- Apr 13, 2006
- Reaction score
Maybe them there fancy restaurants people like you go to, but not the kind that smokers would be caught dead in!Lots of restaurants have a knife service.
You wouldn't decry that extra cost as a government imposed boon doggle? C'mon. Maybe if YOU liked the program you wouldn't.allowing businesses to maintain a smoking environment that has filtration, and allow for regular testing
I was kidding about the knife service thing, sorry if that didn't come through.You wouldn't decry that extra cost as a government imposed boon doggle? C'mon. Maybe if YOU liked the program you wouldn't.
My parents had a convenience store deli with a knife service. They also had a towel service and someone that replace the salt/slush laden Wisconsin doormats.
Way to misrepresent my view of negative rights and the constitutional republic. Congratulations.Evan!, I swear, if it weren't just that clothes are a commonly expected part of our society and culture, you would decry the imposition of federally mandated concealment of your sovereign genitalia, and cite historical figures and timeless quotes, and wave your arms around to punctuate how the states should be able to decide for themselves if clothes are obligatory, based on a 51% majority, and the unfair imposition and financial expenditure of everyone, in every family, to have to buy and wear clothes just to appease the tyrannical federalist machine that seeks to tell everyone how to live their lives and takes your money in the form of clothing as a tax on your freedoms and personal choices, and that the 49% are being driven to live a lie and conform to the monster that is destroying your rights.
Well, first, I don't smoke. I f*ckin hate cigarettes. So you won't see me fleeing to W.Va over this particular issue. But you will see me petitioning my elected representatives to uphold the basic tenets of personal property rights, whether it's for smoking, or homebrewing, or what-the-hell-ever-else they're trying to ban that week.Hey, Bud, it's your STATE telling you that it's now (or will be in VA) illegal to smoke wherever you danm well please.
You could secede form VA.
Sorry Evan!, the tongue in cheek didn't come thru.Way to misrepresent my view of negative rights and the constitutional republic. Congratulations.
Well, first, I don't smoke. I f*ckin hate cigarettes. So you won't see me fleeing to W.Va over this particular issue. But you will see me petitioning my elected representatives to uphold the basic tenets of personal property rights, whether it's for smoking, or homebrewing, or what-the-hell-ever-else they're trying to ban that week.
But look, Henry: if my argument against the ban, which I have (in my view at least) laid out pretty clearly, is not valid or tenable, then I welcome you to respond to the substance of it. And then we can have a civil debate like rational adults
However, when you don't actually address the substance of the issue, and instead mock me for believing in the principles of personal freedom and responsibility, well, then I will have no part in your little charade.
...talk about me being a dick.
Isn't this the way businesses use government to be their whipping dog? I mean, a business owner with a back bone would make a decision one way or the other. Instead, businesses allow politicians to ban something to "level the playing field" or in the name of public health. Businesses are actually allowing government to make the decision for them.I'm here to tell you that lots of businesses are open and hae trades people come in at all hours. Many business owners don't really care about the smoking ban. they just want uniformity and a level playing field. They don't want different laws for different cities.
They don't want to pay for separate rooms, filtration and testing.
Many of the bar owners I talked to after it went through in AZ were happy to tell their non-smoking patrons that they secretly supported the restriction. I'm sure they tell the smokes the complete opposite. In other words, they don't care as long as everybody else has the same rules.
I know the quaint notion of the majority "ruling" seems to carry somewhat of a positive light these days, but how would you feel if the majority told you you couldn't brew beer anymore? Just because 50.1% of the populace makes a decision does not necessarily lend it credence or justify it.Wow, this thread has some longevity. I posted for a few pages back around 3-9 or so, but then I had to go get some work done (damn work always getting in the way).
Anyway, in reading back through several pages here, I still don't completely understand the adamant people who keep saying the people defending the ban are not coming up with any logical reasons for the ban. It's been said by multiple people, including me - this is a public health issue. To say that it just boils down to politicians picking on something they don't like (which was said) has no basis, and completely glosses over the fact that yes, one of the major roles of government is to protect the populace, and yes research suggests that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of that populace.
Second-hand smoke is a public health issue, so along with other public health issues, it goes into a public forum debate in which elected officials (yes, we live in a democracy despite what some have said in this thread) vote on the best way in which to address that public health issue. In this case, the majority ruled that it was best to ban smoking in bars.
This has never been about the rights of the smoker. As far as I'm concerned, a smoker who voluntarily enters someone else's property has about as much "right" to smoke there as he does to take a dump in the middle of the restaurant. The anti-property-rights crowd always uses this tired argument, though, as if this issue were about preserving the rights of the smoker...and in doing so, they deliberately shift the focus of the debate away from where it should be---the rights of the person/people who own the establishment.Again, nobody has taken away smokers' rights to smoke, they've simply stated that you need to walk 10 feet outside of a door to go smoke that cigarette. We've had the ban in CO bars for years now, and my friends that smoke never, ever, ever, bitch about it. They just go outside, smoke a cigarette, then come back inside and have a beer with the rest of us. I fail to see how this is the red hand of socialism or nanny-state-do-goodery swooping down to control your lives - seriously, just walk the 10 extra feet.
I have already gone over this. Smoking is bad, mmmkay? I hate it, mmmkay? But the reason it's not a "public health issue", at least when you're talking about smoke from restaurants and bars, is because it's an observable, obvious hazard that requires prolonged, voluntary exposure in order to manifest itself as any meaningful physical harm. Just like you have the choice as to whether or not you strap a parachute on your back and jump out of a plane at 10k feet, you also have the choice as to whether or not you enter (and remain in) a bar that has tobacco smoke billowing out the door.I'm from NC, lived there 22 years, and my entire family is from Winston Salem. My great grandparents worked in the RJ Reynolds factory, as did my grandparents, as did my parents. Several people (3 that I know of) in my family in both my great-grandparents generation and my grandparents generation had serious lung issues that contributed to their death (one directly from a wicked case of emphysema). So I'm not sure how you can say that its not a public health issue. And yes, it isn't just the smoke you directly pull into your lungs from the cigarette attached to your lip that can contribute to respiratory illness, but that same smoke that gets circulated around the room can do the same things to others' lungs in the space you're occupying.
Funny how it is OK to shun some people in society...as as an African American,I hated the laws....now that I am white, I say good. if you don't like it, go outside and be African American! just like I had to!
cry me a river.
The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
The difference is huge. So can we stop making that ridiculous claim. The point of that argument is that I do not feel it is the place of out government to be a nanny-state and tell me I can't smoke in a Pub.Democracy is a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state.
I wanted to touch back on this. No I wouldn't, and I think anyone who would be, would complain about vehicle emmissions control, so you at least would have an even view of the issue.You wouldn't decry that extra cost as a government imposed boon doggle? C'mon. Maybe if YOU liked the program you wouldn't.
All of which have 100x more immediate hazard to their health just doing their normal everyday jobs (heck...even driving) than if they worked in the presence of second-hand smoke all day. And most of these guys do NOT encounter ANY second-hand smoke when they make their stop at a 'smoking allowed' restaurant. Most of them enter the back entrance and never even go into the dining area...and the restaurant usually isn't even open when they make their stop.Beer delivery guys, mailman, plumbers, refrigeration guys...
And if they were standing outside properly, they would be doing it 25 feet from any building. Not 24 feet, otherwise they wold be tripping over all the dead knife sharpeners.Ohio banned this also about a year ago! I couldn't be happier with it being a non smoker but there are many people that hate it. U just see a bunch of people standing outside the doorway smoking instead of inside...
- The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.Supporting Evidence
- Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
- Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
If this was a public health issue, why doesn't everyone who lived in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s when smoking was allowed practically anywhere, have lung disease even if they didn't smoke?
Lung disease is only one of the health issues associated with smoke.If environmental tobacco smoke was invisible and odorless, would you still say it is harmful enough to be a public health issue
Let me flip that question back. Is there an acceptable level of orderless tasteless urine that you would find acceptable in your beer? Of course not.Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
You're right. It's not just the lawmakers. The majority of the public wants to be in a smoke-free environment too. But that doesn't mean that private businesses should be prevented from having smoking if they chose to do so. The bottom line is, there was a much better way of going about this than outright bans. Incentives for smoke-free establishments (business licenses), setting airborne contaminate levels and allowing air filtration systems to be installed, etc. are just a couple of ideas. It should have been made "uncooth" to have a smoking establishment rather than unlawful.What evidence do you have that this is a personal lawmaker's agenda... in NC no less?