what a motherfucking joke. you're not even emotionaly vested in this shit are you? you are what I use to flavor my fucking coffee in the morning. get some life experience you ancient hunk of shit and then come talk to me and then apologize for being such a ball jiggling faggot

1/8/2010 10:45:49 PM

Quote :

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

Read the thread, it's been stated a lot of times in a lot of different ways.

I've offered the most innovative solution to satisfy the likes of guys like you by just coding the law that cigarette smoking indoors is assault because of the increase concentration of the carcinogens. Then, the owner is hands off and the assault can be left up to individuals to settle between themselves without the involvement of the owner.

But...this is one really dumb way to go about just banning smoking inside.


^ Life experience? Does that mean I have another 40,000 posts to go? (lollers, ok, like 15k considering all the other aliases).

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 10:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 10:46:16 PM

nah you just got owned. I'ma take your teddy bear and rub my feet on it to relax. that irritates you doesn't it? you need that knit woven log to feel special dont you
go away
you are not needed and I destroyed you under the influence of booze

1/8/2010 10:50:09 PM

Dude, you're going to have to do a lot better than that before any consideration of ownage can be had. Do you take medication for any sort of mental issues? Honest question.

1/8/2010 10:51:29 PM

nah you can stop

1/8/2010 10:53:25 PM

Actually, I have very minimal complaints about local government doing what it is supposed to do. I don't particularly like the way some places do their planning, but it's a necessary and proper function of local government. The problem is when government does things that are not a necessary part of their function, like ban smoking in private establishments. I'm a Libertarian, not a total anarchist. I do lean more towards the anarcho-capitalist end of the spectrum, but I do believe governments have a right and proper function, but in this particular instance it has overstepped its bounds.

Hell, in many cities you'd be getting better air quality and fewer carcinogens in a smoking allowed bar than you would outside. The RDU metro area has one of the worst air quality ratings in the country, and it's not due to cigarettes so don't make it out like smoking in bars is the such a huge deal.

1/8/2010 10:53:53 PM

dude
shut up

1/8/2010 10:58:17 PM

From Page 3 - McDanger or whatever his username is now said:

Quote :

"Do our food prep regulations also ban unhealthy foods? Should they? Or do they just make sure that the food you're getting is prepared in a safe way?"

Actually, Congress is making regulations to ban unhealthy foods in schools. There was an article on the front page of the paper last week.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 11:03:07 PM

Quote :

"The RDU metro area has one of the worst air quality ratings in the country, and it's not due to cigarettes so don't make it out like smoking in bars is the such a huge deal"

Link plz, this is news to me.

1/8/2010 11:04:33 PM

Quote :

"Excuse me, but how are you defining comfort?"

Someone is attempting to legally enjoy themselves in an establishment where the legal activity is allowed. They do this for the sake of feeling good (or, in more broad terms, their own comfort). It doesn't matter what the activity is or what your personal problems with it are... they should be allowed to do it.

Quote :

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

Food safety standards exist because the consumer can't plainly see that the food may contain harmful material. This is obvious. Sanitation score is posted on the walls to remedy this problem.

I am proposing posting the possible existence of a sign warning about second-hand smoke at the doorway to the establishment. What's the problem, here? It works the fucking same -- "Hey, this place might be bad for your health. Don't go in if you're worried to much about it." (obviously this is paraphrased) With this notice, whose fault is it if you go into the place, and start having to deal with second-hand smoke or get shitty food because the place had a barely-passing sanitation score?

Quote :

"Again, what is inconvenience?"

You left out quoting the part of my post where I explained exactly what the inconvenience is because I figured someone might ask the question.

Quote :

"I'll point you to the top of my post, just make cigarette smoke in a certain concentration illegal"

Why not just let the owner decide what is an acceptable level of smoke? What is the problem with that?

Shit, I'd even be fine with a fucking meter outside the door next to the health warning sign (and even inside the building) that monitored the air quality. People would know exactly what they're getting, and it would be their choice to stay there.

Quote :

"Let's follow the libertarian approach"

I'm hardly a strict libertarian, but let's play along with the rest of your paragraph anyway.

Quote :

"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."

A person can't give consent to eating unhealthy food when they can't see the unhealthy elements. This is why those agencies (should) exist. This is why there's a little label on every pack of cigarettes. I'd say that cigarettes should be completely and totally illegal if they don't have the warning on them.

They're legitimate government interferences to protect people from things they can't see or otherwise know about... and even then, the government generally stops at simply requiring a label. Nutrition facts are posted on groceries, warnings are posted on cigarettes, sanitation scores are posted in restaurants. There is clearly established precedent for requiring labels and allowing people to make their own choices from there. Why not in the case of second-hand smoke in bars? Why a ban, and not a label?

I do disagree with the forced closing of a business after too low a sanitation score. There are some people who refuse to eat somewhere that scores less than 99... not many are going to walk into a place with 60/100 posted on the wall.

The only way this system could really get confused is when you bring children into the equation, since they can't legally provide consent, as I've mentioned... so, really, the closings and bans are okay in restaurants which allow minors. Bars do not.

Quote :

"It absolutely is for someone who would like to put food on the table for their children or earn money for college."

To earn money for food or get through college, someone is required to work in a bar? Are you joking or did you just forget that you were trying to make a coherent point? That whole paragraph is just absurd conjecture.

Quote :

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

No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere. Yes, money can get tight and unemployment is high, but unless bar jobs are literally the only ones left in an entire town, you can't base an argument on this. Besides, that's why people get paid in the first place. A ton of jobs have health hazards inherent to the job... as someone else said, would you like to ban coal mining because it's dangerous? Would you like to ban crab fishing?

And what would you say in cases where the employees are the ones who want to smoke (or just don't mind it), too? What if they're all okay with it?

Quote :

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

The prisoner's dilemma isn't a logical fallacy, it's a fallacy in the reasoning of the players. Just a fact of game theory. So people might not always make the mutually beneficial choice... So what, why not just let them?

As for the anecdote... He wasn't being forced to allow smoking, he was being given the choice. With the ban, everyone is forced to not allow smoking, and there is no choice. The bar owner in the story kind of sounds like an idiot, actually... he dislikes the smoke himself, and he clearly thinks that not allowing smoking will increase his business "a lot". The guy seems fairly certain about it, in fact.

The playing field being level actually hurts him compared to disallowing smoking when everyone else still allows it. Think about it... his competitors would still allow smoke, so he'd get all the business of the people who "like the food, but can't stand the smoke." These people would, for obvious reasons, choose him over other places where they also like the food but can't stand the smoke. With the playing field level, they have more non-smoking bar options. They could go to any bar in town without being bothered by smoke rather than having an incentive to only go to this guy's place.

So... it's like you're sabotaging your own argument here. That anecdote supports nothing but the pro-owner-choice side of things, since the only person forcing him to allow smoking is himself.

Quote :

"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."

The entitled ones are the people who think a legal activity should be permitted on property owned by someone who doesn't mind that legal activity? Smokers aren't/weren't walking into your home and lighting up, they are/were doing it in areas that are/were designated for the activity.

The entitled ones aren't the people walking onto someone else's property and demanding that the government force others to conform to their standards?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 11:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 11:33:57 PM

Quote :

"The playing field being level actually hurts him compared to disallowing smoking when everyone else still allows it. Think about it... his competitors would still allow smoke, so he'd get all the business of the people who "like the food, but can't stand the smoke." These people would, for obvious reasons, choose him over other places where they also like the food but can't stand the smoke. With the playing field level, they have more non-smoking bar options. They could go to any bar in town without being bothered by smoke rather than having an incentive to only go to this guy's place."

Rofl, I love it when people take the most basic fundamentals of economics and slap them willy nilly on any old situation and call it a victory. Seriously, are you that arrogant that you think you know more about how to run this mans business than he does knowing only what little was printed in that story? There are a few other variables that go into whether someone will come to his bar than just smoking or not that you are completely ignoring. But hey, you're just some guy on the internet, you should know more about the restaurant business than that guy, right?

Of all that text wall, you didn't touch my offer to making smoking in an enclosed quasi-public area illegal, which will null and void everything else you posted. I'm not surprised.

Quote :

"To earn money for food or get through college, someone is required to work in a bar? Are you joking or did you just forget that you were trying to make a coherent point? That whole paragraph is just absurd conjecture."

Look, if you can't really challenge the argument just admit it, but for fucks sake, don't position my argument in a way I didn't intend. Until someone can demand to work where they want and it be done, it's a god damned safe assumption that a non smoker through circumstances not of their own has to work in a bar or restaurant (where smoking was formerly allowed). For you to cast this concept off as absurd conjecture is laughable, though in lieu of any real argument I can understand.

Quote :

"would you like to ban coal mining because it's dangerous?"

I suppose if bar restaurant owners wanted to pay into a supplemental insurance fund for smoking related health problems, then we'd have a reasonable comparison as coal miners are well compensated for the work they do given their education level. Anyway, we're a society of compassionless apes if we value a smokers right to poison another human higher than an able bodied soul to work for an honest wage.

Quote :

"The prisoner's dilemma isn't a logical fallacy"

Didn't say it was.

Quote :

"The entitled ones aren't the people walking onto someone else's property and demanding that the government force others to conform to their standards?"

That comment had nothing to do what is legally allowed by law. It had everything to do with the fact that many smokers couldn't care less for their fellow man and would just as well see him fuck off than walk outside to do their slow motion suicide.

Quote :

"A person can't give consent to eating unhealthy food when they can't see the unhealthy elements. This is why those agencies (should) exist."

No, no they shouldn't. The business owner should be able to prepare food any whatever way he sees fit. When a few people die then the market will decide to put him out of business. You can't be selective with your desire for liberty and expect to be taken seriously.

1/9/2010 12:10:17 AM

Quote :

"quote"

reply

1/9/2010 12:11:26 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, are you that arrogant that you think you know more about how to run this mans business than he does knowing only what little was printed in that story? There are a few other variables that go into whether someone will come to his bar than just smoking or not that you are completely ignoring. But hey, you're just some guy on the internet, you should know more about the restaurant business than that guy, right?"

I'm going by the facts that I have, and in the article, the guy very plainly and clearly stated that he expects disallowing smoking will increase his business. I took that and ran with it, since he should know his own business better than anyone.

Quote :

"Look, if you can't really challenge the argument just admit it, but for fucks sake, don't position my argument in a way I didn't intend. Until someone can demand to work where they want and it be done, it's a god damned safe assumption that a non smoker through circumstances not of their own has to work in a bar or restaurant (where smoking was formerly allowed)."

Why do they "have" to? What is forcing them to? Like I said, unless a bar is quite literally the very last job opening in a town, you have no argument here. Even then you have a shaky one at best, since many people still have the option to go on government unemployment assistance or even attempt to start their own business (even if it's just something simple like a house cleaning service).

Quote :

"I suppose if bar restaurant owners wanted to pay into a supplemental insurance fund for smoking related health problems, then we'd have a reasonable comparison as coal miners are well compensated for the work they do given their education level."

A lot of bar workers are also well compensated for the work they do given the required education level, even factoring in the relatively minimal risk from second-hand smoke. (Ignoring the fact that employer-provided health insurance is completely destroying the health care industry and is basically the whole reason people are trying to pass legislation to fix the system,) I for one would be okay with requiring bar owners to provide second-hand smoke insurance to their employees... but ask yourself this: Would the employees be okay with taking the pay cut they'd almost inevitably get because of this?

Quote :

"It had everything to do with the fact that many smokers couldn't care less for their fellow man and would just as well see him fuck off than walk outside to do their slow motion suicide."

So... people shouldn't be allowed to be spiteful assholes? Or are you still just sticking to the idiotic notion that entering a bar or working in a bar is a life necessity?

Quote :

"You can't be selective with your desire for liberty and expect to be taken seriously."

There's no way you're serious now. This shit is all about drawing lines. The idea of determining an acceptable level of government interference is at the very fucking core of the regulation vs privatization debate.

Anyone can use your bullshit fallacy. If we take your position of banning unhealthy things, misrepresent it, and take it to its extreme conclusion, we end up banning alcohol, smoking, soda, cake, ice cream, painkillers... anything with potential to harm one's health. We'd be living in the movie Demolition Man. It's just as silly a notion.

Extremism is fucking stupid on both sides... and generally resorting to the fallacy of taking someone else's idea to the extreme is an indication that the argument isn't quite going your way. But maybe not, take that as you will.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but you're confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism (which is a completely implausible system).

Quote :

"Of all that text wall, you didn't touch my offer to making smoking in an enclosed quasi-public area illegal, which will null and void everything else you posted. I'm not surprised."

I notice you didn't address my offer to make smoking in bars legal by requiring owners to include a very explicitly worded warning sign outside the establishment (something that I've posted... at least three times in this thread, now). And then my subsequent offer to add an air quality monitor next to that. I'll post it again...

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.

Quote :

"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'."

Blowing smoke directly into someone's face while (for example) the both of you are standing around on a sidewalk should constitute assault. Perhaps not at an equal level to violent physical assault, but assault nonetheless.

Kicking someone in the dick is assault, too. But if you walk into "Joe's Kick-you-in-the-dick Emporium" and sign a contract saying that you're okay with being kicked in the dick... where's the problem? I'm proposing virtually the same sort of contract. Walking into the bar would be considered providing consent and entering the "I'm okay with being harmed by smoke" contract.

You or anyone else in this thread have thusfar completely failed to address the consent idea. The lot of you have just been focusing on other bits of the posts and ignoring that entirely. I am honestly curious what problem you have with posting an explicitly worded warning sign on the door of a bar and then allowing smoking within.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2010 12:48:49 AM

well ok fine

maybe it does

1/9/2010 12:50:26 AM

Quote :

"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?"

You’re not thinking enough about how smoking came to be allowed in the first place, and why people smoke.

And you have it completely backwards regarding the whole “forcing people not to smoke.” Most bars aren’t places for smokers to go, they’re places to go where smoking is tolerated. The smoking patrons are EQUAL to the non-smoking patrons, not superior or inferior. However, since smoking is an inherently offensive behavior, then applying rules naive to behavior to both groups by its nature puts smokers on a superior level. The NEW rule being discussed where the smokers have to walk a couple of feet to go outside to smoke maintains bars as EQUAL places for smokers and non-smokers to go. It doesn’t put non-smokers rights above smokers.

The paragraph i have quoted of you here would only really apply if people were telling cigar bars to stop allowing cigar smoke (which is why i stated in my first post that it makes no sense that hookah bars weren’t exempt).

Quote :

"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? "

This is all well-and-good on a theoretical level, but society rejected this idea decades ago. Businesses get plenty of concessions from the state, and in return, businesses have to comply with regulations laid down by the state. There are legal avenues for them to fight regulations they don’t agree with. So it’s a private business, but if the state says their environment should meet a publicly accepted standard, it’s not fascist. It’s why Best Buy, for example, can’t force you to consent to a search by law when you leave the store, even though theoretically they should have every right to do this.

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), 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. "

This paragraph is inconsequential, but it does demonstrate a common flaw people make with arguing ideological positions. You are framing a persons entire decision making structure about going out on the principles of implied consent. The reality is that there are significantly more variables that determine a person’s behavior that political ideology, and it’s very dumb to dictate that people should not do anything unless it fits on a checklist of political or ideological beliefs, and if they deviate from this in any way (ie. act human) they “deserve what’s coming to them” or whatever it is you think. That’s not how humanity works.

Quote :

"...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?"

This is really the only thing I can say I agree with regarding your post. I don’t think anyone likes the idea of asking for legislation, but it’s how our country was designed to work. In many cases, it IS selfishness or thoughtlessness or carelessness, but I don’t see how any of those apply in this situation. The only reason smoking was allowed in bars in the first place was because it’s a behavior that was grand-fathered in from a time when it was okay to call chinese people slant-eyes in public. Some activist (who was probably nutty) decided to represent the non-smoking masses who generally are too lazy to fight something like that on their own, and get the laws changed. So i guess it IS laziness, just not what you’re thinking.

Quote :

"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.”"

This notice down-plays the risk of second-hand smoke. If you fixed that problem i think this might be a viable compromise.

Quote :

"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. "

And finally, regardless of if you accept anything i’ve posted, you have contradicted yourself. Kids are allowed in bars for most of the day, just not after like 11:30PM or something like that.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 12:46:54 PM

Can't parent's/legal guardians consent for minors? If they take their kids into a smoky establishment they're consenting for them

1/9/2010 12:57:22 PM

Quote :

"ball jiggling faggot"

1/9/2010 12:59:25 PM

We went out to eat last night for the first time since the ban and several of the chain restaurants we passed had VERY busy parking lots. It's entirely possible the playoff games last night caused that, however, I asked our waitress her opinion of it in the first week or so and she echoed what you'd expect, the non smoking seats are a little more fuller, the smoking section is completely full when it normally wouldn't be. She said the people don't stay as long to drink but that the turnover is good so it doesn't matter.

We also went to a local breakfast joint this morning that had people standing at the door for a few minutes while they waited to clear off tables. The place was 100% full. The past 3 times we went on the same day at approximately the same time when smoking was allowed (and definitely noticeable in the air) the place was ~30% full.

1/10/2010 1:03:14 PM

Quote :

"We went out to eat last night for the first time since the ban and several of the chain restaurants we passed had VERY busy parking lots. It's entirely possible the playoff games last night caused that"

Bam. That's answered for you.

Quote :

"the non smoking seats are a little more fuller,"

lolololololol idiot

Quote :

"We also went to a local breakfast joint this morning that had people standing at the door for a few minutes while they waited to clear off tables. The place was 100% full."

Every breakfast joint I've ever been to is full on a Sunday morning

1/10/2010 1:09:35 PM

Excellent, you had comments on my anecdotes and don't have a god damn fucking clue about what I'm talking about you dumb cunt. It's time to fuck off.

1/10/2010 1:12:42 PM

You know you lost when you call people "dumb cunt" and say they "don't have a god damn fucking clue"

1/10/2010 1:16:41 PM

1/10/2010 1:17:33 PM

I've lost? You don't even know where I fucking live and haven't observed these places I'm talking about you dumb ape. Furthermore, in your sage assessment of what I observed, you left out the comments from the waitress who is more of an authority about the matter than either of us. Seriously, go take a walk on a frozen lake and figure out where the ice is the weakest.

1/10/2010 1:20:26 PM

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON MY ICE

DON'T LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU

GIVE HIM THE STICK, DON'T GIVE HIM THE STICK!

1/10/2010 1:26:49 PM

You know you're continuing to lose when you suggest things like "Seriously, go take a walk on a frozen lake and figure out where the ice is the weakest."

1/10/2010 1:32:24 PM

There is nothing to lose you dumb shit. My post about what I observed has nothing to do with your argument about liberties, it was merely an anecdote in the locality where I live. That you'd know not a god damn thing about any of the establishments I'm referencing is highly likely, yet here you are, pretending like you have a clue.

1/10/2010 1:42:01 PM

"Dumb shit", "god damn" showing you continue to lose the game.

1/10/2010 1:44:53 PM

You're not a very good troll. And you look like shit.

I win.

1/10/2010 1:52:20 PM

Chase is my favorite troll

1/10/2010 2:17:31 PM

i thought it was chance

1/10/2010 2:18:34 PM

1/10/2010 2:19:13 PM

Attn: Users with <1000 posts

1/10/2010 2:22:52 PM

Quote :

"i thought it was chance"

yeah yeah do you honestly expect me to remember

1/10/2010 2:24:27 PM

Why is this thread still going on? I thought everybody understood that banning smoking is fucking retarded.

1/10/2010 2:27:33 PM

Quote :

"Why is this thread still going on? I thought everybody understood that banning smoking is fucking retarded awesome! "

there, fixed it for you. you're welcome!

1/10/2010 2:28:48 PM

Added to the list of people who hate america. Why don't you go to china or north korea or some shit where it's cool for government to control you?

1/10/2010 2:30:04 PM

Did we burst your little bubble? You do realize that 'freedom' you love and cherish in America is referencing things like 'freedom of religion' 'freedom of speech' etc...not 'free to do whatever the fuck I want, when I want, and fuck everybody else'

If thats what you want I can recommend a few tiny islands for sale where you can establish a colony.

1/10/2010 2:32:48 PM

I have no strong feelings on the matter

oh wait except my jacket from last night doesn't smell like shit

1/10/2010 2:37:31 PM

Quote :

"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) "

Hmmm... I've read a bunch of other sources that directly contradict this.

This one is from more or less the same time as yours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/nyregion/bars-and-restaurants-thrive-amid-smoking-ban-study-says.html?pagewanted=1

I really can't find any sources that say it hurt business at bars in NYC that aren't directly from a shitty smoking advocate site.

Do you have a link to yours?

1/10/2010 2:39:10 PM

^Your study includes places that already banned smoking, like fast food joints. The studies that show decreases do not.

On freedom:

You have the freedom to choose another restaurant.

The owner of a restaurant should have the freedom to allow smoking in his establishment.

To say otherwise, i'm sorry, is fucking stupid. I don't smoke. I don't like smelling the smoke. I don't like my clothes smelling like it. If it bothered me that much, i'd go to another place because i'm not 4 years old.

1/10/2010 3:34:29 PM

Quote :

"You're not a very good troll. And you look like shit."

I'm not trolling, just pointing out that you're getting angry over an argument on the internet, which means you lose

1/10/2010 3:43:45 PM

tldr

1/10/2010 4:05:09 PM

Quote :

"To say otherwise, i'm sorry, is fucking stupid. I don't smoke. I don't like smelling the smoke. I don't like my clothes smelling like it. If it bothered me that much, i'd go to another place because i'm not 4 years old. it should be banned because it is a health risk"

fixed it for you, you're welcome.

1/10/2010 4:29:36 PM

Quote :

"it should be banned because it is a health risk"

lol

1/10/2010 4:31:20 PM

Things that are also health risks: running (you could tear a muscle, get a stress fracture, etc.), walking outside (bees, snakes, all kinds of shit that could sting/bite you), watching tv, eating, driving a car, reading a book (papercuts)

1/10/2010 4:37:39 PM

you forgot posting on TWW.

1/10/2010 4:38:20 PM

It is, i could get carpal-tunnel or something

1/10/2010 4:39:53 PM

Some users have more serious risks...like AngryOldMan every time someone trolls him his blood pressure rises.

1/10/2010 4:43:38 PM

Quote :

"Why is this thread still going on? I thought everybody understood that banning smoking is fucking retarded. "

Smoking is only banned indoors. You can still go outside to smoke.

1/10/2010 4:53:47 PM

how many people here that think banning smoking indoors is retarded actually smoke and smoke in their own homes?

1/10/2010 4:57:05 PM