majority of patrons who smoke.

Quote :

"tromboner winning the thread on this page surprised you could manage the patience, man. you know nobody's going to actually read and understand that"

After reading the responses of this page, I'm now convinced that people don't know the definition of "implied" or "consent"... or they have some eye condition which causes them not to see the words at all.

...Or they just didn't read it.

Especially anyone using the drunk driving analogy, since driving is a necessity for most people to get through life (in other words, they're forced to drive and thus should not be at risk of being hit by a drunk), whereas entering a bar is not (they choose to, making it an issue of consent, making it their own damn fault for walking into the smoky bar).


NICE post from BigEgo, demonstrating that such bans do hurt bar owners. Using facts, and everything.

Quote :

"I would be remiss if I didn't point out that all of your data is at least 5 years old."

Holy shit, his data is a whole 5 years out of date? Society has changed so heavily since then that it's OBVIOUSLY all invalid.

While we're at it, let's declare the American Census Bureau invalid, too, since they only take it every 10 years.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 2:49:40 PM

Quote :

"since driving is a necessity for most people to get through life"

its this thought here that has completely fucked up our city layout

1/8/2010 4:18:57 PM

^You mean how our cities tend to be structured as [housing area over here]----[roads]----[stores and businesses over here], as opposed to the more European structure of [houses]-[cornerstore]-[houses]?
Eh, it's not an inherently bad system... sure, it discourages the ability to walk/bike to places, but it also makes things more efficient in other ways (such as initial construction or being able to shop at multiple nearby places in one single trip). And as two posts below mentions, if we're talking Raleigh specifically, a lot of the problems simply come from a lack of planning.


As for my statement, I wasn't necessarily even talking about cities. Any suburban area has miles of space between housing and a store that you might need to go to.

Besides, even walking or biking puts you at risk of being hit by a drunk driver, so the point still stands.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM. Reason : vv]

1/8/2010 4:28:08 PM

After reading the responses of this page, I'm now convinced that you can SUCK MY COCK while you're standing outside smoking.

1/8/2010 4:30:42 PM

No, what's fucked our city layouts is the fact that most of them have no real layout or planning in the first place. Raleigh has no effective central planning, which is why it is such a disaster and will end joining up with Durham in a complete sprawl of a metroplex.

1/8/2010 4:30:59 PM

Quote :

"No, what's fucked our city layouts is the fact that most of them have no real layout or planning in the first place. Raleigh has no effective central planning, which is why it is such a disaster and will end joining up with Durham in a complete sprawl of a metroplex."

Kinda funny you're pissed about a government invasion into liberties while simultaneously being pissed at government hands off as far as city planning. The urban sprawl was borne out of developers wanting to make a profit and people wanting cheaper housing and being ok with driving to work. A victory for the free market that you're blaming on government.


I noticed no one cared to entertain my offer to make cig smoke at whatever concentration level deemed harmful equal to assault, punishable to the same extent as physical assault.

This would pretty much render smoking in a private business nearly moot and you libertarians could stop whining about private owners 'rights'.

To respond to this attempt at an argument

Quote :

"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."

Excuse me, but how are you defining comfort? If it's a matter of nicotine delivery for your comfort, then there are plenty of ways for you to get your fix, your comfort fix, that doesn't affect my health.

Quote :

"you can't simply demand that anyone bend to your whim in their own bar when you're the one walking into the bar."

Sure I can as legislated by food safety standards being a criteria for bar/rest owner opening and staying in business.

Quote :

"Forcing people not to smoke when the owner wants smoking to be allowed comes at the inconvenience of smokers"

Again, what is inconvenience? Anything that isn't illegal? I'll point you to the top of my post, just make cigarette smoke in a certain concentration illegal, but somehow I have a feeling the same people that are anti ban would be just as up in arms about this thing.

Quote :

"It's not a public health concern because a privately owned business is just that -- private."

Fair enough. Let's follow the libertarian approach and eliminate all consumer safeguarding agencies and see how many people start dieing from profit driven people of questionable ethics. Oh sure, once someone dies due to negligent handling of food products the business will close, but not before someone dies. Furthermore, it doesn't guarantee the business that took it's place won't be any less malicious. How much of a premium will I have to pay an outside assessor to figure out which places are safe to eat or not? How long in a free market will that mechanism take to catch on? How many die or are harmed in the process?

Quote :

"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)"

It absolutely is for someone who would like to put food on the table for their children or earn money for college. It is for people who's livelihood is depending upon networking with all sorts of people that they may otherwise not meet in other situations. I mean fuck, considering how prevalent bars and pubs are in all of the developed world, I'd god damn say they are a life necessity.

Quote :

"and if you aren't being forced to be there by necessity, why complain to the government about it?"

I suppose once we have robots serving us, you'll have a point.

Quote :

"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"

Prisoners dilemma.
For an anecdote:
http://www.carteretnewstimes.com/articles/2010/01/01/news-times/news/doc4b3ce040193cf657354972.txt

Quote :

"“Personally, I think my business will increase because a lot of people stopped coming in here because of all the smoke,” he said. “They like the food, but they can’t stand the smoke. I think it could be really good for me.”"

It's fairly obvious if he went no smoking then he'd lose all his regulars, possibly for good without knowing if or how long it would take the non smokers to find his bar. For someone that may barely be scraping by, this is simply a risk he couldn't take. Now that the playing field is level, you can bet many of his patrons will still come and just put up with having to smoke outside.

1/8/2010 9:59:55 PM

but those people working there aren't being forced to work there they could find another job

by choosing to work there they are placing the money or whatever else they get from the job above their health

1/8/2010 10:09:56 PM

Are you kidding? Unemployment is at 17% by certain measures, the people working those type of jobs are working them for a reason.

1/8/2010 10:19:48 PM

Quote :

"Kinda funny you're pissed about a government invasion into liberties while simultaneously being pissed at government hands off as far as city planning. The urban sprawl was borne out of developers wanting to make a profit and people wanting cheaper housing and being ok with driving to work. A victory for the free market that you're blaming on government. "

reading comprehension skills, do you have them no one blamed the government for the city planning mistakes and yes it is a fuckup that we plan raleigh for people who don't even live here


^ yes unemployment is high but the fact remains that it is a choice, everyone has a choice where they work and if you don't like where you work you leave if you can't find a job you are comfortable with working where you are you fucking move, in the end its still a choice those people place that job above their health

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 10:21:03 PM

Yes, someone did complain about city planning, pay attention

Quote :

"Raleigh has no effective central planning, which is why it is such a disaster and will end joining up with Durham in a complete sprawl of a metroplex."

Quote :

"in the end its still a choice those people place that job above their health"

God damn, and I thought we were a civilized society, what the hell was I thinking, that someone valued being able to sit their fat lethargic entitled ass wherever the fuck they want and poision the air without whatever the fuck they want above and beyond someone thats trying to put food on their own table.

Just burn it all down and start over I guess. We are apes.

1/8/2010 10:30:00 PM

you're queer aren't you old man


its' pretty obvious you bathe in aids infested semen, i just want to know if you're delusional enough to blame it on society

1/8/2010 10:34:20 PM

What are you blathering on about now Furmatt? Dude, are you schizophrenic? Honest question.

1/8/2010 10:38:08 PM

why should you have the right to force the owner of a private establishment to not allow something, that is legal, in said establishment

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 10:39 PM. Reason : commas]

1/8/2010 10:38:37 PM

furmat? this is trapezius under the influence of saliva wine isn't it

1/8/2010 10:41:14 PM