^^^^^^^what a lot of them are arguing is you're taking away business from business owners and that people won't go to places because they can't smoke. Though I myself don't go to a bar just to smoke so its not that big of a deal to me but just imagine if they past a law saying bars couldn't sell alcohol to prevent drunk drivers from killing people, i think you might get a little mad

5/14/2009 1:04:50 PM

Quote :

"It's a problem that people can't do anything they want just because they have a business license?"

No, it's a problem that they can't do things that others without a business licence can legally do. Smoking is legal. Smoking in my living room is legal. Smoking in my private office is legal. Smoking in my private bar SHOULD ALSO BE LEGAL.

Quote :

"A business license should allow you to decide who you serve based on race, etc?"

As long as it doesn't create unreasonable denial of liberty. In the 50s, prohibitions on racial discrimination by private businesses made sense, because nearly all businesses were run by racists, creating an unreasonable denial of liberty to those races that were discriminated against. Soon, however, and perhaps already, such prohibitions on racial discrimination by private businesses don't make sense. If some racist wants to limit their business to the few people that would actually go to a "this race only" establishment, and plenty of other comparable establishments don't have such rules, then why not let them?

Quote :

"Should allow you to sell rotten meat?"

They do in other countries as a delicacy. Yes -- yes they should be allowed to sell rotten meat. I doubt there's much of a market for that, though. As for selling meat that everyone assumes is healthy, but is actually rotten... well, that's fraud and criminal endangerment.

Quote :

"Should allow you to beat people up?"

If they consent. You know... boxing?

Quote :

"Where, if anywhere, do you think the line is?"

Do you really not get it?
Anyone should be able to do whatever they wish so as long as it doesn't, without consent, unreasonably harm or endanger someone else's person, property, liberty, or right to the same.

Quote :

"lol, no. silence does not imply consent."

Being around it, and not avoiding it, is consent. It's not the silence, it's the location of your body. That's right, you can consent to something non-verbally. Check it out.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 1:04:52 PM

it's simple, bars that center around smoking will become member only bars (of which most are now anyways).

Quote :

"As long as it doesn't create unreasonable denial of liberty. In the 50s, prohibitions on racial discrimination by private businesses made sense, because nearly all businesses were run by racists, creating an unreasonable denial of liberty to those races that were discriminated against. Soon, however, and perhaps already, such prohibitions on racial discrimination by private businesses don't make sense. If some racist wants to limit their business to the few people that would actually go to a "this race only" establishment, and plenty of other comparable establishments don't have such rules, then why not let them? "

see: women at augusta

/pwnt stay home

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : d]

5/14/2009 1:05:36 PM

seriously people none of you can or will make a point that hasn't already been made 100x. i wish i could lock stupid fucking threads like this

5/14/2009 1:06:33 PM

Quote :

"If I'm out with someone that doesn't smoke, I ask them if they mind, and if they do I don't smoke, to me its not that big of a deal"

same here. im not the type that will go into DTs if i cant smoke a cig every few hours.

Quote :

"Do you ask everyone at the bar? "

no, b/c they are making a personal choice to frequent the establishment...thats just a silly argument to make

5/14/2009 1:06:52 PM

wouldn't that be 90% of most threads though?

5/14/2009 1:07:03 PM

reposting mine since it was last post on last page and because it got lost in the "I'M RIGHT" no "I'M RIGHT" battle.

Quote :

"Quote : "1. I'm curious what will happen to places such as Smoking Times. It seems to me that bar is centralized around smoking. will the name be changed? " aren't the morning times, raleigh times, and "smoking times" all one in the same? so since the morning times and 2 main raleigh times parts non-smoking already, i'd assume they'd just make that one last part (the raleigh times is adjacent to) non-smoking as well? just a little part of it allows smoking. and i don't think it is actually called the smoking times (maybe i'm wrong) but i think "the times" encompasses all 3 places and the smoking times is just what it has become known as. so i guess it would still just be called "the times" and there would be no smoking in that last little piece of it. i think, i don't know. and i don't know if i'm even talking about the same place as you Quote : "Liv ya life Oooooooh Oooooh Oooooh " i loled"

5/14/2009 1:07:16 PM

Quote :

"I knew you'd go there, WN. Not everyone drinks to retardedness and then stays at the place or has a DD to get home. PLENTY of people choose to drive drunk. And so there are driving drunk laws. Your point was that drinking only hurts the one drinking. Yea...until he/she decides to either become belligerent (emotional or physical damage ensues), or he/she decides to DRIVE."

DRINKING, IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT THE SAME AS DRINKING AND DRIVING.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT DRINKING IN AND OF ITSELF.
YOUR POINT ABOUT DRINKING AND DRIVING MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING.
OF COURSE THERE SHOULD BE LAWS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING, BUT YOUR COMPARISON IS 100% IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND.

5/14/2009 1:10:13 PM

Yep. And smoking, in and of itself, is fine. But now, it's banned in public places, to keep it from hurting other people (if you believe that).
Just like drinking in public.
Just like drinking and driving.

All caps does not make you better.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM. Reason : add]

5/14/2009 1:11:59 PM

Arab,

Incorrect, as has been pointed out many times in the other thread and this one.

Quote :
""Private club". – A country club or an organization that maintains selective members, is operated by the membership, does not provide food or lodging for pay to anyone who is not a member or a member's guest, and is either incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in accordance with Chapter 55A of the General Statutes or is exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code as defined in G.S. 105-130.2(1). For the purposes of this Article, private club includes country club."
""


It seems to me that to be a private club, all of these must apply:

- maintains selective members
- is operated by the membership
- does not provide food or lodging for pay to anyone who is not a member or a member's guest
- is either incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in accordance with Chapter 55A of the General Statutes or is exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code as defined

This is an "and" condition, not an "or" condition. So unless your bar can somehow become nonprofit, it's not exempt. This was used to make sure lion's club, vfw, etc could still allow smoking. If you're a business, no smoking allowed.


http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H2v8.html

Quote :

"If some racist wants to limit their business to the few people that would actually go to a "this race only" establishment, and plenty of other comparable establishments don't have such rules, then why not let them?"

Because there is no place in the world for such people, and government should not allow it. Period. One of the only reasons I like government is that it can be used to prevent injustices such as that.

Quote :

"if you believe that"

Someone DOESN'T believe that?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:13:06 PM

it's not banned in public

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : k ill be nice]

5/14/2009 1:13:29 PM

omfg...smoking is banned in public places. read the damn bill. Not "oh look a park" public places. But public places where people congregate.

5/14/2009 1:14:17 PM

5/14/2009 1:16:16 PM

there's a whole lot more to "public" than

Quote :

"bans smoking in nearly all restaurants and bars"

5/14/2009 1:16:56 PM

So you're arguing that these places are simultaneously public and should allow anyone in but private and the owners should be allowed free reign?

Anyway, the bill defines public place.

(8d) "Public place". – An enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H2v8.html

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:17:02 PM

Quote :

"Yep. And smoking, in and of itself, is fine. But now, it's banned in public places, to keep it from hurting other people (if you believe that). Just like drinking in public. Just like drinking and driving. All caps does not make you better."

No, it's banned in private places. A restaurant or bar may be open to the public, but it is a private property.

Drinking in public should be legal, as it doesn't constitute an unreasonable harm or danger to anyone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same.

Driving drunk in public should remain illegal, as it does constitute an unreasonable danger to anyone's person and property.


Keep on believing that you're right -- just don't be shocked when every single smoking ban is overturned.

5/14/2009 1:17:05 PM

dude, willy is hilarious. overturned. ha.

5/14/2009 1:18:07 PM

5/14/2009 1:18:36 PM

^3do you want to put your money where your mouth is?

we can make a bet, but i doubt you have the scruples to do so

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:19 PM. Reason : the man is a complete wuss and a tool]

5/14/2009 1:18:56 PM

yes, that's what i wanted to do

5/14/2009 1:19:15 PM

i really don't see this getting overturned

5/14/2009 1:19:16 PM

Good Thursday shenanigans.

5/14/2009 1:20:00 PM

i was more thinking along the terms of cigar bars and such. places where smoking is explicitly implied

5/14/2009 1:21:57 PM

Quote :

"Second-hand smoke is not relevant at all because those around it are consenting to be around it."

What about those who can't give consent even if they wanted to?

5/14/2009 1:22:03 PM

Quote :

"If some racist wants to limit their business to the few people that would actually go to a "this race only" establishment, and plenty of other comparable establishments don't have such rules, then why not let them?"

Quote :

"Because there is no place in the world for such people, and government should not allow it. Period. One of the only reasons I like government is that it can be used to prevent injustices such as that."

I see that feel strongly about this, but you are completely wrong. Racism, in and of itself, may be ugly, illogical and perhaps even unhealthy, but it doesn't necessarily constitute an unreasonable harm or danger to anyone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same. There is absolutely nothing unjust about racism, in and of itself. (For example, affirmative action is inescapably racist... do you oppose it?)

5/14/2009 1:22:13 PM

5/14/2009 1:22:31 PM

Quote :

"(For example, affirmative action is inescapably racist... do you oppose it?)"

yes

selection should be a blind process

5/14/2009 1:23:23 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "Second-hand smoke is not relevant at all because those around it are consenting to be around it." What about those who can't give consent even if they wanted to? "

samwise!! have you been taking helen keller out to bars?!

5/14/2009 1:23:28 PM

i think smokers' justifications for smoking are amusing - it all boils down to

Quote :

"you can't tell me what to do damnit!"

i view these people as having a lower intelligence level typically

5/14/2009 1:24:51 PM

Willy Nilly

are you willing to place a bet here that the bill will not be overturned?

If so lets do the thing, or if not you can admit you don't actually believe it will be overturned.

5/14/2009 1:25:52 PM

^^^ but seriously little babies in bars is sad. but that speaks to a different problem

^^ dude, dnl comment much?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:26:02 PM

^^^
I see it the complete opposite. People like you must be too dumb to understand freedom and liberty.

Quote :

"Second-hand smoke is not relevant at all because those around it are consenting to be around it"

Quote :

"What about those who can't give consent even if they wanted to?"

Then they don't consent. Children, for example, can't consent for the same reason they can't consent to having sex. Under no circumstances should children be exposed for long periods of time to second-hand smoke, because they can't consent.

5/14/2009 1:26:43 PM

^2 hahahaha that's great.

Just playing Devil's advocate. Because honestly, that consent statement is such bullshit. Like someone said, silence =/= consent... You have to remember there are some people who can't communicate to you it's unhealthy for them.

^ Um.. then why did you insinuate that those people are consenting to being around it?? (I'm pretty sure it was you who said it... and if wasn't, that question is directed to whoever did say it. I don't feel like looking through all these damn pages!!)





[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : f.]

5/14/2009 1:26:47 PM

Quote :

"If I'm out with someone that doesn't smoke, I ask them if they mind, and if they do I don't smoke, to me its not that big of a deal"

When that happens, do you go somewhere else in the bar to smoke? I've had people walk over to where I'm sitting on several occasions to smoke, and they cop an attitude with me when I tell them I don't want them smoking beside me. They won't smoke in front of their own friends that they came to the bar with, yet they expect others to deal with the smoke even when it bothers them.

5/14/2009 1:27:35 PM

^^^^^^Ok you have two bars, one that allows smoking and one that doesn't, you don't like smoke because of your allergies yet you go to the smoking bar, those are the people with less then average intelligence

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ^]

5/14/2009 1:27:41 PM

5/14/2009 1:28:43 PM

^^^no i won't go elsewhere to smoke, i'll just wait until im home or not around people

5/14/2009 1:29:59 PM

Quote :

"Then they don't consent. Children, for example, can't consent for the same reason they can't consent to having sex. Under no circumstances should children be exposed for long periods of time to second-hand smoke, because they can't consent. "

this seems like a vicious cycle to me. i mean, if children can't consent and therefore shouldn't be around it, what are we going to do - start mandating how people raise their kids? i feel like theres nothing that you can do that isn't going to step on someone's rights or toes or whatever.

5/14/2009 1:31:24 PM

Quote :

"Racism, in and of itself, may be ugly, illogical and perhaps even unhealthy, but it doesn't necessarily constitute an unreasonable harm or danger to anyone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same. There is absolutely nothing unjust about racism, in and of itself. (For example, affirmative action is inescapably racist... do you oppose it?)"

Racism...it don't harm nobody. Lynching, much? Fuck you for even saying it harms no one.





[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM. Reason : go to http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/lynching.jpg if you care.]

5/14/2009 1:32:28 PM

Quote :

"are you willing to place a bet here that the bill will not be overturned? If so lets do the thing, or if not you can admit you don't actually believe it will be overturned."

SO TUFF!

"are you willing to place a bet here that the bill will not be overturned" = "let's meet in person to fight!"

"if not you can admit you don't actually believe it will be overturned" = "if you don't meet me to fight, then you're a pussy"

You are fucking sad, you chest-beating loser.

Quote :

"you cannot FUCKING say racism harms no one....Racism...it don't harm nobody. Lynching, much? Fuck you for even saying it harms no one."

I didn't. I said that racism, in and of itself, harms no one. How am I wrong?
(By the way, fuck you for assuming to know what I meant.)

Quote :

"this seems like a vicious cycle to me. i mean, if children can't consent and therefore shouldn't be around it, what are we going to do - start mandating how people raise their kids? i feel like theres nothing that you can do that isn't going to step on someone's rights or toes or whatever."

You don't have to mandate "how people raise their kids" specifically, just recognize that kids are individuals that have rights, and if someone else does something that unreasonable harms or endangers them, it is wrong. Pretty simple, really.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 1:33:56 PM

Not even worth it anymore. You're fucking retarded.
Continue with the lolz of chit chat.

5/14/2009 1:36:15 PM

^you look familiar. did you take engineering 101?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:37 PM. Reason : i mean]

5/14/2009 1:37:00 PM

Yea, long long ago in 2002-land

5/14/2009 1:39:15 PM

^4 .... How is that not the same thing? It's still racism no matter how you word it... "In and of itself" means with respect to its inherent nature, and racism's nature is typically hate and bigotry..


Also -- what if you're discussing someone who is old enough to have the right to not consent to being around smoke but can't communicate it with you?

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:39:26 PM

I think I'm going to start a deck and patio business.

5/14/2009 1:41:40 PM

^ftw!

5/14/2009 1:43:57 PM

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 1:44:21 PM

Thanks, Samwise16. Just give up on him, though. He's SO TUFF

5/14/2009 1:44:29 PM

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : *]

5/14/2009 1:44:53 PM

i fucking love it. i'm going to start re-watching all my Dawson's Creek DVDs now.

5/14/2009 1:45:36 PM