Smoking bans in bars

[longdistancewinner]

Methinks I do exactly what everyone does to me. I return fire just as others do. Nothing I say is personal or has been an attack thus far and my posts won't be like that until someone decides to do so to me.

Yes, I'm outspoken. But I think it's more noticeable to you because I'm arguing from the opposite side. You have 3 or 4 on yours, whereas no one is coming from my angle save myself. So of course my posts are going to seem heated, but in reeality they are not.

I'm very interested in politics. Look, I've been here for going on 4 years or so. One can only talk about Led Zeppelin so much before the topic becomes boring, which it most definitely has for me.

As far as the game, I'm simply saying that this is how debates/discussions work online. My apologies if i didn't make that clear.

I heard you and I appreciate it,

I tell you what, I'll apologise for being a moody bitch, and we'll leave it at that...

[Patrycja]

To be honest though, I think I'll take the lung cancer. You can live and lose a lung with lung cancer, but try living and losing half your jaw with oral cancer.

This is one of the most careless, asinine statements yet written here.

[wanna be drummer]

This is one of the most careless, asinine statements yet written here.

If I had to choose between one or the other, it'd be lung.

What's careless about that?

[Patrycja]

If I had to choose between one or the other, it'd be lung.

What's careless about that?

sorry, touchy subject for me, just pray you never have to find out what lung cancer can do to you

[JimmyPage1977]

Ok this is your second post in a row that was made simply to make me look like a dick and yet it contains no information whatsoever for either side. Your point please?

That is not true! The posts were designed to show you how your generalizations and poor comparisons are not convincing anyone that your opinion is right. If you made a valid comparison that could be taken seriously it might help your argument, but the fact is, you're wrong on this issue. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, but in order to convince others to come over to your way of thinking you would have to use logical points.

I understand that you don't want the government involved in private business, but like I said before...

it is government's business to ensure public safety and that is what this ban is all about.

[wanna be drummer]

sorry, touchy subject for me, just pray you never have to find out what lung cancer can do to you

Oh I'm not trying to downplay what it's like, sorry if I came off like that.

That is not true! The posts were designed to show you how your generalizations and poor comparisons are not convincing anyone that your opinion is right. If you made a valid comparison that could be taken seriously it might help your argument, but the fact is, you're wrong on this issue. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, but in order to convince others to come over to your way of thinking you would have to use logical points.

There is no right or wrong since there are no "facts" merely observations, opinions, and ideals.

And once again (third time in a row i believe), you've yet to post anything regarding the discussion. Instead, you're arguing on how to argue, which is needless to say off-topic.

I understand that you don't want the government involved in private business, but like I said before...

it is government's business to ensure public safety and that is what this ban is all about.

Only to a certain extent. They shouldn't protect us from ourselves, but from others. This ban does not do that, as we all have the capability to realize there's risk in going into a cigarette-smoke-filled bar. This ban is just like the seatbelt laws. You have to wear one to protect yourself says big brother. Well thanks, but I'll take my chances, you don't have to hold my hand. We take risks everyday. If the government was to simply go after "risk" then they'd also have to ban things such as gambling, because they're "protecting the public."

It's not in protecting the public that I see error in the government, but who they're protecting people from. I draw the line at myself. If I want to hurt myself or take chances that might hurt myself, then so be it. The government should not have a say there.

[BIGDAN]

How about a ban on farting in public places?

Killer, well done 'Jahfin'.

Or is that "Second Hand Smoke" he's blowing out of his arse?

[Electrophile]

This ban is just like the seatbelt laws. You have to wear one to protect yourself says big brother. Well thanks, but I'll take my chances, you don't have to hold my hand.

Considering the number of people who die each year in traffic accidents as a result of not wearing a seat belt, I find your attitude toward the issue very cavalier.

[JimmyPage1977]

There is no right or wrong since there are no "facts" merely observations, opinions, and ideals.

And once again (third time in a row i believe), you've yet to post anything regarding the discussion. Instead, you're arguing on how to argue, which is needless to say off-topic.

Only to a certain extent. They shouldn't protect us from ourselves, but from others. This ban does not do that, as we all have the capability to realize there's risk in going into a cigarette-smoke-filled bar. This ban is just like the seatbelt laws. You have to wear one to protect yourself says big brother. Well thanks, but I'll take my chances, you don't have to hold my hand. We take risks everyday. If the government was to simply go after "risk" then they'd also have to ban things such as gambling, because they're "protecting the public."

It's not in protecting the public that I see error in the government, but who they're protecting people from. I draw the line at myself. If I want to hurt myself or take chances that might hurt myself, then so be it. The government should not have a say there.

You say that I have three posts straight without discussing the issue and then quote my opinion on the issue ( which is in my last post) and disagree with it, with yet another BAD COMPARISON.

Protecting the public from irresponsible people's second hand smoke is not the same as making you protect yourself with a seatbelt when riding in a car. The facts are that it IS unhealthy to inhale second hand smoke...100% OF THE TIME. Riding in a car without a seatbelt is only unhealthy if the car crashes (and gambling only hurts if you lose). I still like the seatbelt law even though it's a pain in the rear to wear one. The fact is that it saves lives and so will the smoking ban in bars. The rare occurrence where not wearing a safety belt is so rare that it's beneath consideration. I had a high school friend get launched out of her front windshield and her family will testify that a secured seatbelt would have saved her.

Here's the bottom line:

Can you say that being exposed to second hand smoke is healthy?

If not, can you say that it's all right to expose others to unhealthy situations?

Just don't go there, right?

The best places to see live music is a bar, why should non-smokers be required to breathe second hand smoke in order to enjoy the benefits of that establishment when the simple (and fair) solution to that issue is to have the smokers step outside to smoke?

You certainly are touchy... I thought that I was being fairly pleasant.

[Babs]

You say that I have three posts straight without discussing the issue and then quote my opinion on the issue ( which is in my last post) and disagree with it, with yet another BAD COMPARISON.

Protecting the public from irresponsible people's second hand smoke is not the same as making you protect yourself with a seatbelt when riding in a car. The facts are that it IS unhealthy to inhale second hand smoke...100% OF THE TIME. Riding in a car without a seatbelt is only unhealthy if the car crashes (and gambling only hurts if you lose). I still like the seatbelt law even though it's a pain in the rear to wear one. The fact is that it saves lives and so will the smoking ban in bars. The rare occurrence where not wearing a safety belt is so rare that it's beneath consideration. I had a high school friend get launched out of her front windshield and her family will testify that a secured seatbelt would have saved her.

Here's the bottom line:

Can you say that being exposed to second hand smoke is healthy?

If not, can you say that it's all right to expose others to unhealthy situations?

Just don't go there, right?

The best places to see live music is a bar, why should non-smokers be required to breathe second hand smoke in order to enjoy the benefits of that establishment when the simple (and fair) solution to that issue is to have the smokers step outside to smoke?

You certainly are touchy... I thought that I was being fairly pleasant.

Good post

And lets also not forget about the working people in said bars. They should be allowed to work in a healthy smoke free environment.

[ally]

I can see where this can become a freedom of speech issue. I think the best solution for both protection of human rights and protection of innocent people falling victim to drunk drivers is (and i'm serious) employ a police officer to give sobriety tests or a breathalyzer test as patrons leave a bar. The extra funding for this could come out of an admission fee to enter each establishment so it doesn't effect the taxpayers. May sound a bit radical, but just a thought

Maybe handing out some serious punishment to fit the crime would be a better all round way of handling that one. Too many loopholes in the law at the moment and too many getting away with only a slap on the wrist. Maybe impowering the patron to make a responsible decision prior to going to a bar or restraunt would come more easily if he or she knew that some serious consequences would be handed out. Too many still think they can get away with it. Personally, when anyone comes over to my house for drinks etc. I make them hand over their key's unless they have come and are going to leave with someone who isn't drinking.

Back to the smoking issue. I will be going to the pub tonight. I will be sitting inside in a smoke free enviroment and on occation, will be joining the line of people walking outside for a smoke. Everyone of us will at some point look at each other and say..." Damn, it's time I quit ". The interior ban is enough. Everything else IMHO, is just overkill but it sure fit's nicely with the governments court case against BIG TOBACCO. Otherwise, I really don't think they'd give rats ass about smoking TBH

[redrum]

You think Keith Richards will ever quit?

And what does all that unfiltered mari-JU-ana do to your lungs?

[wanna be drummer]

Considering the number of people who die each year in traffic accidents as a result of not wearing a seat belt, I find your attitude toward the issue very cavalier.

I'm not advising people to go about not wearing seatbelts, but not everyone cares for them (my dad comes to thought) and I don't think the government has the authority to make you pay them hundreds of dollars for not putting one on.

You say that I have three posts straight without discussing the issue and then quote my opinion on the issue ( which is in my last post) and disagree with it, with yet another BAD COMPARISON.

Protecting the public from irresponsible people's second hand smoke is not the same as making you protect yourself with a seatbelt when riading in a car. The facts are that it IS unhealthy to inhale second hand smoke...100% OF THE TIME. Riding in a car without a seatbelt is only unhealthy if the car crashes (and gambling only hurts if you lose). I still like the seatbelt law even though it's a pain in the rear to wear one. The fact is that it saves lives and so will the smoking ban in bars. The rare occurrence where not wearing a safety belt is so rare that it's beneath consideration. I had a high school friend get launched out of her front windshield and her family will testify that a secured seatbelt would have saved her.

If we're going to get technical, then gambling is bad 100% of the time as well, because if you're winning, that means others are losing. Also, continuing to gamble (even if you're winning which most people do not) is addicting and eventually it will all come and crash down on you. See Pete Rose.

Here's the bottom line:

Can you say that being exposed to second hand smoke is healthy?

Hell no.

If not, can you say that it's all right to expose others to unhealthy situations?

Are others choosing to be around it or not?

Just don't go there, right?

Yes

The best places to see live music is a bar, why should non-smokers be required to breathe second hand smoke in order to enjoy the benefits of that establishment when the simple (and fair) solution to that issue is to have the smokers step outside to smoke?

Why don't non-smokers make a smoke-free bar if they care that much?

Just because it's inconvenient for people to go to said bars, doesn't mean the rules should just up and change because they want them to. They shouldn't be allowed to just rid the owner of his rights of private ownership.

You certainly are touchy... I thought that I was being fairly pleasant.

Scotty, I've seen your posts for years now. You've changed bruh.

Good post

And lets also not forget about the working people in said bars. They should be allowed to work in a healthy smoke free environment.

They should be allowed to work where they wish, which they do. If smoke bothers you, don't work in a bar. Plain and simple.

On a different note, is anyone going to answer my question from before? Should someone be allowed to build a "smoke-only" bar or restaurant?

[wanna be drummer]

You think Keith Richards will ever quit?

And what does all that unfiltered mari-JU-ana do to your lungs?

Well since no one has ever died of marijuana, I'm going to say not as much as you think.

Alcohol is far worse for ya

[Uncle Bill]

On a different note, is anyone going to answer my question from before? Should someone be allowed to build a "smoke-only" bar or restaurant?

Yes, of course, it's private property. The government should stay out of peoples private lives. The end doesn't justify means.

[wanna be drummer]

Yes, of course, it's private property. The government should stay out of peoples private lives. The end doesn't justify means.

That's what I've been saying. Still waiting on others to respond though.

[Uncle Bill]

That's what I've been saying. Still waiting on others to respond though.

I didn't want you to think you were the only libertarian around here. Carry on, you're doing a good job.

Cheers, UB

[longdistancewinner]

Well, I'm not quite sure about smoke-only bars. I guess if it's like a members club or somewhere where only smokers will attend, then I suppose it'd be okay. But if it's open to the public - no.

Restaurants, I'd have to flat-out say no. I think smoking is disgusting at the best of times, I wouldn't want it around food. And I know a lot of smokers feel the same way with regards to smoking around food. I think when it comes to food it shouldn't be allowed at all, but if it's legal, and again, a private restaurant - or whatever - then I suppose they should be allowed to do what they want. But, I personally wouldn't want it.

I suppose I don't see the point in smoke-only bars/restaurants/pubs, because we don't have them at all now.

[wanna be drummer]

I didn't want you to think you were the only libertarian around here. Carry on, you're doing a good job.

Cheers, UB

Apparently my logics off? My right to allow what I wish in my own bar is apparently trumped because some people don't want the smoke...but still want entry to my bar?

[wanna be drummer]

Well, I'm not quite sure about smoke-only bars. I guess if it's like a members club or somewhere where only smokers will attend, then I suppose it'd be okay. But if it's open to the public - no.

Why not? Can the public not make the choice of entering or not on their own?

Restaurants, I'd have to flat-out say no. I think smoking is disgusting at the best of times, I wouldn't want it around food. And I know a lot of smokers feel the same way with regards to smoking around food. I think when it comes to food it shouldn't be allowed at all, but if it's legal, and again, a private restaurant - or whatever - then I suppose they should be allowed to do what they want. But, I personally wouldn't want it.

Ah, but I know people who always smoke before they eat at a restaurant. Overall, I'd have to say that it isn't for the public to decide what happens in a bar or restaurant or what have you. It's up to the man or lady who built it. If no one likes it, then they don't go in and the establishment goes out of business and it becomes a nonissue no?

I suppose I don't see the point in smoke-only bars/restaurants/pubs, because we don't have them at all now.

I don't see the point of "Non-smoking bars" because we (for the most part) didn't have them until now. What's your point?

[Electrophile]

See, for me the issue of a "smokers-only" bar is immediately exclusionary. Non-smokers are by default, not allowed into that establishment. The people are outlawed, not their behavior.

Smokers can patronize a "non-smoking" bar, they just can't smoke. Their behavior is outlawed, not the people.

My $0.02.

[Patrycja]

Oh I'm not trying to downplay what it's like, sorry if I came off like that.

k, thanks

[wanna be drummer]

Alot of theoretical libertarian talk here but the fact remains the restrictions will only continue and areas of ANY public gathering will become more smokefree as time goes on. There will be no reversal of that.

So keep talking about your ideals of freedom but it ain't gonna happen as far as more smoking "rights".

I'm aware of the reality of thigns, but that doesn't mean it's right. The ideal of Freedom from government is the reason we have a country, and yet we are ironically, in a period of very strong government with which I take issue.

And what do you mean "right". Do you believe no one has a fundamental right to smoke if they choose to do so?

See, for me the issue of a "smokers-only" bar is immediately exclusionary. Non-smokers are by default, not allowed into that establishment. The people are outlawed, not their behavior.

That is something I can understand. But why is that so wrong? There's no prejudice on skin color or sex or anything, merely will you smoke or not?

Smokers can patronize a "non-smoking" bar, they just can't smoke. Their behavior is outlawed, not the people.

My $0.02.

But why does that matter? Why can't smokers build a place where they eat, drink, and smoke freely? Why is that wrong?

[longdistancewinner]

Why not? Can the public not make the choice of entering or not on their own?

Ah, but I know people who always smoke before they eat at a restaurant. Overall, I'd have to say that it isn't for the public to decide what happens in a bar or restaurant or what have you. It's up to the man or lady who built it. If no one likes it, then they don't go in and the establishment goes out of business and it becomes a nonissue no?

I don't see the point of "Non-smoking bars" because we (for the most part) didn't have them until now. What's your point?

This argument will always stay the same, so long as you think it's wrong to ban smoking in pubs/restaurants/clubs, and I think it's right.

My point was, though it's a valid question - as a Briton - it's a futile one. There's really not much more I care to say on the matter.

[Electrophile]

That is something I can understand. But why is that so wrong? There's no prejudice on skin color or sex or anything, merely will you smoke or not?

You're right, it's not an exclusion based on race or gender or sexual orientation or anything else of that nature.

However I take issue with establishments that open that prohibit or exclude a particular group of people from patronizing it. Obviously if you're a non-smoker you're not going to want to go there anyway, but on its face it sets bad precedents. Which is something we should want to avoid.

But why does that matter? Why can't smokers build a place where they eat, drink, and smoke freely? Why is that wrong?

I answered this question in my answer to your first question.