sarijoul i'm not the one bitching about how people run their own businesses

i'm not the one on some "I DONT LIKE THIS BAR/RESTAURANT...INSTEAD OF GOING TO A DIFFERENT BAR OR RESTAURANT, I WILL TRY TO CHANGE ALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS TO MY OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE" type shit

3/23/2007 3:15:41 PM

reasonable expectations......its all or nothing with you people

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:15:41 PM

if you don't think it's an unconstituational law, then it is up to the discretion of the constituents (by way of the legislature)

3/23/2007 3:16:45 PM

clearly business owners and customers are not capable of living their lives without even more government regulations and restrictions

thank you for protecting us from ourselves, govt

we are completely incapable of making any choices on our own, so we thank you for making sure we dont get hurt

3/23/2007 3:17:58 PM

well then take some action. talk to a state rep or two. donate some money to people/org.'s who might be able to advocate what you think if you so choose

there is clearly a balance of limiting gov't power and reasonably regulating things.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:18:52 PM

Quote :

"if you don't think it's an unconstituational law, then it is up to the discretion of the constituents (by way of the legislature)"

more like up to the constituents of the contituents (ie the people that give the reps money).

Quote :

"donate some money to people/org.'s who might be able to advocate what you think "

ding ding ding its all about the $$$, very little else



[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:19:43 PM

Quote :

"more like up to the constituents of the contituents."

huh?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:20:17 PM

Quote :

"well then take some action. talk to a state rep or two. donate some money to people/org.'s who might be able to advocate what you think if you so choose"

donate some money?

i got a better idea...how bout i just decide which bars or restaurants i go to... thats a great idea and it doesnt require me paying even more money to the govt...all it requires is a tiny tiny tiny bit of common sense

3/23/2007 3:20:41 PM

ok. well you're likely to not be able to smoke there any more.

3/23/2007 3:21:23 PM

^^i would dare say instinct....to not do something you don't like.....even more elementary than common sense.



^I wouldn't be so sure...there is still a fight to be had.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:21:55 PM

perhaps so. but twista is all talk and not much action. i'm saying if he feels strongly, then act. i'm not trying to be an ass. i see his side of the argument. i'm not going to fight for allowing smoking in public places, because i really don't care about it.

3/23/2007 3:23:31 PM

Quote :

"but twista is all talk and not much action"

choosing what bars i go to = action

bitching and whining and moaning about why the govt should take more action = talking

please to learn the difference

3/23/2007 3:24:54 PM

individual joe's aren't going to make a bit of diffence, the fight'll come through the bar owners.

^i must say, that is one of the best pwns i've seen in a while.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:25:40 PM

your going to bars won't affect whether or not this law gets passed

^you say that, but average joes have made a big difference over and over in this country.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

^you say that. but i'm not here to try to pwn people.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:26:01 PM

^actually i think it will...i've actually talked to bar owners about this exact thing in past years as other pieces of legislation came up and failed

on the other hand, your wack ideas and bad analogies in this thread will not affect this law

Quote :

"but i'm not here to try to pwn people"

good cause (in this thread at least) you'd be losing MISERABLY

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:27:09 PM

^^not w/o funding....like it or not, cash is king.

nor am I , but it's still funny.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:27:19 PM

Quote :

"good cause (in this thread at least) you'd be losing MISERABLY"

TWISTA WINS THE DEBATE!!!!! H

and a smart bar owner would know you'd still come to a bar whether or not you could smoke. (if you couldn't smoke at any bars). PLUS he wouldn't have to hack his way through every night either.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:28:26 PM

^i'm still not clear why you want this over the private bar exclusion?

3/23/2007 3:33:21 PM

honestly this law doesn't affect me all that much. i might go out to bars more if they weren't smoky. but really i mostly just don't have problem with laws limiting smoking in public places.

3/23/2007 3:34:55 PM

but what's wrong with certain private bars still allowing smoking?

3/23/2007 3:35:40 PM

nothing

but there's also nothing wrong with the state saying that's not ok.

i wouldn't lose any sleep at night if everything stayed the way it is right now.

i'd be happy if smoking was limited in public spaces those, because i don't smoke and i don't like breathing in smoke.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:35:57 PM

Quote :

"and a smart bar owner would know you'd still come to a bar whether or not you could smoke. (if you couldn't smoke at any bars). PLUS he wouldn't have to hack his way through every night either. "

well let me get a bit more specific

one of the bartenders who i've talked to is all for the ban...he doesnt smoke himself...matter of fact he's the type of guy who will see somebody flick a cigarette butt out the window of their car and call the cops on the person's license plate for littering...however he also doesn't have the gumption to ban smoking himself because he fears losing business...he wants the govt to step in and do what he is essentially afraid to do...and at his particular bar it doesnt make a lot of sense to not just enact his own ban because he has a very nice patio outside AND a big rooftop deck

I also spoke with some various employees at another bar called Champp's (sports bar)...Champp's was in business for about 10 years as a sports bar that allowed smoking...they went out of business because of something completely unrelated to smoking...however the next place that opened up was another sports bar who happened to have a no smoking policy...i personally didnt mind either going outside to smoke or waiting...i knew that was the policy of that bar...they even built a small outside patio with a bar and a couple tv's to attempt to cater to the smoking demographic...this particular bar was out of business within 6 months...there were people who came into the restaurant (non smokers) who enjoyed the smoke free environment...there were also smokers who were less likely to go because of the no-smoking indoors policy

but in both cases, the owners have the option to do something...to set their own policy

a bowling alley in the same neighborhood recently switched to a "smoke free Sundays" type of deal...basically they were willing to try a smoking ban, first on a temporary basis...i'm not sure the status but i applaud the business owner (who's nieces went to my HS and are hot as hell btw ) for doing something himself

just a few examples i thought i'd share...i'm not really trying to prove anything with these examples except that I have been aware of the situation for more than the couple days this thread has been around, and I've discussed it with some of the owners who really would be impacted by this bill, for better or for worse

3/23/2007 3:41:13 PM

Quote :

"but there's also nothing wrong with the state saying that's not ok."

yes there is.....if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his establishment he should be able to. If a bar owner doesn't want smoking in his bar he should be able to ban it.

I can't fathom how some people aren't alarmed when they see big brother making more and more choices for us, where will it stop? This issue is far beyond smoker/non-smoker.

3/23/2007 3:49:18 PM

Quote :

"I can't fathom how some people aren't alarmed when they see big brother making more and more choices for us, where will it stop? This issue is far beyond smoker/non-smoker."

i totally hear you. and that's why citizens need to take an active role in their local politics.

3/23/2007 4:05:44 PM

Quote :

"I personally am fine with banning it in (for example) any govt building...any public office building...any schools (though i'm NOT for outdoor bans on college campuses)...movie theaters, airplanes, buses, taxis, etc"

Could you explain why it is wrong for the gov't to ban smoking in restaurants but it's okay in movie theaters?

3/23/2007 6:29:28 PM

Quote :

"^^not w/o funding....like it or not, cash is king."

What big money is behind this ban?

3/26/2007 9:01:26 AM

^^well i did clarify i'd have no problem with a movie theater with 12 individual theaters having a couple designated for smoking

and again, if its a bar (not just any restaurant) there shouldnt really be kids there...a movie theater is for people of all ages

3/26/2007 9:17:23 AM

I skipped most of the thread and didn't see if anybody brought this up, but there have been studies that show that the smoking bans in NYC have not caused a big loss for business in the long run.. I seem to remember hearing figures like -6% over the first few months and -2% over the long run. The fact is that people will drink and go outside if they have to. I certainly don't go to bars any less since moving out of the south. Also, when the "afterhours" crowd kicks in and the cops quit coming around most places let you light up anyway.

Personally, I don't smoke in the apartment and I like having to go outside to smoke at bars, but I'd feel better if the government didn't make it their business.

3/26/2007 12:55:44 PM

Quote :

"i totally hear you. and that's why citizens need to take an active role in their local politics. "

being active in gov. w/o the $$$ to go with it is like having a gun with no ammo......you might seem scary, but nothing will come of it.

Quote :

"What big money is behind this ban?"

the nc restaurant and lodging lobbyists.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 1:37:04 PM

Are they really? Seems like to me, they don't have any money invested unless it is an across the board ban such that the playing field is level

Quote :

"The N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association, a trade group, said it would not support the bill if it includes an exemption for bars or private clubs. The association said that would give them an unfair advantage. "It's got to be a level playing field," said Frank Gray, a lobbyist for the association."

They were also against the 2005 measure, so I doubt they paid for this legislation

Quote :

"The North Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association, which opposed the 2005 measure, backs the current proposal "if it applies across the field" to all restaurants and bars, association spokesman Frank Gray told the committee."

So, if they aren't paying for it, then who is?

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 1:59 PM. Reason : a]

3/26/2007 1:57:45 PM

$upport or lack of $upport....

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM. Reason : f]

3/26/2007 2:07:47 PM

Just admit it, you don't know what you are talking about.

3/26/2007 2:18:35 PM

well, when the first article came out, and said that the NCR&L didn't support it, it was only a few weeks before this "revised" one came about (complete with a ringing endorsement from the NCR&L).....and the judiciary committee promptly passed it.

They must be very per$ua$ive, if you know what I mean.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 2:23:48 PM

You do know what amendments are, right?

Please stop commenting like "big money" bought this entire bit of legislation.

3/26/2007 2:30:44 PM

Quote :

"Well, if the status quo wasn't that 98% of the places allowed smoking, then the majority people that don't smoke might be getting their fair end of the bargain."

I've read the last couple of pages, and saw something similar to this, but didn't quite make the point I was thinking:

If the majority of people at bars don't smoke, why haven't bar owners made their bars nonsmoking??? Because that's a load of shit, that's why. Bars that allow smoking make money. Those that don't allow smoking....don't. How can this be true if the majority of bar patrons are nonsmokers?

3/26/2007 2:42:59 PM

as someone else stated, if you have one out of five friends who wants to smoke, you're going to go to the smoking bar.

3/26/2007 2:44:25 PM

theres a bar up the street from me thats smoke free and usually pretty packed.

3/26/2007 2:45:19 PM

mitch's is smoke free and does good business

3/26/2007 2:46:59 PM

Quote :

"Please stop commenting like "big money" bought this entire bit of legislation."

see, never said it bought the entire bit of legislation (as indicated by the reference to how quick the bill was amended, to appease the NCR&L, not created for them), you're off your rocker if you don't think some assets changed hands and/or some less than reputable agreements took place behind the scenes with this.

so, please stop interpreting incorrectly.

Quote :

"mitch's is smoke free and does good business"

since when?

Quote :

"theres a bar up the street from me thats smoke free and usually pretty packed."

which suggests that legislation is not needed to "protect" non smoking establishments.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ,]

3/26/2007 2:50:53 PM

i hope they fucking pass this...PLEASE pass this...i just quit saturday and its really hard and if they passed that it would be easier to quit

3/26/2007 2:53:07 PM

i think theyve been smoke free for a couple weeks now, the crowd hasnt changed

3/26/2007 2:58:19 PM

^interesting

^^weak

3/26/2007 2:59:16 PM

Quote :

"see, never said it bought the entire bit of legislation (as indicated by the reference to how quick the bill was amended, to appease the NCR&L, not created for them), you're off your rocker if you don't think some assets changed hands and/or some less than reputable agreements took place behind the scenes with this."

I don't feel like reading back through all your posts, but it seemed to me you implied from the beginning that this legislation was brought up (not just the amendment) because of lobbying money. If I am wrong on this point, I apologize.

Other than that, personally, I think the NCRL has a legitimate beef that this NEW legislation shouldn't be written in such a way as to create artificial competition.

3/26/2007 3:01:08 PM

^

Quote :

"well, when the first article came out, and said that the NCR&L didn't support it, it was only a few weeks before this "revised" one came about (complete with a ringing endorsement from the NCR&L).....and the judiciary committee promptly passed it."

^but all the studies put forth so far suggest that being non-smoking doesn't hurt business....which means artificial competition wouldn't be created. Besides, if so many people are in favor of this, as compared to people opposed, one would think non-smoking establishments would actually benefit from only a partial ban, unless the support isn't actually what is claimed.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 3:18:00 PM

haha "weak"

lol

3/26/2007 3:19:14 PM

Quote :

""well, when the first article came out, and said that the NCR&L didn't support it, it was only a few weeks before this "revised" one came about (complete with a ringing endorsement from the NCR&L).....and the judiciary committee promptly passed it.""

I see this. But did you actually have a point? I thought it was big money is the only one that has a say in the legislation, when in this instance, that clearly wasn't the case.

Quote :

"^but all the studies put forth so far suggest that being non-smoking doesn't hurt business....which means artificial competition wouldn't be created. Besides, if so many people are in favor of this, as compared to people opposed, one would think non-smoking establishments would actually benefit from only a partial ban, unless the support isn't actually what is claimed."

Studies posted in this thread? I honestly don't know what the actual impact is. I have seen arguments all over the place on both sides. I've seen some sources say it hasn't hurt business, and others say it has. It seems as though the restaurant association thinks that a ban will hurt business, but an exempted ban will hurt those without the exemption even worse...though there isn't a real good explanation why they think this.

I think any big change in the nature of doing business is one to be feared, and as such, they will want to be sure that the playing field is level. They can't realistically know either way if a full ban or a partial ban will be favorable to them. But a full ban is the safest bet. I'm sure if the partial ban had more benefit to them, they'd be for that instead.

3/26/2007 3:25:55 PM

Quote :

"I see this. But did you actually have a point? I thought it was big money is the only one that has a say in the legislation, when in this instance, that clearly wasn't the case."

point was, the bill wasn't initiated by ncr&l association, but when they didn't approve of the conditions, something sure happened with the quickness to get the amendment out there. If the bill was OK in the eyes of the legislation before, what made a change so important after the ncr&l bitched?

what would be the source of such clout?

Quote :

"I think any big change in the nature of doing business is one to be feared, and as such, they will want to be sure that the playing field is level. They can't realistically know either way if a full ban or a partial ban will be favorable to them. But a full ban is the safest bet. I'm sure if the partial ban had more benefit to them, they'd be for that instead"

I firmly believe the level playing field should be created by the consumers, not the gov (except rare cases). the consumers seem to want that smoking establishments be open, evident by their dollar votes cast every day.

3/26/2007 3:40:35 PM

just saw something on News 14 that said there is a new/modified bill now that has exclusions for private clubs and for bars that dont allow children or something

4/17/2007 7:45:53 PM

oh well, i guess my bar patronage will remain rare.

4/17/2007 8:50:15 PM

REJECTED

5/3/2007 4:32:26 PM