Printable View
Proprietors should be allowed to determine whether or not you are allowed to smoke in their establishment. Then people could make up their own minds about whether or not they choose to go to that establishment. Employees could choose whether or not they want to work at that establishment. It's called freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Core American values, last time I checked.
You guys are all like "Fuck The Man...except when it's convenient for me." What bullshit.
I think the next ban on in bar activity will be alcohol.
That shit can kill you, ya know.
PS - although initially against these bans on free market reasons, the end result is actually quite pleasant - no more stinky clothes and hair is nice.
Sadly, this 25 feet rule seems to prevent the patio smoking areas which are ideal - not on the street, but still an outdoor smoking area.
I'm going to the bar to drink my liver to death, drive home drunk, then have unprotected sex with some girl I met tonight, but you can go to hell if you think you're going to make me breathe that filthy second hand smoke!
Seriously though, Minneapolis has had a ban on smoking in public places for a year and St. Paul for 2. It's killed a few bars, but people will always want to go out on the weekends to drink and socialize. As a non-smoker, I think it's great. On the other hand when I go to a bar, I expect it to be smokey, dirty, and filled with cheap booze & under-dressed women. The bar is my sanctuary for vice and wrong-doing. Smoking doesn't happen to be one of them, but at least let the bars cater to those who do. Give them a patio.
On a seperate issue, I saw a comercial over Thanksgiving with All three Bushs, two clintons, and a few other politicians saying that smoking is bad for you and asking people to quit. If the govermnent knows it's bad for you and thinks you should quit, then make smoking illegal instead of being a pussy about it and making it illegal for people to smoke where they want. That's like making cocaine legal, but making it illegal for people to snort it off a stripper's ass.
yeah, I know it's all about the $$$ but it's still bullshit.
The voice of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
I do like the no smoke in my clothes smell. Just stale beer and a little vomit now.
Up here proprieters didn't want to go smoke free and most cities/towns decided they weren't into regulating behaviour (Vancouver excepted). Then the WCB declared it a workplace health issue and imposed smokefree on everybody. Unless you have no employees -- then it's still up to you. Outdoor patios became really popular too.
I live in a town that went non-smoking in June ( a pre-emptive strike before the provincial law shows up) and I am happy for it. We originally had a 6 metre rule (20 feet) and it was trashed because the only place you could smoke down town was in the street. The bylaw also stated that the proprietor of the bar/restaurant had to enforce the rule, very stupid. Either way the no snoking is great and now people don't congregate right in the door way because the bars have put benches out at the edge of the sidewalk and a few feet to the side of the door which seems to work.
I also think I don't get as hung over with out the smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Bingo......
This is an OSHA thing, nothing more. There's literally thousands of workplace safety laws and this is another one. If we could pass a law banning coal mine cave-ins we would; we can't, so we put laws in place requiring a minimum amount of precautionary measures in order to allow coal miners to work in the field of their choice in as safe conditions as is economically rational and generally feasible. The smoking ban costs nothing to implement, may actually help businesses by bringing non-smokers back to bars, and has obvious positive health benefits. It is idiotic not to put it into place.
Bingo ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
I have to disagree on that one Steven & Lan. The smoking ban has not helped bars in the least. I know of bars around Boston, for example, that lost approximately 50% of their bar business when the local bans went into effect prior to the statewide ban. The statewide ban did very little in helping them regain those lost customers, and as a result the number of non-smokers that are now encouraged to attend the bar is negligible in comparison to the amount of customers that were lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by LAN
I do agree about the obvious positive health benefits (who doesn't?), but it has certainly not come without a cost to the bars.
So smokers just stopped going to bars because they couldn't smoke there? I don't buy it. They just started going to bars with nicer outdoor spaces. So those bars were probably helped by the ban, right? There may be a redistribution of bar traffic, but I'm sure there's just as many people going to bars as there were before, if not more. Just out of curiosity, and not challenging you at all, but what bars around Boston lost that much business because of the ban? As a native, I'm interested to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Dogg
edit: additionally, we're only a couple years out on this ban. Just as you can't get lung cancer in a day, so too can't you know the full effect of the measure that soon.
Well, it is the truth. Whether or not you are right about them heading for bars with nicer outdoor spaces, I can't say... I don't have a tracking device on the drunk smokers :p . A good example for you would be Good Times in Somerville, which at one point was selling more beer than anywhere in New England over the course of a year (obviously places like Gillette sell more during football season)...their smoking clientele left and the majority did not return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
The Good Times emporium is closed!? What the hell am I going to do with all these tokens? Where am I going to get my laser tag fix? Where am I going to watch fat Italian girls from Chelsea sing karaoke? You're right, this is a commonwealth-wide tragedy.
Furthermore, it's because of people like you that my drunk smoker tracking device business failed miserably. A pox upon your house.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__200x297.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhaa.
I didn't say that Good Times closed, and in fact it hasn't. It is not my type of establishment, but there is nowhere in the Boston area that can beat it for what it offers...100,000 sq. ft. of ways to waste your money. I'm not saying they are great contributors to the commonwealth, but that goes for every bar in the area. Good Times wasn't the only bar in town to take a hit from the smoking ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
I certainly support any smoking ban in all bars/restaurants and other public buildings. The 25' rule is pretty out there and I think really will just work against the success of the law in the long run. It will cause too much dissent, animosity and rebellion to have any value and could provide the means to legally challenge and overturn the whole law. That would be ashame. 5' from a doorway is enough to make sure they aren't standing in the door to stay warm.
You want to smoke, pollute your own lungs and do it outside, 25' doesn't improve that for anyone really.
It's a typically Seattle suckbag liberal move. I voted against it and I think it's a stupid law.
There's enough non smoking bars. If you don't want smoke on you, don't go to smoking bars. It's about personal choice, something we're losing as a culture.
You lie. You love it. Do they still run illegal card games there on Tuesdays? I wasn't making fun of you, just the GTE itself. If any business goes under because of government imposed standards that make their business model unworkable, that's too bad, but I think there's a greater good here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Dogg
Z- wreckuneyze!
BH: sometimes the government oversteps its bounds and restricts behavior that isn't really harming anyone, but I don't think this is one of those times. . I don't think this is or should be about what patrons want, because you're right, they have a choice and can drink where they want. People don't necessarily have a real choice over where they work; if the best job they can get is waitstaffing someplace they should be able to have that job unencumbered by easily eliminated health risks.
Them's my guns and I'm stickin to em.
well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
fuck the pussies who can't handle a little smoke. Human beings have been living in smoke for as long as we've used fire to warm ourselves.
It's a slippery slope people, when you start deciding to limit someone's freedom in a public place so weak, whiney pussies don't have to do laundry or deal with a smell they don't like. Fuck off commies, fuck off. :the_finge
Here’s the part the smokers need to get…
If you want to smoke, great...but if somebody else is effected by it (smells/inhales), then that shit is fucked up. What if sniffing paint was legal like cigarettes? Would it be cool if I stood next to you and started sniffing my paint and the shit got all over you? Then to top it off, I was like "too bad fucker…it’s a free world!".
This is the part that gets me the maddest. Smokers think they have a god-given right to fuck up somebody else’s oxygen. Sure you have a right to choose to smoke, but once you leave your home and step into the public…you just don’t have this same right.
The reason they don’t want you to smoke near the windows and the doors is because the smoke can blow back in and it kinda defeats the purpose of the whole ban in the first place.
The smoker’s philosophy shouldn’t be that the second hand smoke isn’t as bad if they’re outside… it should be that if they‘re going to smoke, nobody but them (and other smokers) should have to breathe it (thus not doing it by doors and windows). Period.
My vote for a future law on cigarettes…A TOTAL BAN, with the exception of defined smoke shops/bars and at home. Smoke in public, get a ticket. Write those fuckers up that throw their ciggys out the window too!
Now commonlaw, if you really want to fight for a cause, fight to legalize marijuana. Put an age limit on and treat it like alcohol.
The hypocrisy must end!
Disclaimer: I don’t hate smokers…I just don’t like the rude ones that do it around me and then act like I’m the asshole.
I completely disagree. It tramples on personal choiuce and responsibility in a big way and establishes nanny controls. It's a very bad precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
There's a smidge of weight to the employee claim. But then again, it's a matter of choice in that regard too.Quote:
I don't think this is or should be about what patrons want, because you're right, they have a choice and can drink where they want. People don't necessarily have a real choice over where they work; if the best job they can get is waitstaffing someplace they should be able to have that job unencumbered by easily eliminated health risks.
Them's my guns and I'm stickin to em.
This is the kind of crappy Seattle law that's so typical of the pseudo liberals here.
disclaimer: I don't hate communists...I just don't like the rude ones that think they're entitled to a smokeless bubble around them wherever they go and force their attitude of entitlement on the rest of us then act like I'm the asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrider
This is the same kind of bullshit argument we get everytime there's a wildfire near a city, thousands of pussies calling the forest service demanding the smoke-free air they're entitled to....smoke is part of the natural environment, get over it pussies.
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
I actually voted it down too, mostly because of the 25 ft rule. At least this way the corporations won't have to think for themselves any more than they do now... I dunnoe
If the end goal is to lose smoking as a culture, than I think it's smart to start to think more towards those ends. I don't think we (as a corporation) can beat smoking on it's own terms. Think of all the smoking enforcement job oportunities it will create! ;)
The ban is Washington State, not City of Seattle. I am not one to advocate government control, but in this case I agree with the ban. There is no right of anyone to put toxic vapors in the air where others may be forced to breathe them. If you do it burning any other substance than tobacco, you are breaking the law. Why should tobacco be any different? It is not about individual choice, it is about what you do to others.
I just spent 10 days in Europe. I had expected the opportunity to enjoy good meals. I was sorely disappointed because every single opportunity, even the best restaurants, were polluted and foul. As were the airports, train stations, hotel rooms - it is not possible there to escape the poison. My travelling partner suffers from respiratory problems. She spent much of our trip ill, often incapacitated, because of the crap she was forced to breathe. There is no personal choice in that.
People may have a right to smoke, but they have no right to force others to smoke as well.
Yeti, don’t be an idiot.
Comparing non-smokers (of cigs) to a communist is just plain stupid. Same goes for comparing a forest fire to this topic. Surely you can come up with something better than that.
Ps. NEWS FLASH to Yeti and Buster.
You are NOT the only ones that live on this planet. I know it would be great if we could all do whatever we want whenever we want regardless of how it affects other people but that just aint the way shit should work. Ever heard of Respect Thy Neighbor? I know it’s a mature concept…maybe it will come to you guys in time. :)
Doesn't this work in reverse towards smokers as well? Or don't they count....Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrider
Not advocating or dis approving, just wondering.