Of course it's my opinion, it's an ideological debate. You want the government to follow you around and make sure no one is smoking around you, and I think that's ridiculous. I've already said that there is an argument for smoke-free restaurants, but that's mainly to protect children. Children don't frequent the bars that I do, though. Smoking in offices has already disappeared, and I approve of that.

But going to a bar is a leisure decision, offered strictly for adults to relax and check out women. If you are concerned about your health, you don't have to apply for the bartender position, and you don't need to walk in the door.

10/25/2006 10:43:41 AM

Quote :

"Wow, what a surprise that you're putting words in my mouth since I shut down your weak argument. I said and still say that the government has the right to listen in on people's terrorist suspects' international phone calls."

here is a quote from you:

Quote :

"i value freedom and rights like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness i think that life freedom is kinda important cant really do much without life now can you maybe you think the right to have a private conversation on a phone system that you don't own is more important than the right to life"

10/25/2006 10:44:51 AM

that doesnt contradict anything i said

in fact i came out in this thread and said

Quote :

"what makes you so confident that having private phone conversations while using someone elses' circuits is a right? "

this obviously isnt the thread on phone calls and eavesdropping, but on the smoking issue you are essentially complaining about not being able to have your way at someone else's private business

the same things apply for both smoking and phone calls

You go to someone's bar...a private business...where they have the right to decide if smoking (which is legal in the United States) is allowed at their bar...but you want to tell them how to run their business

You sign up to rent the use of the phone circuits that another company owns...you pay a fee to use their property...but you want to tell them how to run their business

If you or I go to to a bar and we think the music is too loud, do we have the right to get the government to step in and regulate their decibal level arguing health affects of noise pollution? Or maybe we just choose not to go to that bar

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 10:47:12 AM

Quote :

"You want the government to follow you around and make sure no one is smoking around you, and I think that's ridiculous."

when did i say this? im fine with smoking outside....its not contained.

Quote :

"I've already said that there is an argument for smoke-free restaurants, but that's mainly to protect children. "

its to protect everyone, not just children. adults are still affected by 2nd hand smoke too.

i guess my point, is that the government can and will step in and make decisions for businesses. i understand your side, but i just don't agree with the notion that business owners should be allowed to make their own decisions all the time. there are certain cases where i agree with the government stepping in, and this is one of them.

10/25/2006 10:54:43 AM

Does Twista even have a horse in this race? He doesn't vote, so it isn't like he can affect policy anyway.

10/25/2006 11:13:12 AM

^^ Okay, "you" should have been "you people," haha. In all seriousness, http://www.eagletribune.com/opinion/local_story_298095433?keyword=secondarystory this kind of shit has to be nipped in the bud. Because before you know it we'll be so goddamned scared of living we won't get out of bed. With masses and polititians it's all or nothing, and if this overprotective atmosphere doesn't turn around I'm going to have to move to Europe to have a smoke and a coffee.

10/25/2006 11:17:23 AM

^^another worthless post from you...about as worthless as this thread http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=440682

10/25/2006 11:20:30 AM

I don't read your posts man. They look like this to me ->

10/25/2006 11:26:03 AM

I just like how I can smoke in a bar that allows smoking and you can only come on TWW to bitch like a woman

10/25/2006 11:39:00 AM

Quote :

"very few people mean to actually have an accident. smoking is a concious choice people make....its no accident. can you really not see the difference?"

Well I was referring more to car fumes. Car exhaust contains more deadly chemicals than smoking, and people make a concious choice to drive those cars.

Quote :

"i dont know, but studies have shown the 2nd hand smoke is harmful"

I could make a study that shows jogging harmful. Everything is harmful in this world, let's put it into perspective, how harmful is it? Is going to a place for a few hours where slight secondhand smoke is present going to kill you? Very few people have ever died from secondhand smoke, and those were spouses of smokers and were exposed to it on a daily basis. Going to a bar for a few hours is not going to kill you.

Quote :

"pool does not effect the health of others. smoking does."

A pool ball could bounce off the table and hit someone in the head. So yes it can effect the health of others, just like anything else. If it doesn't pose a significant health risk to everyone else, people should be able to do it in restricted places. Now if it 'bothers' you, and you like to whine about it, go somewhere else, or start your own non-smoking bar.

Quote :

"as smoker4 has already pointed out, the government has every right to ban smoking...and some local governments already have. smoking in bars is not a right."

I agree they could do it, hell they could outlaw loud music if they wanted to, the question is should they do it.

10/25/2006 11:48:21 AM

next thing you know they will outlaw beer.

oh wait

10/25/2006 11:51:29 AM

Why does everyone, in an attempt to characterize the danger of second hand smoke, continue to only consider the patron side of the equation? What about the folks that are working there? And "they have a choice to work wherever" just isn't a good enough reason for me.

10/25/2006 11:53:08 AM

^^^youre just rehashing points that have already been addressed. read the thread.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason : df]

10/25/2006 11:53:41 AM

dudes work in coal minds and I dont see anyone making threads about those poor bastards.

10/25/2006 11:54:34 AM

Quote :

"Is going to a place for a few hours where slight secondhand smoke is present going to kill you?"

once again, this started out as an issue about people who work in the bars every day for hours at a time. The original article showed conclusive evidence that these people's health improved almost immediately as a result of smoking bans

10/25/2006 12:01:07 PM

Quote :

"Why does everyone, in an attempt to characterize the danger of second hand smoke, continue to only consider the patron side of the equation? What about the folks that are working there?"

Every job has risks involved with it, even if it's working in a pillow factory. A company needs only to reduce these risks to workers in an adequate level that doesn't exceddingly impede on their ability to do business. Outlawing guns because it makes a policeman's job less dangerous is simply stupid. If you don't want to deal with the dangers of being a policeman, don't be a policeman, it's that simple.

Quote :

"The original article showed conclusive evidence that these people's health improved almost immediately as a result of smoking bans"

I'm sure my health would improve if my job got rid of wires and computers, but I know the health problems associated with my job, and I still chose to work there.

10/25/2006 12:06:45 PM

Quote :

"And "they have a choice to work wherever" just isn't a good enough reason for me"

too bad

the fact is they DO have a choice

not being a good enough reason for you isnt worth shit

10/25/2006 12:07:14 PM

Quote :

"Outlawing guns because it makes a policeman's job less dangerous is simply stupid."

This is absurd.

Quote :

"Every job has risks involved with it, even if it's working in a pillow factory. A company needs only to reduce these risks to workers in an adequate level that doesn't exceddingly impede on their ability to do business."

Show me some information that smoking bans have negatively effected a businesses ability to conduct business. Being subjected to high levels of smoke doesn't have to be part of the risk associated with working.

Heck, I'd be up to compromise on a solution of installing very high quality HVAC systems that sanitize the air. Benefits for all, expect the poor bar owner that has to pay the money to install it. In light of the idea that banning smoking really doesn't make his profit go down, which one do you think he chooses?

10/25/2006 12:11:35 PM

Quote :

"This is absurd."

how?

10/25/2006 12:16:39 PM

Quote :

"This is absurd."

Why is it so absurd? Don't use a copout (excuse the pun).

Quote :

"Show me some information that smoking bans have negatively effected a businesses ability to conduct business."

I can't find any, but if you want to get rid of smoking in bars, perhaps you should fund that study.

Quote :

"Benefits for all, expect the poor bar owner that has to pay the money to install it."

The cost of beer would probably go up as well, it would really be more of a loss for all, considering the net gain for cleaner air is probably going to be much lower than the cost of buying and installing the unit.

Quote :

"In light of the idea that banning smoking really doesn't make his profit go down, which one do you think he chooses?"

Id be willing to bet most would still install the unit because if they didn't smoking patrons would go elsewhere.

10/25/2006 12:20:48 PM

Quote :

"In light of the idea that banning smoking really doesn't make his profit go down"

Good luck convincing anyone in their right minds who owns a sports bar that banning smoking during football season "really doesn't make profits go down"

10/25/2006 12:21:50 PM

Here's info on the UK ban, and I think it's a fair assumption to say there are larger numbers of smokers in pubs there than here, so the profit effect should be stronger.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B5F5BEE9B-C6DD-43A8-9E8D-724ACC9693F7%7D&siteid=google&dist=

Quote :

"He said revenue at Scotland's bingo clubs dropped by between 14% and 27% in the first six weeks after the smoking ban was introduced there in March."

Lets see if it returns to normal levels, once smokers get adjusted to it. A casino is slightly different than a bar, but for our purposes they can be the same.

Quote :

""In terms of the pub operators the best indicator we have at the moment is the impact we're seeing in Scotland. Overall sales figures (there) are flat to down 3% year-on-year," said Timothy Ramskill at Dresdner Kleinwort."

Flat to 3%, man thats brutal.

Quote :

"J.D. Wetherspoon (UK:JDW: news, chart, profile) , which operates the Wetherspoon chain throughout the U.K., recently said its Scottish sales dropped 0.3% on a comparable basis in the fourth quarter of its 2006 fiscal year, which translated into an 11% drop in adjusted operating profit. On its Web site home page, Wetherspoon lauds the fact that 101 of its 650 pubs are non-smoking."

11% isn't too friendly, but how much of that is a direct result of the ban? Yet, the Wetherspoon chain still lauds having non-smoking pubs. They must be ok with it.

Quote :

"Larger company Mitchells & Butlers (UK:MAB: news, chart, profile) , best known for its diverse portfolio of both food and drink haunts, including well-known, upmarket chains such as All Bar One and Browns, reported positive 18-week to Sept. 16 comparable sales in Scotland of 2.6%. This was still slower than overall comparable sales growth of 3.8% in the same period."

Positive growth not a bad thing.

Quote :

"The legislative changes have yet to significantly undermine shares in most of the pub chains."

This is all that matters in the scheme of things.

Quote :

" Bingo group Rank's shares haven't fared as well, rising just 5% in that period. The company also operates food outlets and casinos and is currently restructuring its business. Based on recent sales figures and share prices, pub operators appear more able than bingo companies to adapt to the smoking ban, mostly because -- unlike bingo players -- their customers can move outside. That needs to be taken in context, analysts caution. "

Oh noes, shares have still risen, despite the ban. And bingo operators can set up slots outside on top of all that.

10/25/2006 12:40:11 PM

Quote :

"Good luck convincing anyone in their right minds who owns a sports bar that banning smoking during football season "really doesn't make profits go down""

10/25/2006 12:41:44 PM

if NO sports bar allowed smoking, then i doubt the difference would be that appreciable.

10/25/2006 12:44:35 PM

if NO sports bars allowed smoking, I think all of them would suffer losses

10/25/2006 12:47:20 PM

Quote :

"Positive growth not a bad thing."

Someone doesn't know economics.

Quote :

"I think it's a fair assumption to say there are larger numbers of smokers in pubs there than here"

Yeah, I think that's a fair comparison. I mean over there, smoking has an extremely negative social stigma associated with it and packs cost anywhere between $5-10 a pack, whereas here, tobacco has been grown for centuries and packs cost $2-3.

Quote :

"Yet, the Wetherspoon chain still lauds having non-smoking pubs."

Well why wouldn't they? I mean if they suddenly don't allow resturants to sell alcohol, you don't think they'd start promoting the "family friendly atmosphere"?

Quote :

"Oh noes, shares have still risen, despite the ban. And bingo operators can set up slots outside on top of all that."

And how much of that do you think has to with the ban? Oh yeah, must be all of it, because it supports your point.

10/25/2006 1:00:27 PM

Quote :

"I mean over there, smoking has an extremely negative social stigma associated with it and packs cost anywhere between $5-10 a pack"

have you ever been to Europe? They make the US look like uptight health freaks, when it comes to smoking.
if any country has an "extremely negative social stigma" about smokers, it's us.

10/25/2006 1:37:48 PM

Quote :

"you said the sun causes cancer...thats true, but its also been shown that the sun has health benefits."

its also been shown that smoking has health benefits. look it up, son.

10/25/2006 2:16:41 PM

Quote :

"Dude, don't lecture me about where to go out in Raleigh. I lived there for nine years, I lived downtown, I've eaten and gone out all over the area (including most of the places on that list). Get over yourself. There is already a dearth of nightlife and restaurants -- and narrowing the list by smoking criteria is ridiculous. "

That's your problem. The fact that Raleigh has no night life is irellevant to the fact that there are options. Do you honestly think a ban on smoking is going to improve the raleigh night life?

Quote :

"Smoking is a privilege, not a right -- people who smoke are hurting everyone around them. And not in a minor way. It's not speech, it's a physical thing. "

Off the point, but if you don't think speech is harmful to people in very serious ways you're deluding yourself.

Quote :

"Would you argue that a bar owner should allow people to brawl and kill each other if he so chooses, and they consent?"

Quote :

"I think they do... don't some bars have mud wrestling?"

Quote :

"No, most of those places are crap. The gasp list itself is full of fast food joints. "

Again, that's your problem.

Quote :

"Oh, and by the way, it's full of shit, too. I see the Third Place is listed. Oh, right -- I only went there for six years. You have to walk through a thick cloud of smoke just to get in the door. Sure, once you're inside you're OK."

In otherwords, the place IS smoke free as the list claims, you just have to get through all the smokers standing outside (which is apprently a problem for you, and then you want them to ban smoking all around, making it a problem everywhere).

Quote :

"i dont know, but studies have shown the 2nd hand smoke is harmful....do we really need to wait until someone dies? "

Yes.

Quote :

"i agree, and since not smoking in a bar is such a slight inconvinience, smokers should have no problems with going outside. someones health is far more important then feeding an addiction. "

Problem is, the bar owner says smoking inside is ok. If you have a problem with that, it's your problem and you need to find a way around it, not the smokers.

Quote :

"f course smokers don't try to give people cancer, but they know the risks to them around them, and yet they still do it. "

Do you speed?

Quote :

"its already been pointed out in this thread that the government makes decisions for businesses all the time...this would be no different."

Right they do. But should they and WHY?

Quote :

"its to protect everyone, not just children. adults are still affected by 2nd hand smoke too. "

Adults are capable of making risk aversion decisions.

Quote :

"Why does everyone, in an attempt to characterize the danger of second hand smoke, continue to only consider the patron side of the equation? What about the folks that are working there? "

Choice.

Quote :

"And "they have a choice to work wherever" just isn't a good enough reason for me."

Why not. Find me one person who is FORCED to work in a smoke filled environment, who has no other choice, and I'll show you a person who isn't trying hard enough.

Quote :

"Heck, I'd be up to compromise on a solution of installing very high quality HVAC systems that sanitize the air."

Didn't you already say this wasn't good enough for you?

Quote :

" Show me some information that smoking bans have negatively effected a businesses ability to conduct business. ... Here's info on the UK ban, and I think it's a fair assumption to say there are larger numbers of smokers in pubs there than here, so the profit effect should be stronger. "

You then follow it up with 3 examples of negative growth and 2 examples of slowed growth. I'd say you answered your own question.

10/25/2006 2:22:11 PM

Question:
Do these kind of laws exempt Cigar bars or will this law totally ruin awesome cigar bars?

Because by God if you go to a cigar bar and bitch about the smoke, you should be raped.

10/25/2006 2:52:25 PM

im going to say that when Catscradle banned smoking inside I was happy because Iwouldnt smell like ass after a show.

10/25/2006 2:53:24 PM

When Cat's Cradle banned smoking inside I started going to King's.

10/25/2006 3:05:19 PM

when the Cradle banned smoking I would still go there for a good concert

In a positive sense, I didn't mind going outside to smoke and I ended up smoking less than I would if you could do it indoors

However

the Cat's Cradle banned smoking indoors by their own choice...there wasnt a governmental mandate that forced them...they had, as a private business, the choice to ban smoking and they chose to do it...and they didn't need any government assistance

10/25/2006 3:17:48 PM

Quote :

" That's your problem. The fact that Raleigh has no night life is irellevant to the fact that there are options. Do you honestly think a ban on smoking is going to improve the raleigh night life?"

If it's so irrelevant, why did you post so many stupid links showing how many wonderful () options there are?

Oh, it's only irrelevant when you want to go all college-boy and use the word "irrelevant." That's when.

Anyway, my point was that you don't get to tell me what "options" are. Comparing the hot new club that's full of smokers to Joe's Redneck Shack that doesn't allow smoking isn't giving me an "option." I mean, pardon me for being a little discriminate in where I spend my time and money. Maybe you aren't; I am.

Quote :

" Off the point, but if you don't think speech is harmful to people in very serious ways you're deluding yourself."

Well, it's mostly off the point because it's dead wrong. I don't recall the last time speech caused terminal lung cancer.

Quote :

" Again, that's your problem."

OK. Now it's time for Democracy 101.

It's my problem that the market doesn't provide enough opportunity for non-smokers because, as a matter of competition, there is no alternative for most business owners except to allow smoking.

So I, a registered voter, can very well support the smoking ban at the ballot.

There. Now it's your problem. Welcome to the real world.

Quote :

" In otherwords, the place IS smoke free as the list claims, you just have to get through all the smokers standing outside (which is apprently a problem for you, and then you want them to ban smoking all around, making it a problem everywhere)."

Are you stupid? At what point does the term mean "smoke-free" mean "free of smoke, except for all that smoke?"

By the way, you are stupid. The smoking bans that we're debating also ban smoking within fifteen feet of businesses. Because -- not to belabor the stupidity of your point -- it's kind of dumb to ban smoking inside if you have to walk through a thick cloud of it just to get in. Duh.

(and not to belabor the stupidity even further, the outside area I was referring to is actually owned by Third Place. News flash: businesses also own adjacent outside areas for dining and recreation)

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 4:27 AM. Reason : foo]

10/26/2006 4:23:51 AM

Quote :

" Smokers don't intentionally cause cancer in those around them, either. So I think it is comparable to use of automobiles. Accidents aren't the only harmful side effect of driving cars. The emissions, while regulated, are still as deadly as second hand smoke."

LOL! I love it. This is standard TWW right here.

The emissions, "while regulated" -- um, try heavily-fucking-regulated. And increasingly so. Not to mention practically everything else about cars. In fact, some states (you know the ones) are trying to pass tax increases to help get rid of gas-powered automobiles altogether someday. Holy shit!

Besides that, I think people readily accept that cars are a necessary evil. If we all had teleporters that beamed us about, I doubt too many people would drive for the sheer pleasure of getting some CO into their lungs. Maybe you would; I wouldn't.

10/26/2006 4:34:25 AM

Quote :

"If it's so irrelevant, why did you post so many stupid links showing how many wonderful () options there are?"

If I understood what the fuck you were asking, I might be able to answer the question.

Quote :

"Anyway, my point was that you don't get to tell me what "options" are. Comparing the hot new club that's full of smokers to Joe's Redneck Shack that doesn't allow smoking isn't giving me an "option." I mean, pardon me for being a little discriminate in where I spend my time and money. Maybe you aren't; I am."

So why not open your own bar? Or here's a thought, get all your non smoking buddies to put some money into trying to improve the non smoking options. Did it occur to you that the non smoking options might not be so great because you and your buddies aren't going there and giving them money with which to improve? Alternatively, if the places the choices for non smoking are not good enough for you to go to, and thus you are still choosing to go to bars with smoking, perhaps smoking is not really that big of an issue to you. You remind me a lot of the people that rail against the evils of wal-mart and shop there anyway.

Furthermore, you're also lying through your teeth as you claimed to frequent one of these smoke free bars for 6 years. Are you suggesting that you are so bad about where you spend your money that you spent 6 years going to one of these non-options and wasting your money on crap? Or are you just suggesting that there are indeed options out there, and options worth spending 6 years of money at, but you just don't want to admit it?

Quote :

"Well, it's mostly off the point because it's dead wrong. I don't recall the last time speech caused terminal lung cancer."

But I'll bet you could find some examples of speech causing terminal injury to someone. You wouldn't even need to look all that hard.

Quote :

"It's my problem that the market doesn't provide enough opportunity for non-smokers because, as a matter of competition, there is no alternative for most business owners except to allow smoking."

The problem is, there are alternatives, as demonstrated by the places which do cater to the non smoking crowds. The real problem is, you can't be bothered to go there you instead continue to flock to the competition, thus creating disincentive for smoking places to switch over.

Quote :

"So I, a registered voter, can very well support the smoking ban at the ballot. There. Now it's your problem. Welcome to the real world. "

Because when I think of how best to intiate change in the world, my first instinct is to get the government involved. Afterall, history has shown time and again that the government is the best way to solve all your problems.

Quote :

"Are you stupid? At what point does the term mean "smoke-free" mean "free of smoke, except for all that smoke?" "

You're the one that's suggesting that all the smokers have to do is go outside to smoke. Now you don't think that's good enough. You're also now being extremely stupid. Passing through a cloud of smoke on the way in is not going to give you cancer any more than the walk accross the parking lot to get in.

Quote :

"By the way, you are stupid. The smoking bans that we're debating also ban smoking within fifteen feet of businesses. Because -- not to belabor the stupidity of your point -- it's kind of dumb to ban smoking inside if you have to walk through a thick cloud of it just to get in. Duh. "

So now it's no longer you have to just go outside, but you also have to go down the block. And instead of having to go through the cloud of smoke at the door, you have to do it 15 feet sooner. Inevitably, this is the problem of getting the government involved to solve your problems, because the solution moves from "just go outside" to "just go 15 feet down the sidewalk outside".

10/26/2006 8:46:45 AM

Bottom line, as a matter of public health, I think all major municipalities should enact this type of legislation.

10/26/2006 9:16:36 AM

Bottom line is that it's not the public health that this will affect. It's only the health of the subset of the public, who chooses to work or visit bars and restraunts which allow smoking. Furthermore, it's health effects are really only important to those who care in the first place.

10/26/2006 9:27:33 AM

Why the heck does Smoker4 have "Smoker" in his name if he is so adamant about banning public smoking?

10/26/2006 9:52:34 AM

Because he realizes that not everyone wants to smell like him?

Why do I own a gun and support gun control?

10/26/2006 9:56:41 AM

are you his official spokesperson or something?

10/26/2006 10:03:47 AM

Quote :

"next thing you know they will outlaw beer. oh wait"

FTW

10/26/2006 6:16:26 PM

For whoever said that smoking in public is banned in NYC, you're wrong. I live here and it sure as hell isn't banned. In bars, yeah you betcha and its fantastic. You don't smell like shit at the end of the night.

I actually just read something in the paper this morning, some study released recently saying that around 18% of NYers smoke. Thats actually higher than I thought, given the bar/restaurant ban as well as the fact that a pack of smokes costs $6.50 and up.

And umm, for whoever said something about automotive exhaust being worse for you...I'd take the exhaust thanks. A modern automobile gives off almost entirely C02. So fuck the cig smoke with god knows how many chemicals.

10/27/2006 1:22:11 PM

Quote :

" If I understood what the fuck you were asking, I might be able to answer the question."

Well, I won't argue with that. So far comprehension and comprehensibility aren't your strongest suits.

Quote :

"So why not open your own bar?"

... because I don't want to be in the bar business? What a dumb suggestion. And how platitudinously libertarian; as if everyone can just plunk down a few hundred K, 15+/hour days for three years of their lives, to start a marginally succesful bar just because they don't like smoking.

Are you maybe nuts? Which planet are you inhabiting right now? I bet the air there is really thin.

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that you are so bad about where you spend your money that you spent 6 years going to one of these non-options and wasting your money on crap?"

It was a coffee shop. I was a regular. Get with the program. I didn't spend every waking hour there, but I went there often enough to know what the atmosphere was like. Is that hard to understand, or is it beyond TWW 101 to interpret?

Quote :

" But I'll bet you could find some examples of speech causing terminal injury to someone. You wouldn't even need to look all that hard."

Yes, but those examples would be way off the statistical mean. On average, speech is harmless. There is pretty much 1:1 correlation between smoking and health risks.

It's called a bell curve. This is not a hard concept.

Quote :

" The problem is, there are alternatives, as demonstrated by the places which do cater to the non smoking crowds. The real problem is, you can't be bothered to go there you instead continue to flock to the competition, thus creating disincentive for smoking places to switch over."

Yes, my unwillingness to eat out exclusively at Burger King must be my problem and not a general failing of the marketplace or a tragedy of the commons.

Quote :

" Because when I think of how best to intiate change in the world, my first instinct is to get the government involved. Afterall, history has shown time and again that the government is the best way to solve all your problems."

Thanks, Harry Brown. Or is that Badnarik?

Noone ever said the government was the ideal solution to this problem. It's just the only expedient one. That's what government is for -- expediency. This isn't a hard concept, either; it's called Amerian Revolutionary Politics 101.

In the ideal world, people would regulate themselves and realize that not everyone wants to breathe their cancerous exhalations in a public setting. We do not live in such an ideal world. Enter expediency, enter the government.

Two plus two does usually equal four, where I come from. Maybe not in your thin-air habitat.

Quote :

" You're the one that's suggesting that all the smokers have to do is go outside to smoke. Now you don't think that's good enough. You're also now being extremely stupid. Passing through a cloud of smoke on the way in is not going to give you cancer any more than the walk accross the parking lot to get in."

Right, I live in a fantasy world where restaurants don't have outdoors dining adjacent to their properties, and where casual inhalation of smoke is not also linked to health risks. And there are NEVER slow lines outside of restaurants or bars. Nope, not ever.

I won't even get into the inherent problems with employees who inhale the smoke outside -- that one is so beyond your reasoning capacity, it's rendered you deaf and blind simultaneously.

Quote :

"Inevitably, this is the problem of getting the government involved to solve your problems, because the solution moves from "just go outside" to "just go 15 feet down the sidewalk outside"."

Please kindly shut the fuck up with your libertarian claptrap. You don't know the ideology all that well, so stop spewing it.

And for another thing, don't impose your lack of imagination on me. Fifteen feet from a business, especially a restaurant or bar, is a long ways. We're talking about the storefront, here. I can avoid people down the block quite easily if my destination is the front door. If people are congregating around the front door, or even in it, that's a lot harder. Duh.

[Edited on October 28, 2006 at 6:42 AM. Reason : foo]

10/28/2006 6:40:51 AM

Quote :

"... because I don't want to be in the bar business? What a dumb suggestion. And how platitudinously libertarian; as if everyone can just plunk down a few hundred K, 15+/hour days for three years of their lives, to start a marginally succesful bar just because they don't like smoking. "

Everyone doesn't have to. Just a few people, and then the people like you have to stop bitching about smoking in places that allow smoking and actualy go to the places that don't. Of which there already are some, but you don't go there, hence the bar is marginaly succesful.

Quote :

"It was a coffee shop. I was a regular. Get with the program. I didn't spend every waking hour there, but I went there often enough to know what the atmosphere was like. Is that hard to understand, or is it beyond TWW 101 to interpret?"

Like I said, you were a regular going to a place which you previously suggested was below your standards. Bar or coffee shop it doesn't matter, you insinuated that all non smoking places would be sub par. So the question still remains, why were you a regular at a place below your standards when you're so discriminatory about your spending.

Quote :

"Yes, but those examples would be way off the statistical mean. On average, speech is harmless. There is pretty much 1:1 correlation between smoking and health risks. "

Is there a 1:1 correlation between second hand smoke and terminal cancer? Because that's what you're talking about here.

Quote :

"Yes, my unwillingness to eat out exclusively at Burger King must be my problem and not a general failing of the marketplace or a tragedy of the commons. "

I could have sworn there were more places to eat than Burger King on that list. And yes, your unwillingness to NOT go to places that allow smoking which you find offensive and dangerous to your health is indeed your own problem. No one forces you to go.

Quote :

"Noone ever said the government was the ideal solution to this problem. It's just the only expedient one. That's what government is for -- expediency. This isn't a hard concept, either; it's called Amerian Revolutionary Politics 101. "

Sure the government is expedient if you have the money and the power. But is it appropriate?

Quote :

"In the ideal world, people would regulate themselves and realize that not everyone wants to breathe their cancerous exhalations in a public setting. We do not live in such an ideal world. Enter expediency, enter the government. "

Funny, this doesn't look like a public setting to me. It looks like a privately owned bar, who's owner has chosen to allow smoking inside, to which people are free to come and go as they choose. Therefore, if a non smoker is inhaling these "cancerous exhalations" it is because they chose to be there.

Quote :

"Right, I live in a fantasy world where restaurants don't have outdoors dining adjacent to their properties, and where casual inhalation of smoke is not also linked to health risks. And there are NEVER slow lines outside of restaurants or bars. Nope, not ever. "

So then what you really want is smoking banned entirely, as it's dangerous no matter where it is right? I thought the reason we wanted it outside was because it could dissapate.

Quote :

"And for another thing, don't impose your lack of imagination on me. Fifteen feet from a business, especially a restaurant or bar, is a long ways. We're talking about the storefront, here. I can avoid people down the block quite easily if my destination is the front door. If people are congregating around the front door, or even in it, that's a lot harder. Duh. "

And what about the poor bastard who's store front is 15 feet down the block? What about all the people that are walking over there? Don't those people have your right not to have smoke thrust upon them? Why do you seek to offload your problem on to someone else and someone who may not have chosen to expose themselves to such smoke as you did?

10/28/2006 10:29:18 AM

Quote :

"Everyone doesn't have to. Just a few people, and then the people like you have to stop bitching about smoking in places that allow smoking and actualy go to the places that don't. Of which there already are some, but you don't go there, hence the bar is marginaly succesful."

See, the problem with your suggestion, above its obvious inanity -- is that it's clear you don't know the first minor thing about marketing or starting a business.

You don't just go and start a business that you like, you start a business that serves customer demand (ie makes $$$$). If I dump a few hundred K into a business because I hate smoking, and there isn't demand for my business just because of that, I have to make adjustments. Like allowing smoking. Do you think that all bar owners who allow smoking do it because they LOVE cigarettes?

So you're just throwing a stupid, obvious red herring into the mix. Again: get with reality.

Quote :

" Like I said, you were a regular going to a place which you previously suggested was below your standards."

No, that's not what I said. I said that if I used smoking as a determinant of bar/restaurant preference, I'd have nowhere to go at all. Including my regular coffee place.

Geez. Like this is hard to get? I mean it's fucking obvious, just read my goddamned post! Don't you have any common sense?

Quote :

" Is there a 1:1 correlation between second hand smoke and terminal cancer? Because that's what you're talking about here."

Yes.

Quote :

" I could have sworn there were more places to eat than Burger King on that list. And yes, your unwillingness to NOT go to places that allow smoking which you find offensive and dangerous to your health is indeed your own problem. No one forces you to go."

There are more places than Burger King on the list? No shit!? You're Mr. fucking literal, aren't you? I already said your lists suck ass, and I was using Burger King as a rhetorical example. Are you capable of reading?

Noone forces me to go? Damned right they don't. But I have a life; do you? And while I have a life, and pay property taxes in my community, I expect the government to make my community livable for people who have lives and leave their houses on occasion.

I'm not going to forego my favorite bars and restaurants just because of smoking, because then I'd have nowhere to go. And I shouldn't have to.

Quote :

" Sure the government is expedient if you have the money and the power. But is it appropriate?"

Thank you, Mr. Chomsky. Everyone has "the power"; it's called a vote. Ever heard of it? I don't see what money has to do with it.

Quote :

"It looks like a privately owned bar, who's owner has chosen to allow smoking inside, to which people are free to come and go as they choose. Therefore, if a non smoker is inhaling these "cancerous exhalations" it is because they chose to be there."

No shit? Well, I'll just become a hermit and stay at home then. That's what you're suggesting.

Besides, are you saying there's no precedent for government to regulate what happens on private property? I'd love to see your argument from the Constitution, the state Constitution, etc. Where I come from businesses are required to have certain standards.

Quote :

" So then what you really want is smoking banned entirely, as it's dangerous no matter where it is right? I thought the reason we wanted it outside was because it could dissapate."

OK, you're stupid, we've already established that.

Quote :

" And what about the poor bastard who's store front is 15 feet down the block? What about all the people that are walking over there? Don't those people have your right not to have smoke thrust upon them? Why do you seek to offload your problem on to someone else and someone who may not have chosen to expose themselves to such smoke as you did?"

See above: it's called a bell curve. Are you suggesting that any policy has to be perfect? I suppose that would stick with your ivory tower head-in-the-sand stupidity.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 3:20 AM. Reason : foo]

10/29/2006 3:18:29 AM

Quote :

"You don't just go and start a business that you like, you start a business that serves customer demand (ie makes $$$$). If I dump a few hundred K into a business because I hate smoking, and there isn't demand for my business just because of that, I have to make adjustments. Like allowing smoking. Do you think that all bar owners who allow smoking do it because they LOVE cigarettes?"

Clearly there is demand for bars that don't allow smoking as such bars exist and are in your own words "marginaly succesful". The problem however is that lack of smoking for most people (even you apparently) is not that high on your list of concerns. Otherwise these bars would be more succesful, or are you suggesting that the smokers outnumber the non smokers?

Quote :

"No, that's not what I said. I said that if I used smoking as a determinant of bar/restaurant preference, I'd have nowhere to go at all. Including my regular coffee place. "

I've already shown that you would have places to go. You choose not to go there, which means that of all the criteria, smoking is not all that high on your list.

Quote :

"Yes. "

I would love to see that study. Show me that everyone exposed to second hand smoke develops terminal cancer from that second hand smoke.

Quote :

"Noone forces me to go? Damned right they don't. But I have a life; do you? And while I have a life, and pay property taxes in my community, I expect the government to make my community livable for people who have lives and leave their houses on occasion."

The community is liveable, as demonstrated by the fact that there are bars that both allow and disallow smoking, and you choose (despite your protesting) to go to bars that allow smoking. It's clearly livable as you are frequenting these places.

Quote :

"I'm not going to forego my favorite bars and restaurants just because of smoking, because then I'd have nowhere to go. And I shouldn't have to. "

If they're your favorites then again, smoking is not high on your list of criterea. And once again you're ignoring the fact that you would indeed have places to go. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote :

"No shit? Well, I'll just become a hermit and stay at home then. That's what you're suggesting. "

Not at all, I'm suggesting that you, and all your buddies who are so very concerned about their health when they go out to knock back a few drinks stop going to places that allow smoking and start going to places that don't. Perhaps your little bit of extra cash is just what some of those places need to buy a better grade of food to serve. But of course you will never know because you keep going to places that allow smoking, and thus deplete the demand pool for a place that doesn't allow smoking.

Quote :

"Besides, are you saying there's no precedent for government to regulate what happens on private property? I'd love to see your argument from the Constitution, the state Constitution, etc. Where I come from businesses are required to have certain standards. "

I can certainly argue it from the Constitution, see Amendment 10. As far as the state constitution, I don't know I haven't bothered to look, but just because there is precedent or even right does not mean that it is proper or necessary to do so. The changes you seek could easily and quickly be accomplished without government intervention if you and those like you would exercise your right of choice and frequent the places that are up to your standards.

Quote :

"OK, you're stupid, we've already established that. "

Hardly I'm asking a serious question. According to you, smoking is dangerous inside. It's also dangerous right outside the doorway. What makes it any less dangerous for people who walk through the smoke if it's 15 feet away from the door?

Quote :

"See above: it's called a bell curve. Are you suggesting that any policy has to be perfect? I suppose that would stick with your ivory tower head-in-the-sand stupidity. "

I'm suggesting that any policy enacted should not pass the problem off to someone else. By requiring that smokers congregate 15 feet away you are not solving the problem at hand, you're just making it someone else's problem, namely whoever is 15 feet away from the bar.

10/29/2006 10:23:32 AM

Quote :

"Clearly there is demand for bars that don't allow smoking"

But they aren't successful just because they don't allow smoking; they're successful because they serve a specific niche market. Just like practically all businesses. Except Burger King, which serves the non-smoker-friendly "get your burger and get the Hell out!" horizontal.

Quote :

"You choose not to go there, which means that of all the criteria, smoking is not all that high on your list."

Most were fast food joints or eclectic/high-end restaurants. The only way you can convince me there are options is to show me a listing of all restaurants, by price range and cuisine, and show me which percentage of them are non-smoker friendly (** by an actually reasonable criterion). I am willing to bet that percentage is low. I am also willing to bet the policy analysts who came up with the smoking ban already looked at it.

But thanks for playing.

Quote :

"Show me that everyone exposed to second hand smoke develops terminal cancer from that second hand smoke."

Um ... this is getting back to this whole problem with your "being stupid?" Are you familiar with what the term "risk" means? How about that bell curve thing I keep talking about? Still haven't Googled it have you?

Quote :

"It's clearly livable as you are frequenting these places."

Who's to say it's livable? According to you, the only smoking risk is if you immediately come down with lung cancer upon a single whiff. In my world that's called "spin."

I'd argue that if people are exposed to second-hand smoke today, and develop heart disease and cancer ten years from now, then the community is in fact not "livable," it just seems that way.

Maybe in your world the future doesn't exist; it does in mine.

Quote :

" If they're your favorites then again, smoking is not high on your list of criterea."

*BUZZ* WRONG. My whole point was I didn't have a choice vis a vis smoking. It's amazing how after ten posts you still don't get that.

I know for a fact that in all of RDU there are no good "non-smoking" coffee shops. Unless you count Starbucks (I don't) -- which itself doesn't meet the "15 feet" criterion.

Quote :

" Not at all, I'm suggesting that you, and all your buddies who are so very concerned about their health when they go out to knock back a few drinks stop going to places that allow smoking and start going to places that don't."

And I'm suggesting that you stop telling me where to go. I know where I like to go and what I like. I know what's out there. I know that the market provides a dearth of available places to go, period, and selecting by smoking would be crazy.

(and for the record, I live in California, which has more than a few places that don't allow smoking -- thanks to one of its few good public policy decisions)

Quote :

" I can certainly argue it from the Constitution, see Amendment 10."

Really? Amendment 10? Let's take a look at the hallowed amendment 10 and see what it says:

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I don't think you were a computer science major. That "or" there, it's called an inclusive-or. The states OR the people, including both as possibilities.

The federal government did not in fact ban smoking inside. States and cities do it. Guess why?

Ding ding ding! Amendment 10! Holy shit! See, the _state_ is in fact one part of the OR in that amendment!

Quite obviously this amendment leaves the question of, say, smoking inside as a matter to be determined between the state and the people of those states. Holy shit!

Quote :

"The changes you seek could easily and quickly be accomplished without government intervention if you and those like you would exercise your right of choice and frequent the places that are up to your standards."

Well, aside from the absolute dearth of choices --

Why should I, a non-smoker, have to go somewhere else to avoid infringing on someone's allegedly-God-given right to spread cancerous fumes into the air?

I seriously do not see where this inalienable right to smoke comes from. It's not a matter of private property. If you seriously believe that, why don't you try starting a lemonade stand in front of your house and see how long it takes the city government to shut you down for not having a permit.

Hell, let me ask you this -- why shouldn't business owners be allowed to ban the "coloreds," too? Can't have the government telling the businesspeople what to do on their private property! No sir! All the blacks can just exercise their right of choice and go to the wonderful coloreds-welcome establishments! We saw how well that worked out!

You are seriously confused, sir. The government exists to regulate the affairs between people. Business in America, is the business of America; it is the primary affair between people. The whole point of Libertarian ideology is limit government's influence to well-defined boundaries, not to castrate it entirely. Perhaps if more registered Libertarians got that, they might have a better time selling their message.

I, personally, like not having shit in my sausage becaue the USDA checks it, I like having businesses zoned to business districts instead of my residential neighborhood, and I like not having to inhale fumes even if it inconvienences some poor nicotine-addict (who will ultimately cost the public money when he ends up in an emergency room).

Speaking of which -- ever had a relative die of lung cancer? It goes something like this:

"Doctor: hey, you have lung cancer!"
"Patient: really?"
"Doctor: yep, get your affairs in order"

Two weeks later, patient is dead.

Quote :

"What makes it any less dangerous for people who walk through the smoke if it's 15 feet away from the door?"

OK, let me see if you're smart enough to understand this. I thought it was implied.

15 feet away from any storefront.

I am Joe's Shack O BBQ. Right next to me is Old Navy. Smoker can't smoke in front of Joe's Shack, within 15 feet. 15 feet away is Old Navy? Oh well, he's SOL. Gotta go 15 feet from there too.

Eventually he winds up far enough away from ANY business that people going to a business can avoid him. Because, quite logically, they are going to the business and not to hang out with the smoker. At that point the laws of thermodynamics, rising heat, etc take effect and there's no smoke to be inhaled.

Honestly, these aren't really hard logistics to grasp.

Quote :

"By requiring that smokers congregate 15 feet away you are not solving the problem at hand, you're just making it someone else's problem, namely whoever is 15 feet away from the bar."

Yes, and they solve the problem by walking around the guy. But if I'm waiting in line to get into a bar or sitting outside eating, and Joe Smoker is right next to me, it's a lot harder to avoid.

Again, I don't see why this whole scenario isn't terribly obvious to you. It's just a buffer zone. Is it concievable that someone, somewhere will still contact smoke? Yes. But it decreases the likelihood by orders of magnitude. I know. I live in a place that has the law. It works. Believe me.

10/30/2006 4:36:34 AM

Quote :

"But they aren't successful just because they don't allow smoking; they're successful because they serve a specific niche market. Just like practically all businesses. Except Burger King, which serves the non-smoker-friendly "get your burger and get the Hell out!" horizontal. "

So what niche market do your favorite smoking bars serve?

Quote :

"Most were fast food joints or eclectic/high-end restaurants. The only way you can convince me there are options is to show me a listing of all restaurants, by price range and cuisine, and show me which percentage of them are non-smoker friendly (** by an actually reasonable criterion). I am willing to bet that percentage is low. I am also willing to bet the policy analysts who came up with the smoking ban already looked at it. But thanks for playing."

Do it yourself, I'm not doing your homework for you. And by the way, just because you have to pay a little more doesn't mean you don't have choices. When you start getting picky, your costs will always rise.

Quote :

"Um ... this is getting back to this whole problem with your "being stupid?" Are you familiar with what the term "risk" means? How about that bell curve thing I keep talking about? Still haven't Googled it have you?"

See, now you're changing your argument again. You went from risk, to terminal cancer and now back to risk again.

Quote :

"Who's to say it's livable? According to you, the only smoking risk is if you immediately come down with lung cancer upon a single whiff. In my world that's called "spin." I'd argue that if people are exposed to second-hand smoke today, and develop heart disease and cancer ten years from now, then the community is in fact not "livable," it just seems that way. Maybe in your world the future doesn't exist; it does in mine. "

Maybe your world would be more believeable if you could demonstrate that the smoke I was exposed to today was the cause of the heart disease and cancer I develop years from now, rather than all the alcohol I drank, all the shitty fast food I ate and all the radiation I was exposed to working with electronics my entire life.

Quote :

"*BUZZ* WRONG. My whole point was I didn't have a choice vis a vis smoking. It's amazing how after ten posts you still don't get that. I know for a fact that in all of RDU there are no good "non-smoking" coffee shops. Unless you count Starbucks (I don't) -- which itself doesn't meet the "15 feet" criterion. "

Really, shall we take a trip down memory lane then?

Quote :

"It was a coffee shop. I was a regular. Get with the program. I didn't spend every waking hour there, but I went there often enough to know what the atmosphere was like."

Which leads me to ask once again, why you were a regular at a place you didn't like.

Quote :

"And I'm suggesting that you stop telling me where to go. I know where I like to go and what I like. I know what's out there."

And aparently you like places that allow smoking.

Quote :

"I know that the market provides a dearth of available places to go, period, and selecting by smoking would be crazy."

Like I said, your health clearly does not matter all that much to you in that case, and thus I see no reason to legislate what is a decision you could make if you chose to.

Quote :

"(and for the record, I live in California, which has more than a few places that don't allow smoking -- thanks to one of its few good public policy decisions) "

And how many were non smoking before the ban?

Quote :

"I don't think you were a computer science major. That "or" there, it's called an inclusive-or. The states OR the people, including both as possibilities. The federal government did not in fact ban smoking inside. States and cities do it. Guess why? Ding ding ding! Amendment 10! Holy shit! See, the _state_ is in fact one part of the OR in that amendment! Quite obviously this amendment leaves the question of, say, smoking inside as a matter to be determined between the state and the people of those states. Holy shit!"

Right, OR. So demonstrate that there is a need for the state to legislate this and not to reserve the power to the people and their ability to choose. So far you haven't. You've conceeded time and again there are places out there, and each time you have given an excuse as to why you don't choose to frequent those places instead. So you weighed the factors and decided your health was not high on your priority list when choosing a bar.

Quote :

"Why should I, a non-smoker, have to go somewhere else to avoid infringing on someone's allegedly-God-given right to spread cancerous fumes into the air? "

Because you're the one with the problem. Both the owner and the smoker as well as the rest of the patrons are fine with this idea of smoking in a bar. You're the one with the problem, you need to decide how much your health is worth to you when it comes to bars.

Quote :

"I seriously do not see where this inalienable right to smoke comes from. It's not a matter of private property. If you seriously believe that, why don't you try starting a lemonade stand in front of your house and see how long it takes the city government to shut you down for not having a permit. "

Why should I need a permit to sell lemonade? Serious question, give me an example of why someone selling lemonade from a table outside their home should need a permit.

Quote :

"Hell, let me ask you this -- why shouldn't business owners be allowed to ban the "coloreds," too? Can't have the government telling the businesspeople what to do on their private property! No sir! All the blacks can just exercise their right of choice and go to the wonderful coloreds-welcome establishments! We saw how well that worked out! "

Why shouldn't they? Consider. I can start a "business" mowing lawns. I can even mention to my social circle that I need help and I can choose which friends I "hire" without any regard for any restrictions. I can choose people based on their skin color, religion, name, ass size, anything. But as soon as I start paying taxes to the government on the income we earn so that I'm not breaking the law, I can't do that anymore. Why?

By the way, there's a difference between allowing private businesses to make choices and legislating the same choices (i.e. Jim Crow Laws).

Quote :

"You are seriously confused, sir. The government exists to regulate the affairs between people. Business in America, is the business of America; it is the primary affair between people. The whole point of Libertarian ideology is limit government's influence to well-defined boundaries, not to castrate it entirely. Perhaps if more registered Libertarians got that, they might have a better time selling their message."

Right the government's job is to ensure that rights are properly secured. Since smoking is an ovious thing in places that allow it, and there are alternatives, and you are not being forced or coerced into chosing the smoking bars, your rights are well secured and there's no need for government intervention.

Quote :

"Speaking of which -- ever had a relative die of lung cancer? It goes something like this: "Doctor: hey, you have lung cancer!" "Patient: really?" "Doctor: yep, get your affairs in order" Two weeks later, patient is dead. "

Yes actually I did. A rather close relative at that, and you have it all wrong. It went something more like this:

Doctor: you have lung cancer
Patient: Really?
Doctor: Yes, get your affairs in order

and then for the next few YEARS, the patient subjects themselves to what ammounts to useless radiation therapy, grows weaker by the day untill they can't even move under their own volition anymore, spends most of their time on a resperator coughing up blood every few minutes, while the entire rest of the family does what they can in order to try and make the last months as comfortable as possible, but knowing full well that in the end it's futile and there's nothing to can do or say as someone who's very near and dear to you wastes away into a fragile and hollow husk of what they were before. And when the time finaly comes, they're so far gone already that they can barely recognize who you are anymore. In all it can be rather traumatic.

It's one of the reasons I will never smoke. And I would appreciate if you don't assume my life experiences based on my politics.

Quote :

"Eventually he winds up far enough away from ANY business that people going to a business can avoid him. Because, quite logically, they are going to the business and not to hang out with the smoker. At that point the laws of thermodynamics, rising heat, etc take effect and there's no smoke to be inhaled."

Right, like I said, you want smoking banned everywhere. Suddenly, we're not talking just outside or 15 feet, now we're talking down the block and outside the business district. All because you can't be bothered to exercise your freedom of choice.

Quote :

" It's just a buffer zone. Is it concievable that someone, somewhere will still contact smoke? Yes."

It's ok, as long as it isn't you.

10/30/2006 12:19:04 PM