a. i haven't read the thread

and b.

Quote :

"I don't like the gov't intervention either"

i think that covers most of the points that have probably been made

3/24/2009 4:37:34 PM

Ok, here's one, since you all couldn't come up with another detrimental "hobby":

How is this legislation any different than legislation that says a restaurants has to meet a certain health code or they will be shut down?

3/24/2009 4:39:33 PM

I really hope this passes.

Quote :

"How is this legislation any different than legislation that says a restaurants has to meet a certain health code or they will be shut down?"

exactly, i mean you can just argue that with 'don't eat there if you don't like it

oh and this....

Quote :

"I don't smoke, but this is stupid. Culd you imagine all of the drunk people at the bar going back and forth outside to smoke?"

made me lol!

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/24/2009 4:40:45 PM

Quote :

"How is this legislation any different than legislation that says a restaurants has to meet a certain health code or they will be shut down?"

because its a reasonable expectation to eat food that won't make you sick when you go to a restuarant

Just like its a reasonable expectation to encounter smoke when you go to a smoking bar, or not to encounter smoke when you go to a non smoking place

Whereas it is your choice to go a smoking establishment vs a non smoking one and you have all relevant info available to make an informed choice as to who you will give your money to, without health codes and ratings, you would not have all the relevant info necessary to make an informed decision.

3/24/2009 4:44:10 PM

for page 4

Quote :

"here's over 1400 bars/restaurants that don't allow smoking http://mecklenburg.digitalhealthdepartment.com/smokefree.cfm"

3/24/2009 4:44:50 PM

^^

3/24/2009 4:48:01 PM

i can't wait till its outlawed completely so i can start growing it for black market sale $$$$

3/24/2009 4:51:29 PM

Quote :

"Culd you imagine all of the drunk people at the bar going back and forth outside to smoke? "

yeah. i can. that sounds fucking fantastic.

3/24/2009 5:01:30 PM

Haha. Oh well. I don't smoke so fuck it.

3/24/2009 5:02:14 PM

if this passes, i'm going to make it a point at bars like Thomas St. Tavern and other spots with outdoor porches to smoke incessantly and make sure the smoke goes all over people

You can have the inside of buildings, WE RUN THE OUTSIDES

3/24/2009 5:05:37 PM

^ thanks for reinforcing the stereotype that smokers are assholes, it encourages self-righteousness

3/24/2009 5:17:59 PM

Quote :

"Ok, here's one, since you all couldn't come up with another detrimental "hobby": How is this legislation any different than legislation that says a restaurants has to meet a certain health code or they will be shut down?"

most health codes are based on food storage and preperation methods. These codes are in place to protect the public from unsafe methods such as meat not being refrigerated to the correct temperature or if pests were present in store rooms. This is info that the general public either does not have knowledge or is able to easily observe before eating.

Posting whether a restaraunt allows smoking or not is very easily noticed by the public and they can then make a choice of whether they want to deal with the potential smoke.

Conclusion: Not the same at all.

3/24/2009 5:23:29 PM

they have this law in other states

and i hope they get it here

3/24/2009 6:00:52 PM

I used to work at Outback on Capital, and they switched to NO-SMOKING back in 2006 I think. It's a corporate thing. I mean, yeah they lost business from the bar regulars (smoking section), but who wants to smell someone light up a cig while you're trying to eat.

3/24/2009 6:09:29 PM

This is mostly a bill meant to protect the people who work in restaurants and bars. I already know what you'll say "if dont want to work in a smokey establishment dont work in a restaurant or bar." Well that is an interesting piece of logic there: what if that logic were applied to turn of the century working conditions in meatpacking facilities or other industrial workplaces where workplace safety was of more immediate concern? Second, someone has to work in these places and they shouldnt be forced to sacrifice their health to do so.

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : d]

3/24/2009 6:11:56 PM

non-smoking places off the top of my head:

foundation
remedy
times (rtbx is smoking, the rest is not)
boylan brewpub
tobacco road
mosaic

and the busy bee is going to be non-smoking, too

3/24/2009 6:20:43 PM

Quote :

"most health codes are based on food storage and preperation methods. These codes are in place to protect the public from unsafe methods such as meat not being refrigerated to the correct temperature or if pests were present in store rooms. This is info that the general public either does not have knowledge or is able to easily observe before eating. Posting whether a restaraunt allows smoking or not is very easily noticed by the public and they can then make a choice of whether they want to deal with the potential smoke. Conclusion: Not the same at all."

Exactly.

You anti-smoking nazis can fucking suck it. Cigarette smoke is not the same as lead dust, rotten meat, or malfunctioning machinery. Smoking may be so unpopular that the necessary legal resources to prevent smoking bans are so hard to gather that these bans are actually enacted, but that doesn't mean that they won't all eventually be overturned. It is completely unjust and inescapably immoral to ban smoking on privately owned property. End of debate. You've got nothing.

Quote :

" I mean, yeah they lost business from the bar regulars (smoking section), but who wants to smell someone light up a cig while you're trying to eat"

Not me. I hate the smell of smoke when I'm eating -- SO I DON'T GO TO EAT AT PLACES THAT ALLOW SMOKING. Are you suggesting that mere "want" is enough to justify this authoritarian nanny-state bullshit?

Quote :

"This is mostly a bill meant to protect the people who work in restaurants and bars. I already know what you'll say "if dont want to work in a smokey establishment dont work in a restaurant or bar." Well that is an interesting piece of logic there: what if that logic were applied to turn of the century working conditions in meatpacking facilities or other industrial workplaces where workplace safety was of more immediate concern? Second, someone has to work in these places and they shouldnt be forced to sacrifice their health to do so."

Turn of the century? As in 1900 or 2000? I'm pretty sure you meant 1900.... right? This isn't 1900. People can jump on a bus and ride across the fucking nation for a different job. No one, repeat NO ONE has to work any particular job. By the way, there are plenty of people that consent to "sacrifice their health" for the higher pay usually associated with dangerous or unhealthy jobs. (you lose)

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 6:30:53 PM

Quote :

"working conditions in meatpacking facilities"

your mom works in a meatpacking facility

3/24/2009 6:40:35 PM

lol

3/24/2009 6:47:47 PM

this is one of those situations where people tell other people what's best for them, despite having no firsthand experience in said situation

3/24/2009 7:20:23 PM

Quote :

"I don't smoke, but this is stupid. Culd you imagine all of the drunk people at the bar going back and forth outside to smoke?"

yes

its the fuckin rules in NYC

3/24/2009 7:21:04 PM

even if this passes... the goat will always smell of tobacco, sweat, and hooker juice.

3/24/2009 7:25:16 PM

Quote :

"Turn of the century? As in 1900 or 2000? I'm pretty sure you meant 1900.... right? This isn't 1900. People can jump on a bus and ride across the fucking nation for a different job. No one, repeat NO ONE has to work any particular job. By the way, there are plenty of people that consent to "sacrifice their health" for the higher pay usually associated with dangerous or unhealthy jobs. (you lose)"

hey pot head. Have you not been paying attention to this economy? working in a restaurant/bar does not qualify as a 'dangerous or unhealthy job' and its better for everyone if smoking is banned.

3/24/2009 7:37:38 PM

It's about personal freedoms and not having the government dictating morality/common sense. Give businesses the choices to allow smoking or not. Then enforce fines or misdemeanors for those who refuse to respect the wishes of these businesses.

Just wait until the government comes after something you enjoy to make it illegal such as fatty foods.

3/24/2009 7:56:17 PM

IT'S BETTER FOR EVERYONE

except my friends who are depressed and edgy because they can't smoke

and the performers who put on a bad show because they're edgy because they can't smoke

etc. etc.

i love telling people what's best for them

my friend's great grandfather is 102 years old

he drinks a glass of jim beam every afternoon

his doctor wants him to stop "because it's bad for him"

he's 102, leave him the fuck alone

3/24/2009 8:02:40 PM

^ i'm pretty sure the doctor can't legally tell him to do whatever he wants.

3/24/2009 8:07:24 PM

My grandfather died at 72 of lung cancer due to smoking. My stepfather got bladder cancer due to smoking.

3/24/2009 8:11:08 PM

was it secondhand smoke?

3/24/2009 8:12:36 PM

^^I'm very sorry

^DING!

3/24/2009 8:21:14 PM

Quote :

" i'm pretty sure the doctor can't legally tell him to do whatever he wants."

After 4 or so more democratic majorities, they will...
Democrats would fucking love to give doctors the authority to forcefully deny individual liberties....

Quote :

"working in a restaurant/bar does not qualify as a 'dangerous or unhealthy job' and its better for everyone if smoking is banned."

Wrong and wrong.
If the attempted justification for these unjust and immoral bans are all about worker safety, then why wouldn't proponents of the bans consider working in a restaurant/bar as qualifying as a dangerous or unhealthy job? They can't have it both ways....

Also, if smoking is banned, it's not "better for everyone". Those who choose to smoke on private properties that allow smoking are all denied the liberty to smoke where it is allowed. Plain and simple. If you are at my house, and I light up a cigar, you are free to leave. The few seconds of smoke that you were exposed to do not constitute assault or battery -- and you should never be able to sue someone for damages for such an act. You can consent to being around my cigar smoke, but nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to FORCE BY LAW that I not smoke. Why is it ok for me smoke in my house? Because IT'S MY FUCKING HOUSE AND CAN I ALLOW WHATEVER CONSENSUAL UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOR I WANT. If you want to eat 3 pounds of bacon in my kitchen, and I allow it, you can go right ahead. If you want to smoke 3 pounds of tobacco in my kitchen, and I allow it, you can go right ahead. If you want to eat 3 pounds of bacon in my restaurant, and I allow it, you can go right ahead. If you want to smoke 3 pounds of tobacco in my restaurant, and I allow it, you can go right ahead.

YOU MOTHER FUCKING SMOKING NAZIS WILL NOT WIN THIS WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!19

Quote :

"My grandfather died at 72 of lung cancer due to smoking."

Really? My 83 year old grandmother has smoked HER WHOLE FUCKING LIFE SINCE BEFORE MY MOM WAS BORN and she still volunteers 40 hours per week. She is healthy, energetic, and full of spirit. Oh yeah, sorry that your grandfather died a couple years before his life expectancy. So unfair. We should ban tobacco completely.

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 8:37:03 PM

rawr rawr smokers are the modern day minority

this legislation is the opposite of MLK!

3/24/2009 8:39:36 PM

^
Actually, Title II and VII of the Civil Rights Act are at issue here.
(Those provisions only passed because the evils of racism were so powerful during those times that "war" on racism was needed. Now, we don't need them, but democrats, as we all knew they would, are using that precedent to further erode the rights of private property owners. Little do they know, but they are all but guaranteeing an eventual Civil War II, or worse, the complete destruction of the Constitution. I'm as serious as a heart attack.

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 8:43:20 PM

Bottom line for me is: I don't like my hair and clothes smelling like ass, but I put up with it if the bar I happen to go to allows smoking. If everywhere bans smoking inside, then my clothes and hair will not end up smelling like ass... so that is better for me. I don't give a shit about the health aspect.


So I guess I side with the argument that it is more like a bunch of people publicly farting on me (only worse in the respect that the stench can only removed via a shower and wash of clothes) - So yeah, I'd prefer they were not allowed to do this near me.

3/24/2009 8:52:05 PM

I think it's funny that in the 90s they passed a law saying local governments couldn't ban smoking and now they're moving ahead with this.

3/24/2009 8:58:44 PM

^^

Quote :

"so that is better for me."

Wow.
You know, democracy isn't a race.
I also hate coming home smelling like smoke, but wait... I don't want to trample on the rights of others simply to get what I like.... (You just lost all of your credibility. According to your logic, if you lived long ago, and your family owned slaves, and someone came along and said, "We're gonna ban slavery!" then you'd say, "If everywhere bans slave ownership, then my family's farm and factory will not end up making a profit... so that is bad for me. I don't give a shit about the human rights aspect."

Quote :

"So yeah, I'd prefer they were not allowed to do this near me."

Prefer? Seriously, though... do you fucking think democracy is a popularity contest?
Rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preferences

YOU SO FUCKING LOSE...

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 9:11:24 PM

Yeah, this is comparable to slavery

And essentially democracy is a popularity contest. Otherwise what are the votes for?

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/24/2009 9:13:07 PM

Except, no one made a comparison to slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

YOU LOSE

Quote :

"And essentially democracy is a popularity contest. Otherwise what are the votes for?"

Not what you think they're for, that's for sure...

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 9:14:04 PM

Do you not read what you write?

3/24/2009 9:15:29 PM

Trolly Polly

3/24/2009 9:16:36 PM

I want this to pass just to see Willy Nilly spontaneously combust

3/24/2009 9:18:17 PM

damn

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 9:19 PM. Reason : she didnt fall for it haha]

3/24/2009 9:18:51 PM

YAY!

CA was this way and I LOVED it. I hate smoke. stop polluting my air. go smoke in an enclosed space.

3/24/2009 9:19:30 PM

I admit I enjoyed the smoking bans in NY and Seattle last time I was there.

3/24/2009 9:21:06 PM

Quote :

"Do you not read what you write?"

Do you not know the difference between a comparison and an analogy?

3/24/2009 9:32:09 PM

Yep. And I know there are more relevant analogies out there.

3/24/2009 9:35:35 PM

Quote :

"Wow. You know, democracy isn't a race. I also hate coming home smelling like smoke, but wait... I don't want to trample on the rights of others simply to get what I like.... (You just lost all of your credibility. According to your logic, if you lived long ago, and your family owned slaves, and someone came along and said, "We're gonna ban slavery!" then you'd say, "If everywhere bans slave ownership, then my family's farm and factory will not end up making a profit... so that is bad for me. I don't give a shit about the human rights aspect.""

Okay... I fail to see a point here. You are correct, I don't give a shit who it offends or tramples on as long as it is better for me... so we are agreeing on that. I am willing to take away someones rights so I don't have smelly clothes... and I am okay with that.

3/24/2009 9:47:23 PM

you dumb fucks

don't fucking tell me how to run my restaurant. if i thought allowing smoking would hurt my business, do you think i'd still allow smoking in the bar? hell no. so the smoke bothers you? well, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to eat there, now did they?

3/24/2009 10:51:19 PM

^
Exactly. Exactly.

Quote :

"Yeah, this is comparable to slavery "

Quote :

"Except, no one made a comparison to slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy"

Quote :

"Yep. And I know there are more relevant analogies out there."

Whether or not there are analogies out there that are more relevant to mine doesn't mean that mine isn't relevant -- it is both relevant and apt. The relationship between a slave owner disregarding the rights of slaves in order to justify the slave owner's immoral position on the issue of slavery simply because their position benefits them, is aptly analogized with the relationship between an anti-smoker disregarding the rights of property owners in order to justify the anti-smoker's immoral position on the issue of smoking bans simply because their position benefits them. (An analogy means I'm only relating relationships with other relationships and not making direct comparisons. I'm not comparing the smoking ban to slavery, nor am I comparing slave owners to anti-smokers, nor am I comparing the rights of slaves to the rights of property owners.

Quote :

"I want this to pass just to see Willy Nilly spontaneously combust"

Here's a preview:



^^

Quote :

" I don't give a shit who it offends or tramples on as long as it is better for me... so we are agreeing on that. I am willing to take away someones rights so I don't have smelly clothes... and I am okay with that."

Wow. Can I put that in the Soap Box quote thread? You just said, "my benefit > others' rights", did you not? And you implied the general case -- not just with smoking. Please do yourself the favor of correcting or retracting what you said... because what you said is complete proof that you have zero credibility.

Quote :

"Trolly Polly"

lol

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 12:30:11 AM

i'll probably read this thread just to see what silly things nonsmokers said about smoking...they are usually whiney type ppl but know they got the upper hand in this debate

3/25/2009 12:34:45 AM

set em up

3/25/2009 12:35:13 AM