Bars are operated by robots, durr.

3/17/2009 2:30:56 AM

^^AHA, I didn't say that right. But y'all know what I mean!

^I don't get it.

3/17/2009 6:24:13 AM

Forget about laws and constitutionality, what happened to common courtesy. Have you actually straight up asked them if they would go outside to smoke?

3/17/2009 8:15:31 AM

underclass?

plus, bars are a place where a lot of patrons specifically go to to drink and smoke. Even when smoking was allowed in more workplaces, I'm sure the smoke was thicker at bars. When you choose a profession that is based around serving people who drink and smoke, it is a little different.

So, Im not sure what he has to say, but no I care about them too, especially the ones that don't smoke. And if you stretch that to restaurants, I tried to choose a place that had no smoking (well when I first started there was a SMALL section that was, but I knew it was changing) when I worked. So I do care about smoke in workplaces other than office jobs, and I would have taken a job at a restaurant that had smoking if I had to since I know smoking and drinking are more an integral part of that industry than it is in say...a desk job. But I dont wish them to be around 2nd hand smoke any more than myself.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 8:15:40 AM

Quote :

"Those of us who think that smoking should be allowed in the workplace if the powers that be determine that it is acceptable have the legal basis in this argument, and therefore, we win."

as the saying roughly goes, you might have won this particular tiny battle, the you are losing the war fast...in 10 years, if you can smoke anywhere but your house, your car, and a tiny patch of asphalt next to the dumpster out back, i'll be surprised

Quote :

"I just got around to reading this thread, and wow, you are...unlikable. You don't bitch and moan about bars? Do people not work in bars? So it's only the office workers--people like you--that you care about? Smoking in the office is very rare as many people have pointed out, but you manage to get all self-righteous to fight for the rights of a few workers whose industry is fast becoming smoke-free on its own. Meanwhile, you've got no problems with servers being exposed to smoke, effectively maintaining an underclass that is forced to endure threats to their health on behalf of the general public."

*sigh*...do i REALLY need to point out the context of what you quoted? REALLY? are you really so stupid as to have 1.) missed the quoted text i was responding to, and 2.) not realize that the point of that entire post was to point out that i, personally, don't complain when i put myself into situations where i KNOW there will be smoking? obviously, you missed the entire objective of my post...i'm not SURPRISED, but it affirms my belief that some people really are just too dumb to be able to regulate themselves and until the time that they gain the insight that they currently lack, everyone else is going to have to pick up the slack

as for being unlikable, i'm just not your kind of person...which is cool with me, because i'm pretty sure you're the kind of person that i truly believe is just not worthy of my time...does it make me arrogant and condescending? yes...but you give me plenty of basis for this feeling of dislike that i have toward you

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 8:16:40 AM

Quote :

"Why should we? Florescent lights give me and many other people headaches and have other adverse health effects. In this day and age there is no reason that anyone should have to work under harsh lighting conditions, therefore, if I can't have a work environment in the job of my choosing without florescent lighting society should pay whatever gap in pay I'm short for having to take an inferior job someplace else."

Like nasty smokers that could carry their asses outside to burn em down rather than pollute the building, hoods that go over the monitors are an easy solution to your problem. Moving someone close to a window might also be an easy solution.

See, there are easy solutions to this problem.

You've essentially failed as a human being...you literally need to turn in your life card when you put private property ownership rights in front of the health of another human being in a matter that can be very easily resolved in an extremely practical way. You should be ashamed of yourself.

3/17/2009 8:49:28 AM

Quote :

"plus, bars are a place where a lot of patrons specifically go to to drink and smoke. Even when smoking was allowed in more workplaces, I'm sure the smoke was thicker at bars. When you choose a profession that is based around serving people who drink and smoke, it is a little different."

A cigarette goes just as good with a beer as it does with a few hundred thousand lines of of code you gotta stare at all day.

But I see what you're saying.

Quote :

"quagmire02: *sigh*...do i REALLY need to point out the context of what you quoted? REALLY? are you really so stupid as to have 1.) missed the quoted text i was responding to, and 2.) not realize that the point of that entire post was to point out that i, personally, don't complain when i put myself into situations where i KNOW there will be smoking? obviously, you missed the entire objective of my post...i'm not SURPRISED, but it affirms my belief that some people really are just too dumb to be able to regulate themselves and until the time that they gain the insight that they currently lack, everyone else is going to have to pick up the slack as for being unlikable, i'm just not your kind of person...which is cool with me, because i'm pretty sure you're the kind of person that i truly believe is just not worthy of my time...does it make me arrogant and condescending? yes...but you give me plenty of basis for this feeling of dislike that i have toward you"

No, I understood the context. I'll explain again. You made it pretty clear that you don't mind smoke in bars because you have a choice about whether or not to go to a bar, but you claimed the same "choice" argument could not be applied in the same way to a person's job. Here's the quote in question:

Quote :

"quagmire02: i don't bitch and moan about bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc. because i feel that i have an actual choice about whether to go (also, an evening of inhaling probably won't kill me)...and yes, i realize the same could be said about a person's job (in that, you don't HAVE to work there), but everyone knows they're not the same argument, despite the fact that some in this thread would have you believe that they were"

BUT PEOPLE WORK IN BARS


Do you want to protect the rights of employees who work in "bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc..." or not?

Is it just yourself that you're concerned with? Yourself and people like you?

You've dazzled us with brilliant arguments about people getting stabbed with thumb tacks, but you don't seem to have a consistent philosophy guiding you on this issue.

3/17/2009 9:02:54 AM

Quote :

"You made it pretty clear that you don't mind smoke in bars"

really? i thought i made it clear that i mind smoke in EVERY context, but that i don't feel my argument is valid IN PLACES THAT PEOPLE GO TO SMOKE...you don't understand the difference, do you?

Quote :

"BUT PEOPLE WORK IN BARS Do you want to protect the rights of employees who work in "bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc..." or not?"

you really don't see the difference between a person who's a bartender and one who's a programmer? really? do you understand the concept of reasonable job hazard analysis?

- a construction worker can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around heavy equipment that might malfunction and cause injury
- a bartender in a BAR can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around people who smoke
- a programmer can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is eye strain and carpal tunnel syndrome

i am not defending every single worker from every single risk associated with being alive...i am, however, defending those who are in situations where certain actions of others go past expected risk and an understanding of what a particular work environment consists of

take, for example, a stipper: a woman who is a stripper can REASONABLY EXPECT to have her boobs oggled and objectified...she consents to such when she accepts and engages in the occupation of being a stripper...a woman who works in an office does NOT accept that action as part of her job and so the same action in a different situation becomes unacceptable

by YOUR reasoning, the woman should just leave if she doesn't like it...hell, she has no right to take away the ability of men to objectify her body! it's a PERSONAL FREEDOM that men should be allowed to enjoy! she's not even being physically harmed by the action of others, but your reasoning implies that it's her own fault for being where she is

i assume you're just trolling now...you can't possibly be this stupid

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 9:20:48 AM

Quote :

"- a construction worker can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around heavy equipment that might malfunction and cause injury - a bartender in a BAR can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around people who smoke - a programmer can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is eye strain and carpal tunnel syndrome"

#'s 1 and 3 are functions of the job they're performing.
#2 is a side-effect of other people's poor decisions

3/17/2009 9:37:24 AM

Quote :

"quagmire02: you really don't see the difference between a person who's a bartender and one who's a programmer? really? do you understand the concept of reasonable job hazard analysis? - a construction worker can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around heavy equipment that might malfunction and cause injury - a bartender in a BAR can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around people who smoke - a programmer can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is eye strain and carpal tunnel syndrome i am not defending every single worker from every single risk associated with being alive...i am, however, defending those who are in situations where certain actions of others go past expected risk and an understanding of what a particular work environment consists of take, for example, a stipper: a woman who is a stripper can REASONABLY EXPECT to have her boobs oggled and objectified...she consents to such when she accepts and engages in the occupation of being a stripper...a woman who works in an office does NOT accept that action as part of her job and so the same action in a different situation becomes unacceptable by YOUR reasoning, the woman should just leave if she doesn't like it...hell, she has no right to take away the ability of men to objectify her body! it's a PERSONAL FREEDOM that men should be allowed to enjoy! she's not even being physically harmed by the action of others, but your reasoning implies that it's her own fault for being where she is i assume you're just trolling now...you can't possibly be this stupid"

Don't tell me what my reasoning is. I don't think I've given you enough insight for that.

I merely pointed out that you think office workers can expect smoke-free environments but bartenders and servers cannot. Smoking isn't inherent to either work environment.

Just because a person could "reasonably expect" something to exist in an environment doesn't make it right. Using your example...a construction worker might reasonably expect to find dangerous machinery on the job. That doesn't make it right. What makes it right is that it's necessary for him to complete his job. The same goes for eye strain in computer programming.

Smoking isn't necessary for a bartender to do his or her job.

Do you see the difference?

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ?]

3/17/2009 9:45:07 AM

^^ i disagree with you...getting killed or maimed by a steel I-beam that falls from a building is not a function of the job...nor is eye strain...both are possible and realistic hazards associated with functions of their jobs...the duties of a construction worker do not include "get killed by malfunctioning equipment" and the duties of a programmer do not include "get eye strain from staring at tiny text all day long"

in terms of the bartender, the side effect would be cancer, decreased lung capacity/strength, etc...the cause would be spending extensive amount of time in a smoky environment, which is arguably not a function of his job, but a reasonable and knowable risk

maybe i'm just quibbling over word choice, but there IS a difference

Quote :

"I merely pointed out that you think office workers can expect smoke-free environments but bartenders and servers cannot."

pretty much, yes...i'll try to find some hard numbers proving to you that, in terms of percentages, many more bars are smoking environments than are offices...as such, there is a reasonable expectation associated with each one

Quote :

"Just because a person could "reasonably expect" something to exist in an environment doesn't make it right. Using your example...a construction worker might reasonably expect to find dangerous machinery on the job. That doesn't make it right. What makes it right is that it's necessary for him to complete his job. The same goes for eye strain in computer programming."

i admit that i don't understand your point...by "right" are you referring to a moral "right and wrong" or right in that it's not correct to reasonably expect certain hazards? getting killed by machinery or eye strain are NOT necessary in order for either to complete their jobs, so i'm not really getting what you're trying to say

Quote :

"Smoking isn't necessary for a bartender to do his or her job."

of course not...no one has said or implied that smoking is a requirement...i've only asserted that it's an reasonable hazard under certain circumstances

Quote :

"Do you see the difference?"

no...did you understand my stripper comparison? i think that it's dead-on and i'd love to hear some argument (because, from my point of view, there isn't any)

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 9:47:14 AM

Quote :

"quagmire02: pretty much, yes...i'll try to find some hard numbers proving to you that, in terms of percentages, many more bars are smoking environments than are offices...as such, there is a reasonable expectation associated with each one"

Of course, there are more smoking bars than smoking offices. Most offices have banned smoking. And you want to continue those bans until it is completely gone from the office environment.

But you don't care about the servers.

Why do you want to protect the office workers but not the servers? Until recently, you could reasonably expect to find smoking in the office, but bans were put in place to protect employees and employers...why don't you support similar bans for servers in "bars, pool halls, and bowling alleys, etc.?"

To be clear, bans in the office worked because smoking wasn't necessary for them to do their jobs. Smoking also isn't necessary for bartenders to do their jobs. Working with machinery is necessary for construction workers to do their job. Looking at a computer is necessary for programmers to do their jobs. Now do you see the difference?

Quote :

"quagmire02: no...did you understand my stripper comparison? i think that it's dead-on and i'd love to hear some argument (because, from my point of view, there isn't any)"

Stripping for money is a performing art that involves an audience. Having people stare at you is a function of the job like using machinery is a function of construction and using a computer is a function of programming.

By the way, I originally chose not to respond to your stripping example because you prefaced your point with "by YOUR reasoning." You don't know anything about my reasoning because you don't even know my stance on this issue, and it's kind of funny.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 10:13:21 AM

Jesus. If I could, I would blow smoke all up in this thread.

3/17/2009 10:16:21 AM

Quote :

"Of course, there are more smoking bars than smoking offices. Most offices have banned smoking. And you want to continue those bans until it is completely gone from the office environment."

this is correct

Quote :

"But you don't care about the servers."

i'm not sure where i said i didn't care about the servers...can you please provide evidence? otherwise, you're talking out of your ass (which is more likely than me saying "i don't care about the servers")

Quote :

"Why do you want to protect the office workers but not the servers? Until recently, you could reasonably expect to find smoking in the office, but bans were put in place to protect employees...why don't you support similar bans for servers in "bars, pool halls, and bowling alleys, etc.?""

FWIW, i DO support bans everywhere...if cigarettes aren't illegal, i want them to cost $50/pack and a good flogging with each purchase...past that, you're completely (and, i suspect, intentionally) missing my point: bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc. exist for the purpose of relaxation...cigarettes exist for the same reason (except that they happen to kill you in the process)...to me, it is REASONABLE to expect smoking in such environments, as the goal of cigarettes and the goal of the business are exactly the same

Quote :

"To be clear, bans in the office worked because smoking wasn't necessary for them to do their jobs. Smoking also isn't necessary for bartenders to do their jobs. Working with machinery is necessary for construction workers to do their job. Looking at a computer is necessary for programmers to do their jobs. Now do you see the difference?"

yes, thank you for the clarification...we agree on this point

Quote :

"Stripping for money is a performing art that involves an audience. Having people stare at you is a function of the job like using machinery is a function of construction and using a computer is a function of programming."

this is true...but the action of oggling and subsequent objectification is NOT a requirement for the job...if you're going to pass stripping off as an "art" of any kind, then you have to agree that there are those that can enjoy the show without degrading the woman during her performance

we both know that rarely happens...but the fact is that it's not a requirement...you can't pretend that stripping would be impossible without the oggling and objectification, whereas construction would be impossible without the equipment and programming would be impossible without the computer...the oggling and objectification are negative effects that, when transferred to a different environment or job, become unacceptable because they are no longer a reasonable "hazard"

Quote :

"You don't know anything about my reasoning because you don't even know my stance on this issue, and it's kind of funny."

i suspect you're not sure what your reasoning is, either...but you're right, that is kind of funny

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 10:20:17 AM

Quote :

"quagmire02: you're completely (and, i suspect, intentionally) missing my point: bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc. exist for the purpose of relaxation...cigarettes exist for the same reason (except that they happen to kill you in the process)...to me, it is REASONABLE to expect smoking in such environments, as the goal of cigarettes and the goal of the business are exactly the same"

It’s impossible for me to intentionally be missing your point since this is the first time you’ve made your pitiful point about relaxation.

Masturbating helps people relax. Should you reasonably expect to find it at the bowling alley? No, because masturbating in public is banned. If only there was some way to protect servers from cigarette smoke the same way we protect them from masturbating patrons!!!!

Quote :

"quagmire02: i'm not sure where i said i didn't care about the servers...can you please provide evidence? otherwise, you're talking out of your ass (which is more likely than me saying "i don't care about the servers")"

I think it's fair to say you don't care about servers (at least as much as you care about office workers) since you argued for bans in the office but against bans in bars. Don't believe me? When I pointed out that smoking isn’t necessary for a bar tender to do his job, you quoted my point and responded:

Quote :

"quagmire02: of course not...no one has said or implied that smoking is a requirement...i've only asserted that it's an reasonable hazard under certain circumstances"

In another more damning exchange, I point blank asked you, “Do you want to protect the rights of employees who work in ‘bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc...’ or not?” You quoted my exact question and responded with:

Quote :

"quagmire02: you really don't see the difference between a person who's a bartender and one who's a programmer? really? do you understand the concept of reasonable job hazard analysis - a construction worker can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around heavy equipment that might malfunction and cause injury - a bartender in a BAR can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is working around people who smoke - a programmer can reasonably expect that a hazard of his job is eye strain and carpal tunnel syndrome i am not defending every single worker from every single risk associated with being alive...i am, however, defending those who are in situations where certain actions of others go past expected risk and an understanding of what a particular work environment consists of"

Then there's this response to agentlion:

Quote :

"quagmire02: in terms of the bartender, the side effect would be cancer, decreased lung capacity/strength, etc...the cause would be spending extensive amount of time in a smoky environment, which is arguably not a function of his job, but a reasonable and knowable risk"

But now this:

Quote :

"quagmire02: i DO support bans everywhere"

Do you really? Because you put up a pretty strong defense for why smoking should be reasonably expected in bars...in fact, I think you called it a "reasonable hazard under certain circumstances."


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 11:09:27 AM

just because its currently reasonably expected/accepted doesnt mean he can't support it being banned...

I would LOVE if bars and music venues were all non smoking (a la cat's cradle)...doesnt mean that I don't go to them with the expectation that there will be a lot of smoke there...

3/17/2009 11:12:43 AM

^^ i think i'm probably done arguing with you...you have missed the mark of this entire thread and my responses as a result...it's not to bitch and moan about how smoking is allowed at all, it's a particular situation in which the OP is exposed to enough secondhand cigarette smoke to cause physical discomfort in his place of work, a place (apparently) full of inconsiderate people (just like most, but not all, smokers i know)

my viewpoint in a nutshell:
- people who smoke are stupid in their choice
- i hope smoking will eventually be banned everywhere, but i'll settle for everywhere except people's personal homes
- people should ONLY be allowed to smoke (under the current law) with the unanimous consent of those around them, as the health of one trumps the carcinogenic relaxation habits of others
- if smoking is the biggest concern regarding your personal freedoms, your life sucks donkey balls

continue to enjoy twisting my responses around by taking them out of context and being intentionally obtuse...i realize it's just what you DO, it's who you ARE

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 11:18:10 AM

^^Do you devote hundreds of words to defending smoking in bars when you want to ban it?

He said, noooo, smoking is relaxing and for that reason it goes with bars and bowling alleys...being exposed to smoke if you work in a bar is just like working with heavy machinery if you're a construction worker...it's like eye strain if you're a computer programmer! BUT I WANT IT BANNED!

^I support a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants and bowling alleys and all those other places. I could give two shits about my fellow patrons, but I don't think it's right to blow smoke in some pregnant waitress' face when she's just tryna make a living. I haven't smoked a cigarette indoors (excepting my home) in almost a year.


Okay, peace out, TWW!

3/17/2009 11:33:16 AM

Quote :

"awesome...so i can piss on someone, as long as it's from a distance?"

No, you idiot. However, if you're standing somewhere, legally pissing, and someone voluntarily and knowingly walks into your piss-stream, then they are consenting to being pissed on.

Quote :

"perhaps i can throw hydrochloric acid on their face, as long as i don't touch them? how about chlorine gas?"

Those would be considered weapons. Are you suggesting that 2nd-hand smoke should be legally regarded as a weapon?

Quote :

"i mean, the list goes on and on of things that i can do, by your reasoning..."

No silly, you're just not using the same reasoning. If you would quit building straw-men for a second and actually think about it...

Quote :

"good thing there's no law against leaving anthrax on the break room table, right?"

You really do love your straw-men, don't you?

Quote :

"after all, not only did i not target anyone in particular, but i 1.) didn't have direct contact with the person and 2.) it's on private property!"

Are you even trying to understand, or are you trolling?

Quote :

"you are such a dumb fuck, it's so very sad"

Right. You're arguing straw-men, but I'm the dumb fuck.

Quote :

"farting on someone might be a better analogy than pissing on someone...to piss on someone you have to deliberately aim at them...but farting just depends on if a gush of wind blows the smell their way or not"

Good point.
(lol... I wonder if prolonged exposure to farts carries any health risks?)

Quote :

"of course i agree that they're silly and outrageous analogies..."

They weren't "silly and outrageous analogies", they were "silly and outrageous" straw-man fallacies.

Quote :

"but so is the assertion that there should never be any laws against anything, since it infringes upon one's personal liberties"

That's not quite it. Here it is again, better worded: Individuals can do whatever they wish so as long as they don't, without consent, harm or present an unreasonable danger to anyone's person, property, liberty or right to the same. There is still plenty of room for laws against actual crimes -- clearly, I'm not asserting "that there should never be any laws against anything". Again with the straw-man bullshit, huh?

Quote :

"or is Willy Nilly gonna come in here and back pedal, pretending that infringing on SOME personal liberties are okay, as long as he agrees with them?"

Ha. Sorry, but no back-pedaling will be necessary, because you were never arguing against anything I actually said. For example, when you say, "infringing on SOME personal liberties," you're suggesting that I've claimed that the acts you described earlier (pissing, throwing acid, etc.,) are personal liberties. I've never made that claim -- that was one of your straw-men, remember? (You just take a fallacy and run with it, don't you?) Also, whatever personal liberties that I or you or anyone "agrees with" doesn't matter. It's all a matter of principle.

Quote :

"i'm still caught up on the fact that by setting foot on private property, i'm consenting to be harmed by whatever activities are taking place there"

That's not quite it. By setting foot in the property, you're consenting to smoke, noise, farts, etc., not to someone walking up and punching you. (Now if the property we're talking about is a MMA cage....)
The harms associated with smoke, noise, farts, etc. are much less direct, instant, or acute as those with physical battery, and thus they aren't, and shouldn't be, legally the same. Like I said before, you can't just walk into someone's piss-stream, and then claim that they illegally pissed on you.

Quote :

"course...didn't you know that there is a direct and legal connection between your physical location and EVERYTHING that's going on around you, as long as there's a legal document filed in the county records that says someone owns the property?"

Again, you both are missing the distinction here. Besides, your sarcastic bit is actually kind of true: You said, "direct and legal connection between your physical location...", well, if some person is punching a punching bag, and you physically relocate yourself in-between them and the bag, then yes, there is definitely a legal connection there. If you get punched, it's because you voluntarily walked right to where they were punching -- you gave consent simply by your physical location. Also, if the person is then forced to stop punching the bag, because you're in the way, then you're denying them of their liberty to punch the bag -- in other words, you can't say, "I'm standing here now, so you can't continue to punch right here." They were there first, and you voluntarily went into harms way. It the same with smoking: If some person is smoking at a bar, and you physically relocate yourself to being around their smoke, then yes, there is definitely a legal connection there. If you get 2nd-hand smoke, it's because you voluntarily walked right to where they were smoking -- you gave consent simply by your physical location. Also, if the person is then forced to stop smoking at the bar, then you're denying them of their liberty to smoke at a bar that allows it -- in other words, you can't say, "I'm standing here now, so you can't continue to smoke." They were there first, and you voluntarily went into harms way.

Quote :

"step in a bar, get shot in the face, and it's YOUR OWN FAULT...after all, you DID walk into there, didn't you? no one made you...if you don't like it, don't get shot anymore!"

Seriously, though. You need to quit with the fallacious straw-men. No one is saying that crap.

Quote :

"Can you work from a laptop? Try to get one, take it outside and work. Say you're taking a "non-smoking break"

That sounds like a great plan. Your boss may allow that, and even if you have to come inside occasionally, your overall smoke exposure will be much less.

Quote :

"Anyway, the whole situation sucks. Anyone who smokes in this type of situation is being more than rude. They should walk their happy ass outside if they just HAVE to have that cig."

Yeah, that'd be nice and all, but in reality, if it's private property and smoking is allowed, then they're not being rude. You should walk your whiney ass outside if you don't like it.

Quote :

"Novicane, I don't know how your office is set up.... but maybe you could suggest to your boss that he designate a 'smoking room' far away from where people need to do work."

Another good idea. Combine that with using laptop from outside and you've got a decent plan. Supporting unjust and immoral legal action isn't the way. You can cope, convince them stop, or quit.

Quote :

"Bingo, and that is what it boils down to. I'm not going to argue the legality of smoking in privately owned offices... but I am going to say it's common fucking decency to not be smoking in a shared office space setting. I have NO problem at all in a bar, a restaurant or wherever else it's an accepted place to smoke..."

I reject that. All that matters is that the property is private and smoking is allowed. You can't just say, "These privately owned businesses can allow smoking, because it's 'accepted', but these other privately owned businesses can't, because it's not 'accepted'." Sure, it may not be "decent", but that's just your opinion and has no legal value.

Quote :

"Telling the op to quit his job if he doesn't like the smoking is tantamount to telling anyone with a valid safety concern to just leave their job instead of resolving the issue."

That is 100% false: "Telling the op a race car driver to quit his job if he doesn't like the smoking car crashes is tantamount to telling anyone with a valid safety concern to just leave their job instead of resolving the issue."

Quote :

"You don't like the availability of breathing air in the mines, just quit. You don't like the significant percentage of your coworkers you see mangled by chicken precessing equipment, just quit. You have a reasonable expectation of safety in any workplace. This is the fucking 21st century. We know that secondhand smoke is harmful. We know that lead is harmful. We know that loud noise is harmful. We limit exposure to those things to provide a decent working environment to people."

Just because we do it doesn't make it right. I'm not sure any of these "safety > liberty" laws are just. It's not the government's job to protect us from our own decisions, and no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to work a dangerous job. Although, since the libertarian principle includes unreasonable danger as a harm, workers do have a reasonable expectation of safety. Exposure to lead is not reasonable. Exposure to 2nd-hand smoke, however, is perfectly reasonable. Tobacco smoke is not an unreasonable danger.

Quote :

"its probably been pointed out, but in case it hasn't i wanted to mention that laws against smoking in the workplace only apply to offices with more than so many people"

This is more evidence that these laws are just irrational. "We have X number of employees, so we can allow smoking, but if we hire one more person, then we can't..." Dumb! I suspect part of the reasoning behind this provision is to make it harder to mount legal challenges against the smoking ban.

Quote :

"In an economy like this, if we can't give this guy an office work environment where he doesn't have to sit in smoke to do a job, then we should be prepared as a society to pay whatever gap in pay he is short for having to take some inferior job somewhere else."

LOL... what? That is most retarded logic I've heard in a while. Society doesn't owe him shit. And he doesn't "have to take some inferior job somewhere else," he's choosing to. His choice.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 11:38:13 AM

Quote :

"There is literally no fucking reason that anyone should have to work in smoke in 200 and fucking 9. Fuck all your private property bullshit, where is the god damn humanity?"

I hope you're joking. I'll give you a reason why someone should have to work in smoke: because they chose to work on privately owned property where smoking is allowed and goes on. Keep in mind, however, that they only "have to work in smoke" to the extent that they're continuing to voluntarily exercise their choice to work there.

Quote :

"Man, I had no idea there were offices that still allowed smoking in them. That sucks"

Why does it suck? The people in those offices either smoke or consent to being around it, so what's the problem? Do you think that any person voluntarily smoking necessarily sucks? I mean, it may suck for a few people who'd like to work in that office but choose not to be around smoke, but how does it suck, in general?

Quote :

"its not societies fault this guy decide to work in a smoke pit. Its a free country,I wish we could keep it that way."

Exactly.

Quote :

"Or pay for his medical ailments lol."

Not quite. You see, the only reason anyone would have to pay for his medical ailments is either because of voluntarily individual choice (of the type of insurance, etc.,) or becuase of unjust government action (forcing tax-payers to pay for other's health care costs). So, even though that's what we currently face, nearly half the nation disagrees with the basic premise of paying for other people's decisions. In a just and fair world, no one but a smoker him or herself should have to pay one penny for his or her health care costs from smoking. In other words, you can't use a legal precedent that millions of americans still and will forever disagree with to further justify addition similar legal precedents (Well, you can try... but it's extremely unwise.)

Quote :

"It is only a matter of time before smoking is banned everywhere"

If this happens, all out civil war will break out. Such an assertion is not only wrong but wildly dangerous to support.

Quote :

"i will celebrate when this day comes"

No, you'll be dodging bullets you fucking pinko.

Quote :

"i really don't enjoy watching people slowly kill themselves"

Then don't. But your likes and dislikes cannot and will not be forced on everyone by the government. You and your ilk may have won some battles, but you will lose the war.

Quote :

"especially when most of the time i end up picking them up time after time when they get old because their emphysema got bad or their CHF flared up"

Change jobs if you don't like it.

Quote :

"smokers are a drain on our healthcare system and a waste of resources that could be better utilized in other areas"

Again, this is only because the health care system has been set up that way. There is no good reason that anyone should have to pay one penny for some other smoker's health care costs. Period. The current health care system has glaring flaws that some would say were even designed with this "safety > liberty" political agenda in mind. Similar to what I said before: You can't use a legal precedent that millions of americans still and will forever disagree with to further justify addition related political fodder.

Quote :

"the argument of banning smoking as a strike against personal liberties is used only by idiots who have trouble thinking for themselves..."

Wrong. The argument of banning smoking as a strike against personal liberties is perfectly sound.

Quote :

"i doubt many of you would argue for the legalization of, say, regular citizens owning weapons-grade nuclear material, but THAT strike against personal liberty is OKAY...i mean, why have laws at all? why protect anyone from anyone else? it's a personal liberty to do whatever the fuck we want, right?"

Of course not, but yet again you miss the point. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you right to own a nuke, because that constitutes an unreasonable danger. Similarly, crossing the yellow line, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone does it? No, but it's the unreasonable danger that makes it wrong.

Quote :

"except, no...the idea behind personal liberties is the right to do whatever the fuck you want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE LIVES OF OTHERS, which smoking in a place that isn't a fucking airtight phone booth DOES.."

Again, you're missing the consent part. Being punched in the face is a negative effect, but if you consent to it, it ceases to be a legal harm. Smoking where allowed by the private property owner isn't forced on anyone, so anyone around it is consenting to being around it, and consenting to the harm.

Quote :

"and while you can be an ass and pretend like it's the OP's fault that he works where he does,"

Of course it is. He is choosing to be there. No one is holding a gun to his head. He is free to leave whenever he wants.

Quote :

"the fact of the matter is this doesn't just happen in backwater offices owned by dumbass republicans with a twisted and misguided understanding of freedom, nor is the situation nearly as simple as "just quit if you don't like it"...the FACT is that their actions HURT other people who choose not to engage in that particular cancer game, and they have absolutely NO right to do so if you want the play the personal liberties card"

No. The harm is consensual. You say they "choose not to engage in that particular cancer game," but that's not true. By voluntarily staying around the smoke, they are consenting to it.

Quote :

"fuck the smokers..."

You see? This is what it's all about -- popularity. Smokers are unpopular at best and hated at worst. These government smoking bans are not based on justice, liberty, reason, or morality, but rather are based on the unpopularity of smoking, and the desire by some for a nanny-state type of government.

Quote :

"since they're obviously not smart enough to keep from killing themselves,"

It's their choice. Their intelligence need not be lacking in order to make such a choice. (In fact, many academics throughout history were smokers, as smoking helps some people study and concentrate.)

Quote :

"and since they feel that it's their right to do the same to others,"

They don't feel that that is their right. No one has a right to force anyone to smoke or breathe 2nd-hand smoke. Of course, anyone at a job on private property that allows smoking can leave whenever they wish, so the smokers aren't forcing their smoke on anyone.

Quote :

"and since it costs ME money when they do,"

That's the fault of our health care system. If you continue to push for socialized health care with one hand, but not wanting to pay for smokers health care costs with the other, then you're not making too much sense. No one should have to pay for anyone else's health care costs. Since you don't want to pay for all of the smokers' health care costs, you should agree that no one should have to pay for anyone else's health care costs, and thus oppose all efforts to nationalize the health care system.

Quote :

"i'll celebrate the day when they are finally banned for good..."

No. You'll be dodging bullets, you pinko scum.

Quote :

"if they can't be trusted to make good decisions on their own, i guess we'll just have to make the decision for them"

Wow. Can I put that in the Soap Box quote thread?

Quote :

"(note that i'm not really upset at them killing themselves...i'm upset that it 1.) affects others who choose not to smoke"

It doesn't though. If they choose not to smoke, they can freely avoid it by staying away from smoking. No one is forcing them to be around smoke.

Quote :

"and 2.) it costs me money...for all i care, they can smoke like a stack until they hack their way into an early grave, as long as it doesn't cost me anything, physically or monetarily)"

Advocate for insurance policies that don't put smokers and non-smokers in the same pool, and oppose efforts to nationalize health care. Problem solved. I agree that it's is 100% bullshit that anyone should have to pay one penny of the health care costs caused by someone else's choices. But it's important to keep in mind that the health care system and/or improper insurance policies are to blame here, and not people exercising their choice to smoke.

Quote :

"some things, this being one of them, should be regulated [for] the UNDENIABLE good of the VAST majority"

Sorry, but no. One of the main things that makes america great is that we don't let popular majorities trample the rights of unpopular minorities. These smoking bans are nothing but that. They are completely wrong.

Quote :

"No one I know works in a building that allows smoking. No one"

Quote :

"Which certainly seems to suggest the OP has plenty of options out there if the current working environment doesn't suit him."

Aha, 1337 b4k4 for the win.

Quote :

"Governments cannot protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible, otherwise they become a tyrannical state." - Ron Paul"

(Quoted for truth.)

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 11:39:13 AM

Quote :

"cigarettes went up like 2 dollars today"

Quote :

"that's a good thing"

No, it's not. While the idea of smokers contributing to their own health care costs is a good one, they should simply have to pay it all on their] own. Instead, we've got some quasi-socialized health care where they get free treatment, so then the only way to get more money from the smokers is to tax the smokes? This is dumb and unnecessary. Simply force everyone to pay for whatever healthcare costs that they cause themselves. Simple and logical. We can all, as a society, come up with ways to pool healthcare costs that aren't clearly the fault of the person who needs them, while not pooling the healthcare costs that are clearly their fault. This makes much more sense, plus, you big-government nanny-state types wouldn't be able to justify your authoritarian agenda with the unhealthy choices made by some individuals. This didn't happen by accident. You people have been planning this. You knew that socialized healthcare would create an incentive for government to care about individual unhealthy decisions. You have wanted a nanny-state all along, and you dirty fucking commies will not win.

Also, some would point out that many poor people smoke, so cigarette taxes would be considered unfair.

Quote :

"States with unjust, immoral and unconstitutional statewide smoking bans in the workplace: Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Louisiana Maine (which has been around since before the California one) Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Vermont Washington"

Quote :

"fat people are a drain on our healthcare system Individuals who don't work out are a drain on our healthcare system People with more than two kids are a drain on our healthcare system People who have more than two drinks per day are a drain on our healthcare system Let's ban all this shit too."

Good point. Where does the nanny-state end? A much better idea is to simply not force anyone to pay for anyone else's healthcare costs. The system is the problem. If no one had to pay for octomom's kids, there would far far far less outrage over her actions. It the unjust system that forces people to pay for damages that someone else caused, that is the problem.

Quote :

"I'm for it, just as soon as an overweight, unemployed, alcoholic parent of three gives me cancer"

Ah, but smokers don't give you cancer. Your voluntary decision to remain in areas where smoking is allowed and going on is what may, may give you cancer.

Quote :

"Just play some really shitty inappropriate music really loud til they get the point. May not give em cancer but might ruin their concentration and give them headaches in return."

The boss and\or private property owner probably already disallows loud music, as it is their decision. Similarly, some private property owners and bosses disallow smoking, which is just fine. So, in other words, your idea is not good.

Quote :

"I just got around to reading this thread, and wow, you [quagmire02] are...unlikable."

I agree. His self-righteous hypocrisy earns him the title of "king douche". I'll let you take on the bar-vs-office hypocrisy, as I think I've already addressed enough other issues.

Quote :

"Forget about laws and constitutionality, what happened to common courtesy. Have you actually straight up asked them if they would go outside to smoke?"

A good point. You can ask. But if they decline, neither you nor the government acting "on your behalf" has the right to force them to stop.

Quote :

"since I know smoking and drinking are more an integral part of that industry than it is in say...a desk job"

Well, it's certainly reasonable that an employer disclose from the beginning that the workplace allows smoking so that no one ends up taking a job only then to learn about it.

Quote :

"in 10 years, if you can smoke anywhere but your house, your car, and a tiny patch of asphalt next to the dumpster out back, i'll be surprised"

While that may be true, it doesn't justify anything. The status quo doesn't justify itself.

Quote :

"...does it make me arrogant and condescending? yes"

Well... At least you admit it.

Quote :

"Like nasty smokers that could carry their asses outside to burn em down rather than pollute the building, hoods that go over the monitors are an easy solution to your problem. Moving someone close to a window might also be an easy solution. See, there are easy solutions to this problem."

Yeah, like anyone who doesn't want to be around smoke simply quitting. You call them "nasty smokers". You see? You also seem to be justifying the trampling of their rights simply because they are unpopular and disliked. You will not win, though.

Quote :

"You've essentially failed as a human being...you literally need to turn in your life card when you put private property ownership rights in front of the health of another human being"

But it's not putting private property ownership rights in front of their health. It's putting it in front of their supposed "right" to force a private property owner to disallow smoking on their own fucking property. The harm to such people's health is not the fault of the smokers unless the smokers are forcing it upon them. These workers are voluntarily staying around the smoke, so they are consenting to any harm that results from it.

Quote :

"You should be ashamed of yourself."

No. Fuck you. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such unjust, immoral and unconstitutional crap. You are not viewing this issue correctly, and yet you have the nerve to tell those who are viewing it correctly that they "should be ashamed"? No. Fuck you, sir. It's you that needs to "turn in your life card".

Quote :

"you really don't see the difference between a person who's a bartender and one who's a programmer? really?"

At least seven of the dozen or so programmers I know smoke. It helps them code. (You lose.)

Quote :

"maybe i'm just quibbling over word choice, but there IS a difference"

Yes -- one that doesn't matter.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 11:40:57 AM

Update: getting my own office

3/17/2009 11:49:50 AM

[/thread]

3/17/2009 11:51:38 AM

Not reading any of that shit. I don't think the wolfweb is your sort of form man.

Who are you an alias of though? I know you've been here before under a different name.

3/17/2009 12:24:06 PM

Quote :

"Ah, but smokers don't give you cancer. Your voluntary decision to remain in areas where smoking is allowed and going on is what may, may give you cancer."

I guess my question to you at this point (since will obviously never agree) is what right do smokers have that would essentially give them access to anywhere they please while non smokers (based on your position) are the ones left/forced to avoid places that we might otherwise want to be if there werent smokers there.

The only difference between the two groups in this isolated situation is that the smokers are doing something recreational by choice that has a great potential to not only harm themselves but others around them and the non smokers are not.

If there are 4 people in a small coffee shop and two of them start smoking, are the other 2 then forced to leave to avoid the smoke? If so, why are the smokers entitled to that space over the nonsmokers (essentially limiting the places that nonsmokers can be)?

Obviously I realize you could somewhat argue from the other side, as in what right do the non smokers have to tell the smokers to stop. But the way I see it is that every person has the same right to be in that coffee shop and read, chat, drink coffee...normal things that dont affect the health of those around them. If the smokers, on their own merit, actively add another variable into the situation that can cause health problems to those around them, I feel like they are the ones that bear the responsibility of going outside, moving to a well ventilated area, etc.

I can't offer any other explanation besides common sense and human courtesy, but if you can provide a reason why you feel this is wrong be my guest (not saying its impossible, I just dont see how it is anything but rude). If I am in a coffee shop and I wanted to start listening to music loudly or watch a movie or do anything that might disrupt other people I would leave.

If I am in a movie and I want to talk to the person next to me or absolutely need to make a phone call...should the people around me have to leave or do something to avoid the movie being ruined? Or should I leave the theater to carry on the conversation? I leave the theater..and that is just normal courtesy; there is not even a health risk involved. We both have the same right to be in a theater, but when *I* actively introduce something that I want to do or have to to that dampers others experience around me it is my responsibility to make sure others around me arent affected by it. Not theirs.

and PS...the CDC's latest report showed that <20% of the population in the US over 18 smokes cigarettes. If that number is ever 50%+ again then you might have more weight to your argument.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2009 1:15:16 PM

this isn't part of an argument, i just found it and thought i'd pass it along...it's a US map outlining smoke-free laws (population percentage-wise):

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/RBpercentMap.pdf

^ the answer is always "if you don't like it, the other guy's rights trump yours" because you're the one complaining

to the OP: nice...congrats and good luck

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 1:38:09 PM

Did I hear on 101.1 on one of the news updates just a bit ago that legislation has come up in NC to ban smoking in places...one of those being offices? They were reporting on it in conjunction with an increase in the cig tax.

Here we go

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=h2

A BIG FUCK YOU TO THE SMOKERS YOU INCONSIDERATE PRICKS

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ,]

3/17/2009 2:40:04 PM

Sounds like you're the dick.

3/17/2009 2:52:43 PM

I've never polluted the air of someone that doesn't smoke because I was too lazy and inconsiderate to go outside. I'm a LONG WAY from being "the dick".

3/17/2009 2:55:32 PM

^^ yep, all nonsmokers who don't want to suffer the negative effects of smokers' poor choices are all dicks

^ you'd think they'd take the opportunity for some exercise in an effort to minutely counteract the damage they're doing to themselves by smoking

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 2:56:11 PM

It's my right to blow an air-horn in the direction of people that smoke at a decibel level that may or may not cause permanent ear damage. If they don't like it, they have the choice to go somewhere else. It's my civil liberty and no law should be made to deny my right to blow an air-horn wherever the fuck I feel like it.

For some reason I think I'd get arrested if I took an air-horn and started blasting smokers.

3/17/2009 3:03:52 PM

I just can't get my ahead around how self righteous smokers are. Yes, those of us that don't smoke are a bit self righteous as well, but we simply claim the higher ground because we do nothing, absolutely nothing to infringe on the health of someone else.

3/17/2009 3:04:57 PM

No. You guys are the dicks. (quagmire02, Fail Boat) You're not even addressing the points I've made, and instead, just keep repeating falsehoods.

HEY LOOK AT ME -- I CAN COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSENT.

Quote :

"I guess my question to you at this point (since will obviously never agree)"

...I'll answer later (busy right now)

All of you should re-read the thread in order to understand where the disagreements are. For example, do you agree with the libertarian principle (in bold, above,) or do you take issue with the definition of harm or consent? Find these issues upon which we disagree, and ask about them. Make your case. I'll answer later (busy right now)

3/17/2009 3:08:23 PM

Quote :

"No. You guys are the dicks. (quagmire02, Fail Boat) You're not even addressing the points I've made, and instead, just keep repeating falsehoods."

i fully admit i'm not reading your novel...after the first dozen instances of "straw man!" references, i figured i got the gist: you and i disagree on something that has no absolute truth...you think you're right, i think i'm right

the only truth that we can agree on (i think, at least...you might have bitched about this one, too) is that smokers WILL lose this war...you all will pay more for your poison, and you will be relegated to small, special areas designated for the superbly stupid (except for your homes and cars, which you'll have a helluva time selling because they smell like an ashtray)...fuck you and fuck your incessant "personal liberties" bitchfests

in the long run, we win...end of story, kid

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 3:14:26 PM

I agree with the libertarian principle; however, I also agree with not being a dick. I personally feel like it is each of our rights to smoke wherever we feel like it. But doing so within breathing distance of other people is a very dickish thing to do.

So in principal, it should not be a law to prohibit smoking anywhere. However, I should be able to blow my air-horn in your face if you smoke around me.

3/17/2009 3:16:49 PM

3/17/2009 3:57:40 PM

what a shitty job you have, Novicane. i can't even imagine the hell of having to work somewhere people smoked at their desks. i cant hardly stand to smell someone who just came back in from smoking out in the parking lot

if you complain to the owner, and think its going to get resolved somehow, you will likely find yourself dismissed and shown the door. one way or another, but probably quickly.

I think you have a case to bring to OSHA and the NC Dept. of Labor. that's the only way it will be resolved.

if you bring the case legally, you're going to find that everyone you work with hates you.

your choice is this: either bring legal action, or find another job.

i'd probably do both.

3/17/2009 4:06:00 PM

Quote :

"States with unjust, immoral and unconstitutional statewide smoking bans"

How are they unconstitutional?

3/17/2009 7:10:32 PM

^^ what legal action? its a small private business, he would have to wait for legislation banning smoking to be passed

3/17/2009 7:18:18 PM

Quote :

""It is only a matter of time before smoking is banned everywhere" "

Quote :

"If this happens, all out civil war will break out."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

3/17/2009 7:19:17 PM

Quote :

""Can you work from a laptop? Try to get one, take it outside and work. Say you're taking a "non-smoking break" That sounds like a great plan. Your boss may allow that, and even if you have to come inside occasionally, your overall smoke exposure will be much less."

how is that any different from asking smokers to smoke outside? they could just as well take a laptop outside and smoke whilst out there. how do smokers have more of a right to work inside than non-smokers do?

by the way, the vast majority of your statements above are some of the most idiotic bullshit i've ever heard. if you haven't noticed, you've lost all credibility on here. i'd just quit while you still have some dignity to spare.

Quote :

"I CAN COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSENT."

no, see, the problem is that you're misinterpreting the principle of consent from a legal standpoint. please don't make me pull out case law references, this thread just isn't worth it.

3/17/2009 11:12:10 PM

Quote :

"States with unjust, immoral and unconstitutional statewide smoking bans"

LOLOL

people like this guy is what makes me embarrassed to have ever been a registered Libertarian.

3/17/2009 11:21:04 PM

triple post--suspend

3/17/2009 11:38:07 PM

I feel bad for you son. On one hand, I think it's the owner of the properties decision as to what legal activities go on in his building. On the other hand, it's really fucking rude of these people to smoke at their desks. I used to smoke, and I would never smoke in front of people if it bothered them, I would just go outside.

I think your only recourse is going outside with a laptop or finding a new job.

3/18/2009 2:04:24 AM

just eat something extremely smelly or masterbate

3/18/2009 8:30:26 AM

Quote :

"No. You guys are the dicks. (quagmire02, Fail Boat) You're not even addressing the points I've made, and instead, just keep repeating falsehoods. HEY LOOK AT ME -- I CAN COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSENT. "

I don't need to read your reply to...everyone...when I know what every reply is.

Private property rights and personal choice rule the day. I get how devoted you are to your libertarian ideals.

But I'm an evolutionary step past that. I don't live in fear that the slippery slope of government control that frightens you libertarians is going to find my home seized and my guns taken and my every thought dictated by the ever looming nanny state. With that as a backdrop, I view smoking in an office space as a practical common sense compromise. If you want to kill yourself, do it the fuck outside you lazy cunt. Get the fuck up, take your 15 minute stand still and kill yourself break, and save the clean air for those of us that aren't friendly with the cancer. Be a damn human being about this shit, not some libertarian robot that is a slave to his ideals.

3/18/2009 8:49:21 AM