Quote :

" why wouldn't they have done that themselves if it was what they wanted?"

b/c they never realized everyone else wanted it

4/2/2009 4:43:03 PM

Quote :

"America dies a little every day."

Truth.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2009 4:43:29 PM

Quote :

"b/c they never realized everyone else wanted it"

LOL

4/2/2009 4:47:09 PM

yeah this is breaking news to the restaurant industry ParksNrec, they had no idea until today

4/2/2009 4:47:38 PM

Quote :

"well its not a simple Yes or No question "

The question posed is as easily yes or no as asking if you feel restaurants should have smoking banned. If you can come up with a concrete answer on that, i would suspect you could on this issue as well.

Quote :

" If I'm smoking and walking down the sidewalk and pass by you, am I infringing on your rights? I dunno. Are cars infringing on your rights in smoggy cities like Los Angeles? Say I am infringing on your rights. Should I be allowed to smoke on an empty sidewalk, but forced to put it out when someone comes by? Should I have the choice to smoke on a sidewalk and should you have the choice to cross the street to not be exposed to it? How about if I'm on a scaffold 10' off the ground...do you have rights to airspace up to a certain height?"

This is retarded.[/quote]

If you walk pass me, yes you are, in my view. The smoke which aggravates my allergies and is potentially harmful to me enters my body without choice for me. I could wear protective gear, sure, but being that is a public common space available to me and funded through my taxes I shouldn't have to. If you decide to smoke on the sidewalk, yes you should have to put it out if you're going to be within a certain distance of other people regardless if you're approaching them or if they are coming to approach you. Being public space they have the right to its use without having to deal with something which can be agreed to cause them harm. This harm could be reported issues of second hand smoke or allergies. Having only a ban when within a certain radius of people would address your scaffold issue.

As for the cars, i've addressed that. They can, and have been made cleaner and less intrusive. But ignoring that point I'll admit that driving a car is similar to smoking in the circumstance that it is a choice, albeit more of a hobson's choice in some areas. If the majority felt that they were being more largely imposed on by the use of automobiles rather than not, then yes cars would have to be adjusted. If cigarettes can be adjusted in a way where the smoke does not bother anyone else then i see no problems with them being allowed anywhere.

Care to address twista?

4/2/2009 4:54:28 PM

Sounds like you are for making cigarettes illegal...because they can't be "adjusted" so that the smoke doesn't bother anyone

Good luck with that

By the way, smokers pay taxes that pay for public property too, its not just you

4/2/2009 4:56:58 PM

I'm in no way in favor of that. I feel people should be able to smoke in their homes or in their yards as much as they see fit. I've even explicitly stated that I think smoking in bars is okay.

Clearly you have nothing of value to add and see it more fit to go on various rants.

4/2/2009 4:59:00 PM

But if I smoked in my yard, some of the smoke would waft out to the sidewalk and infringe upon your rights. If I smoked in my house, if it wasn't well insulated, some of the smoke would escape into public places. We can't have that now can we.

Quote :

"I'm in no way in favor of that. "

Sounds like you are in many ways in favor of exactly that, since like I already stated, cigarettes can't be adjusted. Someone will always complain.

I don't know what you've added to the discussion. Maybe I need to smoke some weed to get on your wavelength, cause you're way the fuck out there. For example:

Quote :

"If you decide to smoke on the sidewalk, yes you should have to put it out if you're going to be within a certain distance of other people regardless if you're approaching them or if they are coming to approach you."

4/2/2009 5:00:32 PM

I like how you cite a quote as an example rather than refute what you find to be wrong with it.

Quote :

"But if I smoked in my yard, some of the smoke would waft out to the sidewalk and infringe upon your rights. If I smoked in my house, if it wasn't well insulated, some of the smoke would escape into public places. We can't have that now can we."

I gave a radius requirement for a reason and have established that people should not be able to commit the act of smoking on public space and your house would not be under that classification as you are well aware. Feel free to continue to exaggerate the position and break it into something that is easily defended.

4/2/2009 5:21:58 PM

Who cares where my house and yard are, I'm referring to your earlier statement:

Quote :

"Being public space they have the right to its use without having to deal with something which can be agreed to cause them harm"

If I'm in my yard smoking, 1 foot from the public sidewalk, I am on my property and according to you should be allowed to smoke, but if someone walks down that stretch of sidewalk, they might get exposed to smoke similarly to if I was standing on the sidewalk, so from the quote I just posted, wouldn't their rights be infringed? They're on public property, but they're having to deal with something that could harm them. You can try addressing that, or just make another smartass comment about how I'm missing the point.

Or just refer from now on to my post at the top of Page 7

4/2/2009 5:42:56 PM

Quote :

"America dies a little every day. "

Politics in America have become a bullshit three-ring circus sideshow.

4/2/2009 6:28:04 PM

Quote :

"What are the thoughts that a ban on smoking would help small restaurant/bar business sales? "

I think they showed in King County (Seattle) when their ban went into place (which is insanely restrictive) initially there was a drop in business but that it soon returned to pre-ban levels.

4/2/2009 8:30:49 PM

Quote :

"They're on public property, but they're having to deal with something that could harm them. You can try addressing that, or just make another smartass comment about how I'm missing the point. "

Lets suggest for some reason that you decided to walk from your house to the sidewalk and smoke right beside it instead of any other place on your property. If you were doing this, then I would say you have every right to continue smoking as long as you are on your property despite the proximity to the sidewalk. Why? Because its your space and you should be allowed to do anything there that doesn't endanger anyone. endanger and harm are distinctly different. I can agree it doesn't fully reflect the other stipulations proposed, but with any law that would be reasonable there would have to be concessions and accommodations to be expected. fine lines, while not necessarily rigid ones. Given that the majority of people don't smoke and i imagine the frequency of in-yard-sidewalk-smoking to be minimal i do not find it to be contradictory to include such a provision or clause to explicitly retain that right.

4/2/2009 10:44:22 PM

So.... What if I set up a lemonade stand in my lawn, next to the sidewalk... and smoke?

4/2/2009 10:50:50 PM

^

Quote :

"moke right beside it instead of any other place on your property. If you were doing this, then I would say you have every right to continue smoking as long as you are on your property"

So that would be fine. Also, at that point, you'd even be a business so if they chose to go to your lemonade stand on your lawn it would be a choice they made to exchange commerce with you as opposed to utilizing that choice to partake in that act of exchange within another private atmosphere.

4/2/2009 10:56:43 PM

^
So... what if I built an enclosure for the lemonade stand? -- you know, so when it rains, lemonade customers don't have to get wet... and I continue to smoke

p.s. are you drunk?

4/2/2009 11:04:43 PM

not drunk

why do you ask?


I'm aware of the direction in which you're trying to take the lemonade analogy, which is why i chimed in with the it would become a business portion. I've said from the start that out right banning smoking in private establishments is wrong. So i'm not entirely sure why we're taking this direction with it.

4/2/2009 11:10:16 PM

^^ At that point I think the state would want their cut of the pie (and some licenses).

4/2/2009 11:16:01 PM

meh


As a past smoker, this law still makes sense - It'll just take some of you decades to realize the same, get over yourselves.


You know they used to smoke in Hospitals too... I can only assume private ones as well

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : sadfasdf]

4/2/2009 11:23:18 PM

I don't know when the last time was that I went to a bar I could smoke in (I live in No. VA now), but it's really not that big of a deal for me to walk outside and smoke. I'd rather it be that way anyway.

[Edited on April 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2009 11:27:24 PM

i cant wait for this to happen

4/2/2009 11:53:27 PM

that seems to be the trend

4/2/2009 11:58:59 PM

Quote :

"not drunk why do you ask?"

lol... your run-on sentence. (my bad -- I do the same thing....)

Quote :

"As a past smoker, this law still makes sense - It'll just take some of you decades to realize the same, get over yourselves."

The law makes no sense at all. -- It'll take decades for every single such ban to be overturned by the supreme court. These bans are 100% immoral, 100% unconstitutional, and 100% temporary.

Quote :

"At that point..."

Why that point? What happens then?

Quote :

"You know they used to smoke in Hospitals too... I can only assume private ones as well "

Are you suggesting that it's some kind of "health-risk ignorance" that opponents of this ban subscribe to? We know smoking is unhealthy -- but we also know that in a free society, one can consent to unhealthy behavior. You must have missed that.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 12:01:57 AM

You think America is a free society. How quaint.

4/3/2009 12:06:52 AM

^
It's supposed to be. It was. It will be once again soon.......

4/3/2009 1:08:36 AM

Ok, since the this bill passed through the house, and is on the way to the senate, I looked into it a little more



most of what you all wouldn't get exactly what you want, as this bill wouldn't apply to bars. It would only apply to places that allow minors. This includes places like restaurants, which often have smoking and non smoking areas.

so you can't use the argument "i'm tired of going out and smelling like smoke"



also, I still think this should be the decision of the owners, not some fat cat politician

4/8/2009 10:09:01 AM

haha, you said fat cat

4/8/2009 2:29:29 PM

Quote :

"I still think this should be the decision of the owners, not some fat cat politician"

Me too.

4/8/2009 3:17:25 PM

^ so does everyone with a fucking brain.

4/8/2009 3:18:49 PM

This is not an attempt to protect anyone. It's an attempt to badger and harass smokers even further.

[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : a thinly veiled one at that.]

4/8/2009 3:21:20 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/5047411/

Now it appears that they are doing away with the amendment to the bill that would have exempted most bars from the smoking ban.

4/29/2009 2:53:40 PM

Quote :

"Smoking ban workaround catches on at bars across state Having patrons become "actors" when entire bar is turned into a "stage" started as a one-night experiment 2 weeks ago, but now it's becoming a way around state law. By MARY LYNN SMITH, Star Tribune Last update: February 22, 2008 - 7:23 AM What started as a quirky idea to get around the statewide smoking ban appears to be spreading like wildfire. Dozens of bars are expected to stage "theater nights'' this weekend in which patrons are dubbed actors. The law, which went into effect in October, permits performers to smoke during a theatrical production. "Two weeks ago, we had one bar doing this,'' said Mark Benjamin, a criminal defense attorney who launched the theater-night idea. He estimates 50 to 100 bars could be on tap for theater nights this weekend based on phone calls, e-mails and requests for the how-to-stage-a-theater-night packet that he's devised. And many bar owners are passing on the information quickly among themselves without getting in contact with him. State Health Department officials didn't return calls Thursday, but said earlier this week that they are waiting for a state attorney general's opinion on the legality of theater nights. State legislators who championed the ban said last week that the loophole likely will be plugged and the bar theater nights will end. But until that happens, Kenn Rockler, executive director for the Tavern League of Minnesota, said he's getting calls and e-mails from bar owners. Lisa Anderson, owner of Mike's Uptown bar in Hill City, said that last Saturday she staged a "theater night" and packed in four times the usual crowd that has come in since the smoking ban took effect. Anderson said she has been helping other bar owners who want to put on their own tobacco productions. "I'm going to continue to do this,'' she said. "It increased my business.'' So will Brian Bauman, owner of The Rock nightclub in Maplewood, which staged a theater night Tuesday and nearly doubled the usual crowd. At least 10 other bar owners wandered through his bar that night, taking stock of the event's success. It won't work for every bar or restaurant because some are carving out a niche with nonsmokers, he said. "We're a rock bar and the majority of the people who come here smoke," Bauman said. Until the state puts a stop to this, "we have every intention of doing this again. ...We have our karaoke night and we have our rock night. Now we will have our theater night."

4/29/2009 2:56:53 PM

haha, clever, but "theater night" is not gonna stand legally

4/29/2009 2:59:05 PM

circumventing the intent of the law is all about loopholes, and it appears they've found one...it takes a lot longer to pass legislation than it does for places of business to find loopholes and workarounds

4/29/2009 8:02:55 PM

even more reason to dip.

4/29/2009 8:44:53 PM

what state is that in?

4/29/2009 8:46:02 PM

south dakota, or minnesota maybe?

4/29/2009 8:47:35 PM

irrelevant

4/29/2009 8:51:15 PM

definitely not from NC, but an example of how individual states with smoking bans find ways to get around the laws

4/29/2009 8:54:13 PM

also an example of how the legislature will try to plug those holes

4/29/2009 8:55:15 PM

just stop smoking, its pretty simple, and live longer

4/29/2009 8:55:53 PM

i'll plug your hole!

wait, what?

4/29/2009 8:56:55 PM

^^^sure but it takes a lot longer to pass or amend legislation than it generally does to either find loopholes and exploit them, or just generally disregard the laws

^^easier said than done

^ (no homo)

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2009 8:57:32 PM

4/29/2009 9:24:28 PM

Quote :

"just stop smoking, its pretty simple, and live longer"

This is the very attitude that will DESTROY amercia as we know it.

IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS WHETHER SOMEONE SMOKES.

Before you say, "But health care blah blah....", remember, no one should EVER have to pay for health care costs that someone else is responsible for. Unfortunately, we have socialized parts of health care, and it looks like more socialization is coming soon, but this is being forced on us -- we didn't ask for this socialized health care. By supporting this immoral ban, our country is marching directly away from the constitution and individual liberty, and instead towards an authoritarian nanny-state. However, american liberty will eventually prevail over this socialist-style crap.

Before you say, "Second hand smoke blah blah....", remember, no one is or has been FORCED to be around second hand smoke. If you find yourself around smoke (or confined loud music, or a mosh pit,) and you stay around it even though you can freely avoid it by simply leaving, then YOU ARE CONSENTING TO THE REASONABLE HARM. Of course, minors can't consent, so the house version would've been mostly okay. The broadened version denies individuals the right to consent to reasonable harm. What's next?... bans on confined loud music?... bans on confined boxing matches?.... bans on triple bacon and cheese burgers? "First they came for the communists, but I wasn't a communist......."

When debating smoking or tobacco bans or taxes, statements like, "just stop smoking, its pretty simple, and live longer" hurt the cause of proponents of these bans or taxes, but rally the opponents of these bans. Why? Because it proves that these measures are not sought for justice, but rather for unjust mob rule. You fuckers go ahead and keep on insisting that since you "know what's good for us", you can rightfully support laws that enforce such an immoral idea. You will lose in the end.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 7:04:35 AM

^ you're bored early this morning, aren't you?

we get it...you're pro-america and a libertarian...dude, nobody cares

4/30/2009 7:11:13 AM

ugh, never mind, i'm not going to get caught up again in feeding the libertaritroll.

4/30/2009 7:14:32 AM

Quote :

"just stop smoking freely avoid smoke by leaving, its pretty simple, and live longer"

This is the very attitude that will DESTROY amercia as we know it.

4/30/2009 7:17:59 AM

^
Wrong. In fact, incredibly wrong.
Individual responsibility makes america stronger. Individual blamelessness turns america soft.


^^

Quote :

"legally speaking"

ROFLMAO

[edit]YEAH! GHOST EDIT THAT WEAK FUCKING POST, YOU FOOL. I remember what you said:
You responded to

Quote :

"If you find yourself around smoke (or confined loud music, or a mosh pit,) and you stay around it even though you can freely avoid it by simply leaving, then YOU ARE CONSENTING"

with something like: "Actually, legally speaking, I would not be consenting."


A century ago, it could be said that, "legally speaking, women have absolutely no right to vote."
Are you seriously that weak of a troll? You use the legal status quo to defend the legal status quo?
Give me a fucking break. You just lost all credibility. (You fucking idiot.)

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 7:28 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 7:21:53 AM

Quote :

"Individual responsibility makes america stronger."

Ok -- so who's supposed to practice it? The smoker or the one who doesn't like the smoke?

4/30/2009 7:30:22 AM