8

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM. Reason : djeternal pwnt]

5/14/2009 1:45:55 PM

8.02

5/14/2009 1:46:18 PM

5/14/2009 1:47:50 PM

lol, wut?

5/14/2009 1:49:47 PM

I am still stumbling over this whole consent thing...

Let's say I call a group of friends up to go out and we decide as a group to go to a bar. Under the current law, that bar can permit smoking inside the building at the business owner's discretion.

By agreeing to go out with a group of friends to a smoking bar, is one not consenting to subjecting themselves to smoke?

If it bothered them that much, would they still patronize the place that bothers them?

I don't care what anyone says. If one, as a legal adult, goes into a place of business that ALLOWS SMOKING, they are consenting to being around smoke.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head about what business they go to.

HOWEVER, it is a different story if I was to take my child (or anyone else that could not communicate consent, e.g. handicapped, etc.) into said business that allowed smoking. That is wrong.

It would have the same intent of the law to enact legislation that would not allow anyone under age 18 into a place of business that allowed smoking due to the fact that one has to be 18 to purchase cigarettes or cigars.

I look at it the same way that fredbot3000 looks at visiting restaurants that have peanuts. He chooses not to go there because of his allergy. If someone is that affected by cigarette smoke, there would already be more "cool" non-smoking bars because of free-market enterprise.

I don't smoke. I used to smoke. I don't have a problem with people smoking around me and I will continue to consent to be around people smoking.

Next the government will be telling me that I can't chew tobacco in public because the smell of my receptacle offends someone.

5/14/2009 1:50:15 PM

Quote :

"HOWEVER, it is a different story if I was to take my child (or anyone else that could not communicate consent, e.g. handicapped, etc.) into said business that allowed smoking. That is wrong."

That was my whole point.

5/14/2009 1:51:37 PM

Quote :

"^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.."

racism + action ≠ racism
Also, hate and bigotry, in and of themselves, are not wrong, nor do they unreasonably harm or endanger anyone.

"In and of itself" means just it, "in a vacuum". As such, racist, sexism, hate, bigotry, etc. are all merely thoughts -- and every single individual has the inalienably right to think whatever they wish.

Quote :

"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?"

Well, in this case, the implied consent is in the form of where you position yourself, so a better example would be a physically-impaired person who not only can't move freely on their own, but is positioned around smoke by someone else, and can't otherwise communicate with you. And in that case, we must assume that no consent is given. If you can't consent, you don't consent. The person who wheeled them into the smoky bar is at fault, because they are forcing the physically-impaired person to be around smoke without their consent.

Quote :

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

You're the one that asks questions but doesn't want the answers. I bet that I hate racism even more than you do... but it seems that you'd never understand how that could be possible with what I've said. If you were smart and open-minded, you'd not run away from the discussion assuming that you're right and I'm wrong. Unless you listen to and refute those that disagree with you, they win.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 1:51:40 PM

I'm looking forward to some point over the next week or so when I light up a cigarette in a bar and some uninformed patron lets me know that the smoking ban passed and therefore I'm breaking a law, so I can calmly explain to them that the law doesn't go into effect for over 6 months

5/14/2009 1:56:38 PM

^2 Well then you needed to be more specific concerning your comment with the second-hand smoke. The way it was stated didn't involve these issues with those who can't consent, so maybe you shouldn't make such a generalized statement... (Or whoever wrote it.)

As for racism, yes they consist of thoughts -- but those thoughts can harm people severely, even if it's just emotional harm. For example, what if someone is just talking to themselves, thinking out loud if you will, and it's a very racist comment that someone hears and is hurt by -- that's still just that person's thoughts and they didn't mean for anyone else to hear them but someone did. So how is it that you think simple thoughts can't hurt someone? The thoughts can be released in some way, even if they weren't meant to... therefore racism = damaging.


This is a stupid argument, none of yall are going to agree.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : carats, bleh]

5/14/2009 1:56:43 PM

Quote :

"If someone is that affected by cigarette smoke, there would already be more "cool" non-smoking bars because of free-market enterprise."

It takes a VERY long time (approaching never sometimes) to change the status quo. Under the current law, it is an added level of risk for any new bar to not be smoking and not offer some other incentive to go/be there. Look up the prisoners dilemma. As it is, a currently bar owner has no choice but to be a smoking bar unless he can make his bar so exclusive that the patrons wouldn't have a problem not smoking to come there.

5/14/2009 1:57:04 PM

Quote :

"I look at it the same way that fredbot3000 looks at visiting restaurants that have peanuts. He chooses not to go there because of his allergy."

Other people eating peanuts cause his allergies to be triggered? Am I reading that right, or am I just retarded (quite possibly the case).

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : x]

5/14/2009 1:58:53 PM

well, yeah. if they left the peanuts in the shells and didn't mess with them, then the dust wouldn't be in the air, and i'd be be able to breathe just fine.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM. Reason : tiny-ass blackberry keybord]

5/14/2009 1:59:56 PM

Wow, I had never heard of that. I just figured you would have to eat the peanuts themselves for the adverse reaction.

Learn something new every day.

5/14/2009 2:00:53 PM

Quote :

"As for racism, yes they consist of thoughts -- but those thoughts can harm people severely, even if it's just emotional harm. For example, what if someone is just talking to themselves, thinking out loud if you will, and it's a very racist comment that someone hears and is hurt by -- that's still just that person's thoughts and they didn't mean for anyone else to hear them but someone did. So how is it that you think simple thoughts can't hurt someone? The thoughts can be released in some way, even if they weren't meant to... therefore racism = damaging."

Ah, but you missed the distinction there. When you speak, that is an action. When thoughts are released, they are released through actions.
Therefore racism = thought = not damaging.

Besides, speech, (again, in and of itself,) is not harmful either, although I suspect you'll disagree.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 2:00:58 PM

FUCK DIS BAN, YO

5/14/2009 2:01:10 PM

Quote :

"CRAZY PEANUT DUST"

5/14/2009 2:01:22 PM

Quote :

"As it is, a currently bar owner has no choice but to be a smoking bar unless he can make his bar so exclusive that the patrons wouldn't have a problem not smoking to come there."

I disagree. If the bar owner's target market is the non-smokers, that would be the way his advertising is directed.

Quote :

"Steven Adams owns the Peak City Grill and Bar, 126 N Salem St. in Apex. The ex-smoker prohibited smoking inside his establishment when he opened three years ago both because 80 percent of the public are nonsmokers, but also out of concern for his own health and that of his workers. “If you assume one out of four people smoke, I’ll go for the other three and it has paid off,” Adams said. The non-smoking atmosphere is why Judy Hendrickson said she likes Peak City. "I have allergies and cigarette smoke, or tobacco smoke of any kind, is a real problem for me,” Hendrickson said."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/5138427/

The point I am trying to make is that there already ARE non-smoking bars. Why all the complaints about bars that allow smoking when you have other choices?

5/14/2009 2:03:00 PM

Quote :

"Why all the complaints about bars that allow smoking when you have other choices? "

Because they are selfish and only care about getting their way.

5/14/2009 2:04:18 PM

I'm ok with that.

5/14/2009 2:06:50 PM

Okay WN. Racism all by itself, with no talking about it, no writing about it, is fine. Keep the nasty racism thoughts locked away in your head, and it's fine.

Smoking and drinking BY THEMSELVES, in your terminology, "in a vacuum" will hurt only the smoker/drinker. But we know most people don't smoke/drink alone all the time. Otherwise there would be no need for a smoking ban, or any kind of drinking laws.

Therefore -- smoking/drinking do cause harm to others, either emotional or physical. As a recipient of 2nd-hand smoke, I'm not consenting. I want pancakes, so I go to IHOP. And look, a smoking section. I go to class, I pass smokers in front of my building. I didn't consent to that. I'm driving in my car and a smoker lobs a cigarette back at me; the smell infiltrates the car. I didn't consent to that. You can't say the people around smokers are consenting in all situations.

And I disagree that smoking/drinking cause no harm to "society in general." We, as taxpayers, end up paying for health costs, higher insurance, and prisoners who chose to drink and drive, or beat the fuck out of someone b/c they were wasted, or any number of crimes.


But you go on with your "in and of itself" argument. Enjoy drinking and smoking alone so you can prove me wrong and say it hurts no one.


It won't get overturned, it's basic Constitutional rights that allow states to make their own laws.

Drinking in public probably should be legal, yea. Restaurants/bars should be able to choose if they allow smoking. But it isn't, and they don't, b/c with our freedoms come responsibilities. Read IRSeriousCat.

5/14/2009 2:08:24 PM

lol at this thread exploding

5/14/2009 2:09:02 PM

5/14/2009 2:09:42 PM

Fuck getting stuck at the end of a page.

5/14/2009 2:10:03 PM

i swear i don't live in the same world as a lot of you people.

in what world are "reasonable" and "unreasonable" so easily quantified (or quantified at ALL)? they aren't objective. maybe when you get to extreme degrees they become more objective (killing is wrong), but what about the middle ground? i'm glad things are so clear to other people. i must be doing something wrong.

in what world is everything so compartmentalized? in what world is speech just speech, thoughts just thoughts, etc? its great to talk about speech being, in and of itself, unharmful. but this isn't the way human beings operate.

hello. i am on earth. where are you?

5/14/2009 2:14:42 PM

Peak City is a restaurant first and a bar second, they also aren't cheap and are really the only upscale restaurant in downtown Apex, or anywhere in Apex really, so it is no surprise they are managing without having to fuck with the smokers. At least, he says they are doing ok, I know for the better part of the past 6 months when we drive by there on our way to mexican food, it doesn't seem nearly as frequented as it was a couple years ago.

5/14/2009 2:15:57 PM

i'm with you cadwall. that's what i keep thinking as i read this. it's so black and white to these people. must be nice.

5/14/2009 2:16:53 PM

It isn't. You're absolutely right, but there is no point arguing with Willy Nilly on this. He thinks as long as you live in your hermit hut in the middle of the woods, everything is a'okay.
But we don't live alone. We are all connected. So...I just give up. Nothing is reasonable in one way and unreasonable in another way. The world is not black & white like answers to a math problem. Everything is affected by everything else.

5/14/2009 2:16:55 PM

I'll tell you what's black and white... I LOVE this ban. The fact that it upsets a subset of people that I generally fucking hate makes it even better.

Oh and anything that gets Willy Nilly all bent out of shape is just awesome too.

5/14/2009 2:20:06 PM

I love the ban, too, like I first said. Now I can go play pool w/the friends, eat pancakes in happiness, and go to the Saucer in the winter.

5/14/2009 2:21:22 PM

it must suck to hate a group of people just because they smoke

5/14/2009 2:21:50 PM

It's pretty awesome actually, you should try it.

5/14/2009 2:22:21 PM

Yep, they should all go die in a fire. A big tobacco fire. That's what all of us non-smokers believe!

5/14/2009 2:22:57 PM

careful, the fire might make your clothes smell like an ashtray

5/14/2009 2:24:32 PM

Ooh, good point. I'll get naked first.

5/14/2009 2:25:17 PM

i have friends that smoke, friends that don't smoke and i love being naked

i'm pretty cool, i think.

5/14/2009 2:26:09 PM

We can disagree about this ban, but at least we can all agree that DeltaBeta is an unapologetically selfish loser and jerk.

5/14/2009 2:27:08 PM

I don't understand why everyone is getting all pissed about this, it is going to be passed and won't be overturned. Do you have to chain smoke when you go to a bar? How much trouble is it to go outside to have a smoke? The only people who should be mad is the bar owners. Especially if they think it will hurt their business. But for the bar patrons, ah damn you have to walk outside to smoke, I for one don't care, i'd rather not annoy people who don't smoke, but then again if I'm in a bar with a cloud of smoke around me, me smoking isn't get further the damage to other people.

5/14/2009 2:27:17 PM

Quote :

"The only people who should be mad is the bar owners."

Translation: I don't understand the issue.

5/14/2009 2:28:33 PM

^you have legs you can walk outside to smoke, its a state law, you bitchin on TWW isn't gonna change anything

5/14/2009 2:30:27 PM

bar owners bitching will get loopholes opened

5/14/2009 2:31:06 PM

^yes bar owners, not willy nilly

5/14/2009 2:31:36 PM

Quote :

"you have legs you can walk outside to smoke, its a state law, you bitchin on TWW isn't gonna change anything"

you have legs you can walk outside to a non-smoking bar, it's an unjust state law, you bitchin on TWW isn't gonna change anything

5/14/2009 2:33:03 PM

it looks like this thread is about as trolled as the airplane on a treadmill thread... that was a hilarious thread... this one... eh

5/14/2009 2:33:59 PM

I do smoke, and if the bar allows smoking, I will smoke, but if there is a law saying I can't, I will go outside, as it stands there will be a ban, so I'm not bitching, you are

5/14/2009 2:35:38 PM

can i take the dart board out with me for my smoke
me and my dart throwing buddies usually fill up an ashtray about 1 hour in our games

5/14/2009 2:36:49 PM

^does your aim improve by smoking, mine seems to get better as I drink lol

5/14/2009 2:38:00 PM

Let's just get this straight one more time:

SMOKERS: QUIT BITCHING! IT'S A DONE DEAL! YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING IMPEDED UPON, YOU CAN STILL SMOKE.

NON-SMOKERS: BREATHE DEEP, AND ENJOY THE CLEAN[er] AIR. AND DON'T RUB IT IN.

5/14/2009 2:38:20 PM

i win.

5/14/2009 2:38:58 PM

^^where do i fall into that, im a smoker but im fine with the ban

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ^]

5/14/2009 2:39:29 PM

still smells like stale urine

5/14/2009 2:41:06 PM