Quote :

"Well folks, we'll have to get rid of health codes, building codes, vehicle inspections, registrations, basically anything that can prevent anyone running a business or otherwise from doing whatever the fuck they want."

Health and building codes aren't even reasonably the same as outlawing smoking in bars.

The general public can't walk into a restaurant and automatically know if the place is sanitary or reasonably clean throughout the kitchen or if the building can hold 100 people or 200 people before being unsafe.

Any normal person can walk into a bar and smell cigarette smoke and know if they do or do not want to be around it.

3/25/2009 1:32:12 PM

^

3/25/2009 1:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Hi, my name is Quag and I never have any idea of what I'm talking about."

hah, really? you disagree with my assertion that, by and large, there is LESS in the way of toxicological harm associated with smoking self-rolled leaf tobacco compared with smoking commercially-available cigarettes? you, sir, are a dumb fuck

i leave dumps in the toilet with more common sense than you

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 2:51 PM. Reason : and yes, i can find "research" supporting both arguments]

3/25/2009 2:43:43 PM

Hi, my name is Quag and I never have any idea of what I'm talking about.

3/25/2009 2:53:39 PM

^^^^ I didn't say it was the same. I was pointing out that there are already laws and rules out there that tell business/property owners what they can and can't do. If you want to say that this tramples over the rights of business owners, where the hell is the line? If I want to run a kitchen that's dirty as hell, I should be able to, right? If not, OMFG YOU'RE TRAMPLING MY RIGHTS.

You can't have it both ways.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : *]

3/25/2009 2:55:48 PM

Quote :

"Outed as a Libertarian"

I am not a Libertarian. I am not a Conservative or a Liberal.

3/25/2009 2:58:17 PM

Quote :

"You can't have it both ways."

yes, they can! otherwise, YOU'RE TRAMPLING THEIR RIGHTS

3/25/2009 3:01:28 PM

^^

Quote :

"The founding fathers and everyone who died in the Revolutionary War are rolling over in their graves because people like you exist."

This is the libertarian version of Godwin's law. Its interjected into any argument as an end all instead of having to properly support the position.


The fact of the matter is the slavery argument does hold water. It does so because it illuminates the mentality of a people at a time, suggesting that those who are adamantly against the banning of something that is considered socially reprehensible because its supposedly against the rights of people who are themselves making a choice to infringe on the liberty of others.

Regardless if you want to agree with it or not smoking does infringe on the rights of others. I'm not just talking about in bars, but outside in general. Should I have to make a decision if I want to walk down the street or not because I could suffer the risk of smoke inhalation? Is the partaking in the luxuries of the realm of the US not an inalienable right of mine as a citizen? Since the smoke leaves the surrounding area of the smoker and into the space of others its infringing on their use of public space. Bars are private, this is true and I could see you as being morally and internally consistent if you were against people smoking outside but for people being able to smoke at bars. However, if you are not, you're augment does not have a solid foundation in liberty.

3/25/2009 3:11:05 PM

Quote :

"you're augment does not have a solid foundation in liberty."

Your diction does not have a solid foundation in the English language.

3/25/2009 3:12:41 PM

Quote :

"by and large, there is LESS in the way of toxicological harm associated with smoking self-rolled leaf tobacco compared with smoking commercially-available cigarettes"

what part of "this tobacco is processed all to hell too" don't you get...

if it was ground up straight out of the curing barn and rolled into a cigarette it would make you VERY, VERY ill...

3/25/2009 3:14:02 PM

nice ad hominem Vix

but i think you understood my point. you can choose to refute it or you can further avoid it because you have no rationale response.

its hard to type coherently some times when you are alt-tabbing back and forth because your boss keeps coming back in your cube. its something you'll eventually learn when you begin to work as opposed to having your lifestyle subsidized.

3/25/2009 3:16:05 PM

Quote :

"Should I have to make a decision if I want to walk down the street or not because I could suffer the risk of smoke inhalation? Is the partaking in the luxuries of the realm of the US not an inalienable right of mine as a citizen? Since the smoke leaves the surrounding area of the smoker and into the space of others its infringing on their use of public space. Bars are private, this is true and I could see you as being morally and internally consistent if you were against people smoking outside but for people being able to smoke at bars. However, if you are not, you're augment does not have a solid foundation in liberty."

What if my religion bans women from leaving their arms uncovered? Should I have to make a decision if I want to walk down the street or not because my IMMORTAL SOUL could suffer the risk of being banned from heaven? Is being free of womens bare arms not a right of mine as a citizen? We're talking about something more important than my mortal body here, we're talking about my soul.

3/25/2009 3:17:49 PM

hey yo...the second amendment says i have the right to bare arms....



oh wait

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : adfs]

3/25/2009 3:18:59 PM

Quote :

"its something you'll eventually learn when you begin to work as opposed to having your lifestyle subsidized."

At least my ad hominem was based on factual information.

My lifestyle is not subsidized. I completely support myself.

3/25/2009 3:20:28 PM

I don't smoke and really don't care.

plz carry on.

3/25/2009 3:20:45 PM

Hey G.O.D. you would happen to be any kin to Bethaleigh would you?

3/25/2009 3:22:11 PM

Quote :

"What if my religion bans women from leaving their arms uncovered? Should I have to make a decision if I want to walk down the street or not because my IMMORTAL SOUL could suffer the risk of being banned from heaven? Is being free of womens bare arms not a right of mine as a citizen? We're talking about something more important than my mortal body here, we're talking about my soul."

so we've moved on to straw man. Are you going to keep attempting to make points through fallacy or are you actually going to address what was typed rather than manipulate it in any way you see fit?

I'll show you what its like, since its evident you're confused.

Your religion, believe it or not, is a choice. Since you have chosen a belief you do not have the right to prevent women's bare arms as a citizen. You have freedom of religion, but that is only freedom to express your religion, and as such you may choose to not bare the arms of your female children or your wife may choose not to bare her arms. However, the fact remains that you have no right being violated when walking around with women's bare arms.

This varies from the smoking argument because my body was provided to me at birth and the smoke outside affects my personal body and has a negative impact on public space which are all violations of liberty.

If you need to continue to buy time before responding to my initial claim, perhaps you should just not post at all in the interim, you'll appear smarter that way.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2009 3:27:57 PM

Quote :

"Your religion, believe it or not, is a choice. "

Liking smoking is a choice too. Liking cigarette smoke or detesting it is a choice.

The amount of cigarette smoke one inhales while outdoors on the street is negligible compared to the air pollution from cars in most cities. Should we ban using cars outside too, because their fumes in very small amounts might be harmful?

3/25/2009 3:32:49 PM

Could you be more ridiculous?

3/25/2009 3:38:36 PM

If you smoke, by default, you're ridiculous.

3/25/2009 3:39:17 PM

yea...i was following until u got to the end -

3/25/2009 3:39:45 PM

i'm going to ask you simple yes or no questions because you definitely need that.

1. can you acknowledge that smoking in public infringes on the rights of others?

I'll address your car comment (yet another straw man) here.

If automobiles were operated by only a minority of people and the general population felt that this smoke affected their liberty then yes they should be banned(read: democracy in action). however, seeing as that is not the case, we do not address it in that fashion but rather address the collective concerns of the majority (more elements of democracy) by having lower emission cars manufactured by the private corporations as a response to the desires of the consumer (read: free market in action). If cigarette companies cannot reasonably reduce their pollution and harmful extensions then action needs to be taken and does not infringe on a right of any individual since the act of smoking is a choice.


Liking cigarette smoke is not a choice, because allergies are not a choice. There are people who have sneezing and itchy eyes associate with cigarette smoke. Furthermore the body's result of cancer from smoke also isn't a choice.

I'll leave you with that one yes or no question and then we'll go with more. Right now i really need evidence you can handle even the most rudimentary of thoughts.

3/25/2009 3:43:10 PM

I would stay at the bar and drink more if they'd ban smoking. I'm just too allergic to plumes of smoke in my face.

3/25/2009 3:47:03 PM

OK-

so everyone here has to recognize that by the government passing this (if they actually do) that they would be taking more rights away from the owners of these PRIVATE establishments


the argument comes in to whether you are for it or against this trampling of their rights to run a business as they see fit.

the people who are pro smoking ban seem to have several reasons for letting this happen

1) they are being selfish and say they could care less about these rights being taken away from the owner due to their own personal desires to not have to deal with something they can easily control (some of you are more inclined to admit this than others, which I say good for you, in that you can actually admit that your position is based on more personal reasoning). With these people, the "wll then lets ban all things that are bad for you" isn't gonna work- they aren't going to have places stop selling alcohol to reduce possible drunk driving accidents because they like to drink... they aren't going to stop selling automobiles because they don't want to walk/rely on public transportation.... they aren't going to stop selling foods that are bad for you because they still love to shove their face full of fatty greasy shit (heart disease is still at the top of mortality list folks...). There are several people in this thread who are non smokers who say they don't like this ban because it is another step of the government taking over where they don't need to be.

2) there are those of you who think that this is ok because it helps out the general well being of everyone. To this, i say yes, it would be healthier to not have cigarettes- ANYWHERE. But the fact is that they are here (a product of one of our states largest cash crops at that...) and you will have to learn to deal with it. There are plenty of places that are smoke free that can accommodate for your likes/dislikes. This is why I say make it so that restaurants must have smoking and nonsmoking areas, and in the smoking areas, have upgraded air circulation measures (which can go into the building codes that some of you keep comparing to this- even though they are completely different). Bottom line- you know when you are walking into a smokey bar what you are getting yourself into. You don't know when you are walking into a building that could collapse, has faulty wiring, lacks effective fire escape plans, etc- that is why the the codes/regulations that are in place are there to begin with- TO PROTECT THE UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC.


I wouldn't mind not having to throw my jacket into the drier with some fabreeze and a drier sheet after a weekend out, but I accept it. If I don't want to go to a smokey bar, I don't go. I realize that it is my choice. And you should realize that it should be the owners choice as to what they allow.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : d]

3/25/2009 3:51:42 PM

It's a circular argument. All ^ that is well and good, but it comes back around to the employees who may not want to be there but have to be.

It's all a moot point anyway, because it's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.

3/25/2009 4:33:56 PM

tax more on cigs and charge $10 a pack.

ill let you blow smoke in my face then

3/25/2009 4:35:27 PM

hahaha all this thread does is make me think:


RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

3/25/2009 4:37:24 PM

fuck the cigs, get rid of dem'..i approve

3/25/2009 4:42:10 PM

Quote :

"hahaha all this thread does is make me think: RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Many, many people are not only indifferent to the expansion of gov into people's day to day lives, but actively support it when it suits their agenda"

3/25/2009 4:48:12 PM

^well you can see i think that too about this issue in my post several up from the one you referenced


but i am beginning to feel like everything has been said multiple times now and no one is going to really accept anyone elses point

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 4:52 PM. Reason : capitol p? really?]

3/25/2009 4:52:08 PM

^^wasn't directed at anyone in particular...Just an observation. A depressing, depressing observation.

3/25/2009 4:54:35 PM

Quote :

"you're a dolt, these two "examples" refer to completely different things, one you do to yourself that has a side effect on others in your immediate surroundings. the other you actively inflict upon someone else, unless you're one of those raciest bigots that thinks negros are not people."

lol, no shit, if you had been following along at all you would have noted where I said it was a bad argument to make

3/25/2009 7:44:47 PM

i'd wager money that at least 50% of smokers favor this ban

3/25/2009 8:50:14 PM

i'd wager money that you are a gibbering idiot

3/25/2009 8:52:07 PM

I'm a non smoker who hates second hand smoke and i think this ban is retarded... let the market regulate its self.

3/25/2009 8:55:22 PM

IRSeriousIrritant

3/25/2009 8:59:06 PM

Quote :

"so i think we can all blame saps here"

i'm used to it

3/25/2009 11:44:28 PM

seedless I iz not kin

3/26/2009 12:29:03 AM

Quote :

"i'd wager money that you are a gibbering idiot"

go ahead i want to make some money

you are the kinda guy that downloads mkv files lol

3/26/2009 12:47:15 AM

how do you plan on making money off of this?

3/26/2009 12:48:03 AM

i'll play it by ear?

3/26/2009 12:48:46 AM

oh ok?

3/26/2009 12:53:39 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/4856263/

fuck

4/1/2009 7:05:04 PM

5.99 for cigarettes at the exxon on gorman near the interstate

4/1/2009 7:05:47 PM

$6 a pack? NOT expensive enough for cigarettes. make 'em expensive enough no one can afford to smoke then I'll be happy.

4/1/2009 9:04:03 PM

Gonna have to stalk the camel guys now.

4/1/2009 9:14:11 PM

this is gonna force me to have a 10 cigarette/day habit thats gonna be tough

4/1/2009 9:14:26 PM

im a smoker and i have no problem with this

im down with the camel crew so i havent bought a pack in many months, shit i got 7 just laying around here

plus i have no problem going outside to smoke, and i know this will cause me to smoke even less, nothing wrong with that

4/1/2009 9:15:51 PM

banning smoking at bars = fucking epic fail.

4/1/2009 9:48:14 PM

4/1/2009 9:57:37 PM