5

2/28/2008 6:14:03 PM

Quote :

"since you think that those who choose to work in restaurants should be able to legally force owners to disallow smoking, shouldn't those who choose to work in pit crews be able to legally force owners to disallow combustion engines? I mean, you may think that cars are necessary to society, but is racing necessary? or, how about valet parking? you see bridget, you've got nothing nothing except a very strong desire to be right"

Racing is not necessary, but cars are necessary for car racing.

Cigarettes are not necessary for drinking or eating.

Again, pretty simple shit here.

2/28/2008 8:01:40 PM

^
that doesn't even make sense; what's your point?


why don't you answer the question:

Quote :

"shouldn't those who choose to work in pit crews be able to legally force owners to disallow combustion engines?"

2/28/2008 8:54:57 PM

^No, because they've chosen to work in a place where cars are necessary.

Cigarette smoking is not necessary to eat or drink in a restaurant.

2/28/2008 8:58:00 PM

^
it is if it's a hookah restaurant, where flavored tobaccos are sold and serve alongside food, and smoked at the table

like this one I ate at in chicago http://www.tizimelloul.com/ (before the ban)

and besides, we're not just talking about restaurants

also, job applicants know whether or not there's smoking wherever they apply to work beforehand

so still, they are choosing to be around smoke

2/28/2008 9:49:05 PM

i do have a problem with hookah restaurants being banned.

i also think private clubs should be allowed an exemption from the ban if smoking is integral to the nature of the club. like a cigar & martini specialty bar.

2/29/2008 11:36:48 AM

Quote :

"smoking is integral to the nature of the club"

try to convince bridget that smoking is ever integral to anything

even though she already knows cars are "necessary" in racing

2/29/2008 11:40:36 AM

a cigar bar, or a hookah bar, is obviously centered around smoking. they deserve an exception. no one in their right mind would think that they should be expected to have a smoke-free environment there.

the rest of the restaurants, nightclubs, concert venues, however... smoking is NOT necessary, is a public health hazard, and rightly should be legislated to be 100% smoke free. they can smoke all they want, but the get sent outside to do it.

2/29/2008 11:49:15 AM

Quote :

"the rest of the restaurants, nightclubs, concert venues, however... smoking is NOT necessary"

cigar bars and hookah bars are NOT necessary

drinking alcohol at a bar is NOT necessary

but i'm sure since the facts i'm bringing up don't fit your argument, you'll resort back to your standard MO of trolling

2/29/2008 11:52:47 AM

okay, looks like twista has pulled the argumentum ad absurdum once again.

good night, everyone,thanks for coming. be sure to tip your servers.



[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 11:58:02 AM

Quote :

"a cigar bar, or a hookah bar, is obviously centered around smoking. they deserve an exception. no one in their right mind would think that they should be expected to have a smoke-free environment there. the rest of the restaurants, nightclubs, concert venues, however... smoking is NOT necessary, is a public health hazard, and rightly should be legislated to be 100% smoke free. they can smoke all they want, but the get sent outside to do it. "

I like this idea. Seeing as how we are heading for socialized medical care, I want to keep costs down as much as possible. I think that more regulation would acceptable if this is the path the the US is going to travel down. Especially when your personal choices directly affect the health of innocent bystanders.

2/29/2008 12:00:22 PM

JoeSchmoe: "Bars and alcohol are necessary, but I'll be damn if smoking should be allowed at bars. Man I should be able to go out and drink poisonous alcohol and damage my liver without you slightly irritaing my respiratory system in your own bar"

2/29/2008 12:00:52 PM

you've got a real problem with logical identity.

2/29/2008 12:16:41 PM

you've got a real problem with property rights, and apparently alcohol

you made a distinction that smoking/cigar/hookah bars should allow smoking...that should go without saying

but then you say all bars should be regulated to be 100% smoke free

if you had said restaurants only, i'd hear your perspective a lot more loud and clear...people gotta eat...i hear that

but bars...people don't have to go out and drink alcohol...you have no leg to stand on in regards to what should happen at bars

that fact that you're so adamant about public health in a place that sells mainly ALCOHOL (not exactly the healthiest beverage) is fucking laughable just like most of your warped political views

2/29/2008 12:17:15 PM

Quote :

"people don't have to go out and drink alcohol"

Hell, people don't HAVE to go to restaurants either. It's not as if they can't get food anywhere else, they choose to get food from a restaurant.


True, people have to eat, but you can get food from the grocery store or farmers market.

2/29/2008 12:29:01 PM

^no doubt but my point is, restaurants are 'more necessary' than bars since you have to eat to live

i personally don't care if restaurants ban smoking...i don't smoke in restaurants anyway...although i still think it should be up to the restaurant and not the government to decide

bars are another story though

2/29/2008 12:30:36 PM

Quote :

"It suddenly makes it not illegal. Members-only establishments are not commercially involved the way McDonald's is."

Again, what is the fundamental difference between requiring that all of your "members" have blue eyes and requiring that all of your "customers" have blue eyes?

2/29/2008 12:48:21 PM

TreeTwista10,

as everyone is aware, alcoholic beverages in moderation are a perfectly legitimate drink for public and private consumption. in certain social and business arrangements, sharing an alcoholic beverage together is almost a required ritual. to abstain is the exception rather than the rule.

furthermore, there are no adverse health effects from drinking an alcoholic beverage or two. in fact, tannins in red wine as well as barley and hops in beers and ales, are shown to have beneficial health properties.

finally, and most importantly, the consumption of alcohol -- in and of itself -- does not pollute the environment with toxins to be absorbed by innocent bystanders.

that you somehow relate the mere consumption of a beverage with the burning of a noxious carcinogen into a localized and confined public atmosphere shows that you are either intellectually dishonest or merely incapable of maintaining a coherent, logical debate about the facts of this subject.





[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 1:54:31 PM

you said "smoking is NOT necessary"

but when I point out that neither is alcohol, you pitch a fit since it fucks up your argument

besides I guarantee you you're a lot more likely to get hit and killed by a drunk driver on the way home from the bar, than you are to contract lung cancer from second hand smoke at the bar and die of that

and i'm sure everyone who goes to bars drinks a maximum of "an alcoholic beverage or two"

you make it seem like smoking is the worst thing ever and anyone who comes in contact with the smoke will get sick and die, yet that bars are healthy environments where everyone drinks one or two glasses of wine or beers merely to enjoy the health benefits

2/29/2008 3:17:52 PM

i knew you were going to pull that out. running out of places to hide the gaping holes in your logic?

cigarette bans and drunk driving campaigns are two totally different things. stick to the topic at hand please.

as to your other "examples"... adults go to grown-up bars, not your silly fraternity beer-bong clubs. but still, if someone wants to wreck their own life with excessive drinking, it doesn't directly affect my health or comfort.





[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 4:08:04 PM

Quote :

"adults go to grown-up bars"

people smoke in grown-up bars too

2/29/2008 4:32:06 PM

Quote :

"people smoke in grown-up bars too"

not in these 24 states, they dont.

Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington


more to come, please stay tuned.






[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : Idaho, Nevada, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas ... have statewide bans in all restaurants.]

2/29/2008 4:34:09 PM

^bars and restaurants or just restaurants?

and interestingly enough, one of the states thats glaringly missing from that list is the state that the majority of TWWers post from and live in...

so when you say "not in these 24 states" you're not talking about anything relevant

2/29/2008 4:43:39 PM

Quote :

" if someone wants to wreck their own life with excessive drinking, it doesn't directly affect my health or comfort. "

Neither will someone wrecking their own life in a bar provided that:

1) You are not retarded enough to go to a bar that allows for smoking in the first place given your concerns about it's effects on your health

and baring you lack of intelligent choice in that matter

2) You don't get yourself into close proximity of said person

In the end though, it's your choices that are putting you in harms way and no one else's.

2/29/2008 5:52:46 PM

Quote :

"In the end though, it's your choices that are putting you in harms way and no one else's."

word up

though sadly i think this concise gem of knowledge will fall on deaf ears (eyes) of the posters here who think they are entitled to breathe clean air at every single bar in the country

2/29/2008 5:55:49 PM

Quote :

"so when you say "not in these 24 states" you're not talking about anything relevant"

Quote :

"more to come, please stay tuned."

2/29/2008 6:50:24 PM

how bout you wait til smoking is banned in restaurants state-wide in North Carolina before you post in another 'smoking ban' thread? probably just wishful thinking

2/29/2008 6:58:04 PM

considering over half the states (30) have enacted state-wide bans in restaurants, and 24 of those statewide bans include bars and nightclubs also -- all happening within the past 7 or so years -- you're foolish to think the same laws aren't coming for North Carolina.

and soon.




[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 7:01:32 PM

is it 24 or is it "over half the states (30)"?

edit

nm

Quote :

"you're foolish to think the same laws aren't coming for North Carolina"

or perhaps if it was going to happen in all 50 states it wouldve happened already in more states...they already proposed it in a lot of other states and it didnt pass

I'll put some money down that North Carolina and Virginia don't ban smoking in bars/restaurants in the next 5 years at least

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : bold]

2/29/2008 7:03:19 PM

30 states have statewide smoking bans.

24 are for restaurants AND bars

6 are for restaurants only.

california was first, i think, about 10 years; most of the rest have happened within the past 3 or 4 years.

that's FAST.

you better duck.





[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 7:05:55 PM

when are they going to ban gambling in nevada and new jersey and mississippi?

2/29/2008 7:10:27 PM

yeah, i hate it when someone fires up a set of cards and poker chips in front of me and starts blowing all that nasty gamblesmoke in my face.










[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 7:12:25 PM

but why not ban nationwide? does that mean NC and VA wont get cig bans?

2/29/2008 8:18:08 PM

Think of all the tourism $texas NC would be privy to by being one of a select few states that don't ban smoking.

2/29/2008 9:04:36 PM

looks like business owners in minn. found a way around the man making business decisions for them. Seems like they really hate this law....I can't imagine why

http://wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2535835/

Quote :

"Anderson said her theater-night receipts have averaged $2,000 - up from $500 right after the ban kicked in. Similarly, Bauman said revenue at The Rock dropped off 30 percent after the ban took effect, then shot back up to normal once the bar began allowing smoking again. "

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2008 9:14:21 AM

aha

i read this this morning, and thought of this thread

i admit i have a dilemma. I'm all for public smoking ban, but damn if i dont love some civil disobediance, too. especially when it's comical.

i think it's funny as hell, and i would dress up in drag and go smoke at their bar just for the fuck of it.

3/7/2008 12:04:36 PM

Quote :

" All the world's a stage at some of Minnesota's bars. A new state ban on smoking in restaurants and other nightspots contains an exception for performers in theatrical productions. So some bars are getting around the ban by printing up playbills, encouraging customers to come in costume, and pronouncing them "actors." The customers are playing right along, merrily puffing away - and sometimes speaking in funny accents and doing a little improvisation, too. ... At The Rock, a hard-rock and heavy-metal bar in suburban St. Paul, the "actors" during "theater night" do little more than sit around, drink, smoke and listen to the earsplitting music. "They're playing themselves before October 1. You know, before there was a smoking ban," owner Brian Bauman explained. Shaping the words in the air with his hands, like a producer envisioning the marquee, he said: "We call the production, `Before the Ban!'" The smoking ban, passed by the Legislature last year, allows actors to light up in character during theatrical performances as long as patrons are notified in advance. About 30 bars in Minnesota have been exploiting the loophole by staging the faux theater productions and pronouncing cigarettes props, according to an anti-smoking group. ... At The Rock earlier this week, a black stage curtain covered part of the entrance, and a sign next to it with an arrow read, "Stage Entrance." Along the opposite wall, below a sign saying "Props Dept.," was a stack of the only props needed: black ashtrays. At the door was a printed playbill for that night's program, with a list of names of the people portraying bartenders and security guards. Playing the owner: "Brian." Courtney Conk paid $1 for a button that said "Act Now" and pinned it to her shirt. That made her an actor for the night, entitling her to smoke. ... a few other bars have been a little more theatrical. At Barnacles Resort and Campground along Lake Mille Lacs, a "traveling tobacco troupe" dressed in medieval costume on the first theater night. Mark Benjamin, a lawyer who pushed bars to exploit the loophole, wore tights, a feathered cap and black boots. ... His improv amounted to speaking in medieval character to other patrons. In Hill City, Mike's Uptown owner Lisa Anderson has been offering theater night once a week. The bar had a Mardi Gras theme last Saturday, attracting about 30 patrons, most of them in costume. "I was dressed in a Victorian dress with the old fluffy thing that weighs 500 pounds," she said. "We had some fairies and some pirates and a group of girls - I'm not sure what they were, but they had big boas and flashy makeup." ... One bar on northern Minnesota's Iron Range, the Queen City Sports Place, calls its nightly smokefest "The Tobacco Monologues."

3/7/2008 2:02:39 PM

those are some pretty hilarious loopholes

3/7/2008 2:04:45 PM

Quote :

"It's too bad they didn't put as much effort into protecting their employees from smoking," grumbled Jeanne Weigum, executive director of the Association for Nonsmokers"

funny thing is, I hear these groups bitching all the time, but I can't remember any time that I've actually heard an employee complain....most are smart enough to not work there if they don't like it....but people can't be trusted to make their own decisions

3/7/2008 2:41:37 PM

^ here's an example.

airlines.

the flight attendants organized in their union to ban smoking from domestic, then international, flights.

do you remember flying airlines in 80's and early 90's? shit was disgusting. and i was a smoker. cross country flights would make you sick.

the problem with restaurant workers, is they are not unionized, so they had no leverage to improve their unhealthy work environment. theres plenty of evidence of how the health of people who work in the service industry is improving. anecdotally, i know or have read about scores of restauarant/bar workers who are absolutely thrilled that that they can breathe at work now.

3/7/2008 3:06:18 PM

airlines != restaurants

3/7/2008 3:08:47 PM

Quote :

"do you remember flying airlines in 80's and early 90's? shit was disgusting. and i was a smoker. cross country flights would make you sick"

I can agree with that. However, if there were smoking AND nonsmoking flights available, and the attendants were not forced to work on the smoking ones, there wouldn't be a problem....much like there ARE smoking and non-smoking establishments, and employees are not forced to work in a smoking one, so I don't see the issue.

Quote :

"the problem with restaurant workers, is they are not unionized, so they had no leverage to improve their unhealthy work environment. "

Getting a job in a non smoking establishment, instead of trying to make the world conform to you would do the trick, right?

I'm talking more on a personal level...you don't have to be unionized to complain about your job. I hear plenty of people talk about issues with a job, but worrying about their health b/c of working in a smoking establishment has never been one of them.

3/7/2008 3:15:56 PM

All this talk of how second hand smoke is bad for you. Does anyone have any actual statistics that indicate how much the average person is hurt by second hand smoke? Maybe even just a number of the people that die each year from second hand smoke?

I think that would really boost the arguments of the anti-smoker.

3/7/2008 3:21:32 PM

Quote :

"there ARE smoking and non-smoking establishments, and employees are not forced to work in a smoking one, so I don't see the issue. ... [get] a job in a non smoking establishment, instead of trying to make the world conform to you would do the trick, right? "

must be nice for you, to have gone from the comfort of mum and dad's shelter, through the trials and tribulations of university life, and off to your entry-level professional business job.

too bad for the slobs around the country who didn't have everything so nicely lined up for them, and god forbid have to take what jobs they can when they can.



fuck it, who really cares. poor people are just God's way of saying that some people are destined for hell, anyhow. there'll be a whole lotta smokin' goin on there, so they might as well get used to it now.





[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2008 4:07:48 PM

^ Actually, poor people are more likely to smoke anyways. So the people that are most inconvienced by smoking bans...ARE THE POOOR!

But I think you're arguing less from a concern for the poor and more from a set of anti-smoking preferences ussually held by middle-to-upper class white folk. Unless you think poor folks are too stupid to take care of ourselves. If that's the case, I'd say you're a very condesending prick. In either case, why don't you quit pushing your likes and dislikes on the rest of whitebread.



[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 4:29 PM. Reason : ``]

3/7/2008 4:28:13 PM

^^strawman

3/7/2008 4:29:07 PM

Quote :

"must be nice for you, to have gone from the comfort of mum and dad's shelter, through the trials and tribulations of university life, and off to your entry-level professional business job. too bad for the slobs around the country who didn't have everything so nicely lined up for them, and god forbid have to take what jobs they can when they can."

lol, you got me pegged guy. As a matter of fact, I must have been dreaming when my parents were working those manufacturing jobs to barely support us.....and while I was working and saving for college since I was 16....or when I went to community college for my first 2 years as opposed to going straight to a university to save money....and even now, while I'm paying off my student loans, i'm still in one big imaginative farce....I really hope I wake up soon to the reality you have painted for me, i'd be much further along....and lol at mum.

even so, none of that has anything to do with the current topic (not even really sure why you chose that approach...lack of a logical argument maybe?). As I've said before if you can get a job in a bar, there are any number of comparable other jobs you can land (many of which will provide health insurance for the family that most bars don't) that's an asanine excuse. Hell, if that's the main argument for this legislation, require smoking establishments to pay hazard pay to employees, like jobs that are truly dangerous do.

the issue here is choice....people for the gov bans in essence don't think people are capable of making simple, personal decisions themselves.

3/7/2008 4:42:06 PM

2nd hand smoke makes my penis fall off

3/7/2008 4:42:36 PM

apparenty it brainwashes people too.

3/7/2008 4:51:50 PM

Quote :

"All this talk of how second hand smoke is bad for you. Does anyone have any actual statistics that indicate how much the average person is hurt by second hand smoke? Maybe even just a number of the people that die each year from second hand smoke? I think that would really boost the arguments of the anti-smoker."

Although I try really hard to remain neutral (Read: I try to piss off both sides) in this argument, I always approve of attaching hard facts to the debates in question.
The classic study is the 1992 American Medical Association study. It showed that second-hand smoke gave you a really high risk of contracting heart disease. (Referred to as Environmental Tobacco Smoke.) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94
There was a subsequent study that showed that second-hand smoke around children increases their risk of contracting asthma. http://www.nationalasthma.org.au/html/management/infopapers/health_professionals/4005.asp
There are TONS of studies, mostly in the UK, where they explicitly exposed mice and shit to smoke, and they developed cancer, but I don't know how relevant that is to the current argument, so I won't bother on that one.
The latest thing was the CDC in 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html (Can't find the actual abstract.)
Okay, so there's your research proof, I'm going back to lurking now. Continue discussion.

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : Added quote.]

3/7/2008 6:15:08 PM