NC officially bans smoking in bars / restaurants

[Evan!]

Would anyone else like to sign the "sky is falling" petition?

It's interesting that your only response is to say "we live in a democracy, so we don't have to worry!" and mock people who are concerned about property rights with cartoons...and not actually address the substance of the issue.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Would you oppose it if someone started a special airline called "Smokes In the Sky", and made all their flights smoking flights, and it was advertised as such?

Of course not. But I do realise that there are financial considerations in such an enterprise that wold make such an airline very unlikely. I'm trying to live in the real world here just for once in my lifetime.

 

[Ego Archive]

Poor analogy. We're not talking about 5% of the population that happens to be allergic to shellfish. We're talking about 60+ percent that has voted to ban smoking in enclosed places (restaurants, bars, etc.).

So your not really concern with public heath, your saying this is an issue of Majority rule, right? So, if next year the Majority of people ruled that your religion (Or not being affilated to a religion) was illegal, and offenders would be deported or imprisoned, you would be fine with it? If it's a matter of how much of the population is affected, then what amount of the population makes a difference for you to enact a law...assuming 5% isn't enough?

In case you haven't noticed, many states and counties have passed car emissions laws mandating the cars run "clean". So, yes, we've voted to protect the environment from car emissions too.

So you would be fine with smoking in bars and resurants, assuming they had proper ventilation, or they had filtration means to keep the tobacco emissions down to something akin to say car emissions right?

 

[lamarguy]

Ha...You guys are ridiculous. I'm glad I could stir you up a bit.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.

I am just waiting for a reason to pass a smoking ban that is based on something other than "you are killing me with that stinky smoke."

 

[olllllo]

I am just waiting for a reason to pass a smoking ban that is based on something other than "you are killing me with that stinky smoke."

Why would I take public health off the table? What's not logical about that?

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.

I am just waiting for a reason to pass a smoking ban that is based on something other than "you are killing me with that stinky smoke."

.....................

Wow. Great job Lamarguy, you are the coolest

BTW, still waiting....

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.

I am just waiting for a reason to pass a smoking ban that is based on something other than "you are killing me with that stinky smoke."

.....................

Wow. Great job Lamarguy, you are the coolest

BTW, still waiting....

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Why would I take public health off the table? What's not logical about that?

Whether or not it is a public health issue is something that can be decided by the individual that decides to frequent, or work in an establishment that allows smoking.

 

[HenryHill]

Ha...You guys are ridiculous. I'm glad I could stir you up a bit.

This is your first glimpse of the HBT Debate Forum atmosphere, isn't it?

Welcome to our world.

And this isn't stirred up at all.

 

[olllllo]

Whether or not it is a public health issue is something that can be decided by the individual that decides to frequent, or work in an establishment that allows smoking.

Beer delivery guys, mailman, plumbers, refrigeration guys...

 

[olllllo]

also lets not restrict this to bars, it's restaurants too so, produce guy, cisco delivery guy, vending machine guy, knife service guy, health inspector, grease removal guy...

 

[rico567]

I contributed to this thread, way back on page 2. I now regret that, which I will state in lieu of being unable to delete my post.

 

[HenryHill]

Going out on a limb here, but it seems that ollllo is not a smoker.

Not judging, just saying.

 

[HenryHill]

I contributed to this thread, way back on page 2. I now regret that, which I will state in lieu of being unable to delete my post.

Page 2, eh?

>scrolls back to page 2<

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

olllllo.... do you ever dare leave the house? Knife service guy? Seriously?

 

[olllllo]

Lots of restaurants have a knife service.

 

[Ego Archive]

Lots of restaurants have a knife service.

Maybe them there fancy restaurants people like you go to, but not the kind that smokers would be caught dead in!


Really, my problem with laws like this is, that people aren't doing it for public health, not really. It's something that politicians can easily pass to have their name on a todays popular cause. Otherwise we would be taking a lot more comprehensive look at the pollution we are taking into our bodies, rather then just attributing cancer/heart disease to second hand (cigarette) smoke.

The law feels much more like self righteous people trying to stamp out something they don't personally like, otherwise it seems like someone would have tried to meet in the middle ground (allowing businesses to maintain a smoking environment that has filtration, and allow for regular testing), but that doesn't appear to have ever been an option, in fact I remember when the laws came around in these parts, any discussion of things like that were stamped out.

That said, I occasionally smoke cigars and pipes, I haven't been allowed to smoke in any establishment (other than a smoke shop)for a very long time, but people didn't claim it was a health issue, they just called me stinky and told me to get the hell out!

 

[olllllo]

allowing businesses to maintain a smoking environment that has filtration, and allow for regular testing

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.

 

[SmugMug]

I believe what we have here in this thread is what we, in the South, would call a "Goat Rope".

 

[Ego Archive]

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.

I was kidding about the knife service thing, sorry if that didn't come through.

 

[olllllo]

I know. It seems no one believes that knife services exist.

 

[Evan!]

I'm not quite understanding olllllo's point here. Is it that, since various servicepeople choose to work in a profession where they will have to spend a bit of time in a restaurant (normally not during nighttime business hours anyway, so it's not like they'd be working in a cloud of smoke), that we should force the business owner to cowtow to populist do-goodery? Really? Just as with waiters, etc., they have the choice to work where they work.

 

[HenryHill]

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.


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.

 

[olllllo]

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.

 

[beerjunky828]

Growing up in N.C. this is a slap in the face of this states history.

 

[HenryHill]

Growing up in N.C. this is a slap in the face of this states history.

This was the anticipated sentiment.

 

[menschmaschine]

Brief, intermittent exposures to second hand smoke do not cause cancer or lung disease. Public health statistics related to second-hand smoke were skewed to get these laws passed.

If second-hand smoke is annoying, then just say it's annoying and that the majority of the public doesn't want to have to deal with it in the majority of public establishments they go. What bothers me about this whole thing is the sneak-tactics used to effectively ban public smoking. The whole premise here with everyone having the "same rules" is the source of the issue. It had to be an all or nothing law.

The bottom line is, most people want a smoke-free environment in public establishments. So let's figure out a way to facilitate that happening, so that the minority of people who want to smoke in public have somewhere to do it, rather than ban it all together based on false pretenses.

 

[Evan!]

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.

Way to misrepresent my view of negative rights and the constitutional republic. Congratulations.

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.

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.

 

[HenryHill]

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.

Sorry Evan!, the tongue in cheek didn't come thru.

I used a winky guy.

I haven't said you were a dick lately.