You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
I love, love, love this idea. I will now be purchasing very cheap, sub par, completely uncomfortable chairs for the folks I employ that must sit at terminals all day. On top of which, I will NOT buy them pads to prevent carpal tunnel. Come to think of it, I saw some old CRT's lying around that I will force them to stare at without any breaks for 15 hour work days. No air conditioning in the summer. No heat in the winter. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it - no chairs!
And f'em. They can go find one of those jobby things this new administration has created if they don't like it!
Thank you!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
I love, love, love this idea. I will now be purchasing very cheap, sub par, completely uncomfortable chairs for the folks I employ that must sit at terminals all day. On top of which, I will NOT buy them pads to prevent carpal tunnel. Come to think of it, I saw some old CRT's lying around that I will force them to stare at without any breaks for 15 hour work days. No air conditioning in the summer. No heat in the winter. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it - no chairs!
And f'em. They can go find one of those jobby things this new administration has created if they don't like it!
Thank you!
Got cha! sarcasm again
that might become a problem for you especially if you have kids one day
It's not torture or disrespect our employees...quite the opposite
Its have the right to fill our job openings with qualified employees that insure success within our personally privately owned business. Something that happens everyday.
A smoking establishment will hire only smokers or those who have no problem with second hand smoke
and cater to the customers who frequent and make his business a success. In this case smokers.
You as a non smoker can gladly take your business elsewhere.
You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
Cigar shops do allow smoking at least in my town.
I can't believe there's anther smoking thread going on... I'm exhausted after the last one. And isn't this one a stretch from what the OP intended anyway?
You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
Cigar shops do allow smoking at least in my town.
I can't believe there's anther smoking thread going on... I'm exhausted after the last one. And isn't this one a stretch from what the OP intended anyway?
always finds a way from the Op to smokers vs nonsmokers and not sure how
I'm sure you didn't want to spend time reading through to see just where that happened
Got cha! sarcasm again
that might become a problem for you especially if you have kids one day
It's not torture or disrespect our employees...quite the opposite
Its have the right to fill our job openings with qualified employees that insure success within our personally privately owned business. Something that happens everyday.
A smoking establishment will hire only smokers or those who have no problem with second hand smoke
and cater to the customers who frequent and make his business a success. In this case smokers.
You as a non smoker can gladly take your business elsewhere.
So, as a purple owner, I can hire just purples... As a non-handicapped person, I don't have to consider handicapped people.... If I open an establishment for JUST handicapped people, I only have to consider handicapped people to work there.... Since only those that are alike are qualified. Just trying to understand you here.
You still seem to miss that there is no common good in smoking. This is not like driving a vehicle that pollutes. Our society is based on cars. You can debate all you want about levels of emissions, but there is a greater good being served.
Smoking is detrimental with no common good. That is why outlawing it in pubic is actually common sense. Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Drunk driving? Well, if the driver never hits anyone, it doesn't harm anyone..... Let's have driving lanes for drunk drivers only. That driver has rights. And as long as he has his own lane, he's not harming you. Let's show him a little respect. He needs to get home, doesn't he?
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Let's have driving lanes for drunk drivers only. That driver has rights. And as long as he has his own lane, he's not harming you. Let's show him a little respect. He needs to get home, doesn't he?
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
[
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
The families of tobacco farmers, profits made from retailers, taxes generated from sales, and the overall economic output is not considered the public common good?
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Your energy point is completely in this wheel house - there is common public good - my air conditioning when it's 100 degrees out! Now, you can say that we need to adjust how we get to that common good. But, the energy we use, like the cars we drive serve a purpose that has public good attached to it. Along with the detrimental effects. That's the point - smoking harms everything and provides no benefit to those it harms. Use of energy provides a common good. Consumption of alcohol in and of itself does not do anyone else harm. It may not serve a public good, but it's not harming anyone if a singular person does it in the company of others. When it reaches that point, it is against the law (public intoxication, etc.).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
[
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
The families of tobacco farmers, profits made from retailers, taxes generated from sales, and the overall economic output is not considered the public common good?
Just playing devils advocate.
That is good. But the basic tenets of our country is that we should not profit from harming others intentionally. So, no ultimately, that is not public common good. The medical cost associated with smokers far outweigh the financial gain to the economy. You could make money being a hit man, but I don't think anyone would think that's a good thing to legalize to create more jobs (and that doesn't even have the medical expense associated with it!)
I do agree, as I think DP said earlier in this thread - I like the tax dollars it raises. And, in a way, we are killing the golden goose (though smoking itself is not illegal. Just where you can smoke.). But, we should just legalize and tax gambling, prostitution and weed, and we'd have the whole deficit problem taken care of!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.
But, I believe you are talking about common bars and restaurants (among other places). This place I reference is a cigar shop that allows smoking. So, yes, under that perview, I'm perfectly ok, as I think every other person on this thread is. If you were talking only to that degree, then I stand corrected. But, it seemed to me you and others (I know I shouldn't "lump") were talking about a much broader allowance. It is not simply up to an establishment to allow smoking in NY. There are EXTREMELY strict guidelines. If you meet those guidelines, then fine. Remember though (in case you don't live in NY), NY is now one of the leaders in smoke free environs. Don't remember the exact number, but pretty soon you can't smoke within like 30 feet of a public building. So, you can imagine what these licensing requirements are.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.
But, I believe you are talking about common bars and restaurants (among other places). This place I reference is a cigar shop that allows smoking. So, yes, under that perview, I'm perfectly ok, as I think every other person on this thread is. If you were talking only to that degree, then I stand corrected. But, it seemed to me you and others (I know I shouldn't "lump") were talking about a much broader allowance. It is not simply up to an establishment to allow smoking in NY. There are EXTREMELY strict guidelines. If you meet those guidelines, then fine. Remember though (in case you don't live in NY), NY is now one of the leaders in smoke free environs. Don't remember the exact number, but pretty soon you can't smoke within like 30 feet of a public building. So, you can imagine what these licensing requirements are.
it just boggles my mind that people actually believe it's up to the NON-SMOKER to conform to the SMOKER. it is just ludicrous.
"hey man, we're in a library, can you turn your music off? I'm trying to study"
"fuck you, I have a right to listen to my music. you are free to go find another library if you don't like it"
see how fucking stupid that is?
and to the person who was "shocked" that in some places banning smoking in cars, yes, where I live, you are not allowed to smoke in a car with anyone else under the age of 16 in it. pandora would have you believe it's "too much government". is it? or is it just that the government has been given no choice by it's constituents but to protect them from themselves? was it really necessary to tell people it's not nice to subject your kids to second hand smoke in a vehicle? unfortunately, that answer is yes.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it just boggles my mind that people actually believe it's up to the NON-SMOKER to conform to the SMOKER. it is just ludicrous.
"hey man, we're in a library, can you turn your music off? I'm trying to study"
"fuck you, I have a right to listen to my music. you are free to go find another library if you don't like it"
see how fucking stupid that is?
and to the person who was "shocked" that in some places banning smoking in cars, yes, where I live, you are not allowed to smoke in a car with anyone else under the age of 16 in it. pandora would have you believe it's "too much government". is it? or is it just that the government has been given no choice by it's constituents but to protect them from themselves? was it really necessary to tell people it's not nice to subject your kids to second hand smoke in a vehicle? unfortunately, that answer is yes.
Where did your first sentence come from? very unlike you... not based in fact and very dramatic.
What is ludicrous is not to compromise and we are discussing consenting adults
in privately owned businesses...
well...at least I was
Smokers are conceding and following public bans but there should be places for them to smoke. Places to gather and enjoy their lives too.
Sorry when nonsmokers can not see the logic in that and will not give a little for the enjoyment of another.
Please I do not want my government protecting me from myself.... ever! if thats what you meant....
I hope not.
That is exactly what we should be worried about.
It is the very small minded who refuse to compromise.
Smokers are compromising and it is never enough for some nonsmokers.
It is not my unhealthy habit ...I do not smoke but I feel a private business owner should be allowed to provide an atmosphere for his clientele that includes smoking.
If you don't like it don't go there.
There are plenty of nonsmoking options for you.
I myself will enjoy all the places and all the people,
smokers or nonsmokers, because for me, thats what life is all about.
Enjoying people and not judging them because they choose to do something I do not.
I see you skipped over the section on an idol smoking and how you would choose to handle that. Perhaps look disgusted at them and say they stunk and leave their presence.... :?
Equal respect works for every situation and if there was equal respect we wouldn't be talking about this.
But some nonsmokers are over the top and think smokers do not deserve a smoking area and do not deserve respect because of their habit.
you can't compromise on an issue like this. either the smoke is there or it isn't. if it's in a smoking "section", it's still there. smokers are asking me to compromise MY HEALTH FOR THEIR ADDICTION/PERSONAL ENJOYMENT. Where's the respect there? There isn't any. How are smokers (your sweeping generalization, not mine) compromising to anything? They want to be able to smoke everywhere. You're the first person I've ever heard ever mention having "smoking only" establishments. Probably because that's just not a feasible option.
I didn't skip over anything. I didn't know what you were referring to, so I didn't address it. The closest thing I can see is that you mean when waveryder asked me if I would yell at Ed on stage to put out his cigarette? Come on, who heckles someone performing? It has nothing to do about it being Ed or not, I just don't do that. If Ed was sitting beside me at a Neil show, then yeah, I'd probably say something to him. If it was a joint, I'd probably ask him to pass it down.
As I've said time and again, Pandora, I don't have a problem with smokers. I have a problem with selfish people, smokers and non-smokers alike. Did that really need to be said? I know some very selfless smokers, who go outside even if they are told it is ok, don't smoke in their own car when non-smokers are in it, etc.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It is the very small minded who refuse to compromise.
Smokers are compromising and it is never enough for some nonsmokers.
It is not my unhealthy habit ...I do not smoke but I feel a private business owner should be allowed to provide an atmosphere for his clientele that includes smoking.
If you don't like it don't go there.
There are plenty of nonsmoking options for you.
I myself will enjoy all the places and all the people,
smokers or nonsmokers, because for me, thats what life is all about.
Enjoying people and not judging them because they choose to do something I do not.
I see you skipped over the section on an idol smoking and how you would choose to handle that. Perhaps look disgusted at them and say they stunk and leave their presence.... :?
Equal respect works for every situation and if there was equal respect we wouldn't be talking about this.
But some nonsmokers are over the top and think smokers do not deserve a smoking area and do not deserve respect because of their habit.
you can't compromise on an issue like this. either the smoke is there or it isn't. if it's in a smoking "section", it's still there. smokers are asking me to compromise MY HEALTH FOR THEIR ADDICTION/PERSONAL ENJOYMENT. Where's the respect there? There isn't any. How are smokers (your sweeping generalization, not mine) compromising to anything? They want to be able to smoke everywhere. You're the first person I've ever heard ever mention having "smoking only" establishments. Probably because that's just not a feasible option.
I didn't skip over anything. I didn't know what you were referring to, so I didn't address it. The closest thing I can see is that you mean when waveryder asked me if I would yell at Ed on stage to put out his cigarette? Come on, who heckles someone performing? It has nothing to do about it being Ed or not, I just don't do that. If Ed was sitting beside me at a Neil show, then yeah, I'd probably say something to him. If it was a joint, I'd probably ask him to pass it down.
As I've said time and again, Pandora, I don't have a problem with smokers. I have a problem with selfish people, smokers and non-smokers alike. Did that really need to be said? I know some very selfless smokers, who go outside even if they are told it is ok, don't smoke in their own car when non-smokers are in it, etc.
I hope you don't find out pot causes cancer just as much or more than second hand smoke :?
It's the new news :shock:
We agree I have a problem too with selfish people and as I said in my very first post it is about respect on both sides of the coin.
I think the all smoking establishment will find its way soon, it is very feasible if government doesn't make life grief for the proprietors. It is needed and deserved by many taxpaying citizens.
It will be like the bars of old...good rock and roll...lots of whiskey
and smoke so thick you can't see the exit.
The kind of place that's full of happy crazy ass people ... just the kind of people I enjoy!
Comments
I love, love, love this idea. I will now be purchasing very cheap, sub par, completely uncomfortable chairs for the folks I employ that must sit at terminals all day. On top of which, I will NOT buy them pads to prevent carpal tunnel. Come to think of it, I saw some old CRT's lying around that I will force them to stare at without any breaks for 15 hour work days. No air conditioning in the summer. No heat in the winter. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it - no chairs!
And f'em. They can go find one of those jobby things this new administration has created if they don't like it!
Thank you!
Got cha! sarcasm again
that might become a problem for you especially if you have kids one day
It's not torture or disrespect our employees...quite the opposite
Its have the right to fill our job openings with qualified employees that insure success within our personally privately owned business. Something that happens everyday.
A smoking establishment will hire only smokers or those who have no problem with second hand smoke
and cater to the customers who frequent and make his business a success. In this case smokers.
You as a non smoker can gladly take your business elsewhere.
Cigar shops do allow smoking at least in my town.
I can't believe there's anther smoking thread going on... I'm exhausted after the last one. And isn't this one a stretch from what the OP intended anyway?
I'm sure you didn't want to spend time reading through to see just where that happened
its a ditto situation
ALL privately-owned establishments should be able to allow smoking indoors then?
So, as a purple owner, I can hire just purples... As a non-handicapped person, I don't have to consider handicapped people.... If I open an establishment for JUST handicapped people, I only have to consider handicapped people to work there.... Since only those that are alike are qualified. Just trying to understand you here.
You still seem to miss that there is no common good in smoking. This is not like driving a vehicle that pollutes. Our society is based on cars. You can debate all you want about levels of emissions, but there is a greater good being served.
Smoking is detrimental with no common good. That is why outlawing it in pubic is actually common sense. Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Drunk driving? Well, if the driver never hits anyone, it doesn't harm anyone..... Let's have driving lanes for drunk drivers only. That driver has rights. And as long as he has his own lane, he's not harming you. Let's show him a little respect. He needs to get home, doesn't he?
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
* Alcohol consumption
* Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests
* Extended handgun magazine sales
* Denny's Fried Cheese Melt sales
That looks good, sorry lite lunch.
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Not too shabby, eh?
Just playing devils advocate.
Your energy point is completely in this wheel house - there is common public good - my air conditioning when it's 100 degrees out! Now, you can say that we need to adjust how we get to that common good. But, the energy we use, like the cars we drive serve a purpose that has public good attached to it. Along with the detrimental effects. That's the point - smoking harms everything and provides no benefit to those it harms. Use of energy provides a common good. Consumption of alcohol in and of itself does not do anyone else harm. It may not serve a public good, but it's not harming anyone if a singular person does it in the company of others. When it reaches that point, it is against the law (public intoxication, etc.).
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.
That is good. But the basic tenets of our country is that we should not profit from harming others intentionally. So, no ultimately, that is not public common good. The medical cost associated with smokers far outweigh the financial gain to the economy. You could make money being a hit man, but I don't think anyone would think that's a good thing to legalize to create more jobs (and that doesn't even have the medical expense associated with it!)
I do agree, as I think DP said earlier in this thread - I like the tax dollars it raises. And, in a way, we are killing the golden goose (though smoking itself is not illegal. Just where you can smoke.). But, we should just legalize and tax gambling, prostitution and weed, and we'd have the whole deficit problem taken care of!
But, I believe you are talking about common bars and restaurants (among other places). This place I reference is a cigar shop that allows smoking. So, yes, under that perview, I'm perfectly ok, as I think every other person on this thread is. If you were talking only to that degree, then I stand corrected. But, it seemed to me you and others (I know I shouldn't "lump") were talking about a much broader allowance. It is not simply up to an establishment to allow smoking in NY. There are EXTREMELY strict guidelines. If you meet those guidelines, then fine. Remember though (in case you don't live in NY), NY is now one of the leaders in smoke free environs. Don't remember the exact number, but pretty soon you can't smoke within like 30 feet of a public building. So, you can imagine what these licensing requirements are.
funny how that works
Ok, ew! What is supposed to be in a sandwich other than cheese and bread that's called a Fried Cheese Melt? What is that?
"hey man, we're in a library, can you turn your music off? I'm trying to study"
"fuck you, I have a right to listen to my music. you are free to go find another library if you don't like it"
see how fucking stupid that is?
and to the person who was "shocked" that in some places banning smoking in cars, yes, where I live, you are not allowed to smoke in a car with anyone else under the age of 16 in it. pandora would have you believe it's "too much government". is it? or is it just that the government has been given no choice by it's constituents but to protect them from themselves? was it really necessary to tell people it's not nice to subject your kids to second hand smoke in a vehicle? unfortunately, that answer is yes.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What is ludicrous is not to compromise and we are discussing consenting adults
in privately owned businesses...
well...at least I was
Smokers are conceding and following public bans but there should be places for them to smoke. Places to gather and enjoy their lives too.
Sorry when nonsmokers can not see the logic in that and will not give a little for the enjoyment of another.
Please I do not want my government protecting me from myself.... ever! if thats what you meant....
I hope not.
That is exactly what we should be worried about.
you can't compromise on an issue like this. either the smoke is there or it isn't. if it's in a smoking "section", it's still there. smokers are asking me to compromise MY HEALTH FOR THEIR ADDICTION/PERSONAL ENJOYMENT. Where's the respect there? There isn't any. How are smokers (your sweeping generalization, not mine) compromising to anything? They want to be able to smoke everywhere. You're the first person I've ever heard ever mention having "smoking only" establishments. Probably because that's just not a feasible option.
I didn't skip over anything. I didn't know what you were referring to, so I didn't address it. The closest thing I can see is that you mean when waveryder asked me if I would yell at Ed on stage to put out his cigarette? Come on, who heckles someone performing? It has nothing to do about it being Ed or not, I just don't do that. If Ed was sitting beside me at a Neil show, then yeah, I'd probably say something to him. If it was a joint, I'd probably ask him to pass it down.
As I've said time and again, Pandora, I don't have a problem with smokers. I have a problem with selfish people, smokers and non-smokers alike. Did that really need to be said? I know some very selfless smokers, who go outside even if they are told it is ok, don't smoke in their own car when non-smokers are in it, etc.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's the new news :shock:
We agree I have a problem too with selfish people and as I said in my very first post it is about respect on both sides of the coin.
I think the all smoking establishment will find its way soon, it is very feasible if government doesn't make life grief for the proprietors. It is needed and deserved by many taxpaying citizens.
It will be like the bars of old...good rock and roll...lots of whiskey
and smoke so thick you can't see the exit.
The kind of place that's full of happy crazy ass people ... just the kind of people I enjoy!
I think the OP wisely abandoned this thread.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no shit. I haven't smoked weed in months.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014