No Smoking in Bars.....

jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
seems that sooner or later this will be a law enacted across the country. how do people feel about his? is it this a freedom issue? health issue?

other boards have long debates about this. I tend to smoke when I drink so its kinda tough to not be able to at a bar. but I very much encourage this law for the simple fact that second hand smoke does kill. but this is also another thing the government is telling us we cant do. and thoughts?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456713

Comments

  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    This is neither a health issue nor a freedom issue. It is a property issue, IMO. Is a bar a public institution, or is it private?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    This is neither a health issue nor a freedom issue. It is a property issue, IMO. Is a bar a public institution, or is it private?

    true. definitely private.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    true. definitely private.

    I would agree.

    Nearly all the bars and restaurants in my town are non-smoking by choice, not by government fiat. When I smoked, this didn't bug me in the least bit. The forced ban, however, does.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I would agree.

    Nearly all the bars and restaurants in my town are non-smoking by choice, not by government fiat.
    really? I didnt know many would voluntarily do it, especially in your neck of the woods.
    When I smoked, this didn't bug me in the least bit. The forced ban, however, does.
    forced anything does suck, but would this be one of the "greater good" laws?
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    seems that sooner or later this will be a law enacted across the country. how do people feel about his? is it this a freedom issue? health issue?

    other boards have long debates about this. I tend to smoke when I drink so its kinda tough to not be able to at a bar. but I very much encourage this law for the simple fact that second hand smoke does kill. but this is also another thing the government is telling us we cant do. and thoughts?

    By the way -- has Chicago done this yet? They were trying to when I moved out and I remember it just barely failed. Have they taken another shot at it yet?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    By the way -- has Chicago done this yet? They were trying to when I moved out and I remember it just barely failed. Have they taken another shot at it yet?

    chicago did pass the law. but it is voluntary until 2008. so as of now, most bars still allow smoking. come 2008 though, none will.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    really? I didnt know many would voluntarily do it, especially in your neck of the woods.

    Yeah, it sounds wierd here in the Tabacco state. They actually just tried a state-wide ban here a month ago and it just barely failed in the state senate.
    forced anything does suck, but would this be one of the "greater good" laws?

    It all depends on what you mean by the relatively meaningless term "greater good". Certainly these laws could have positive effects on health, but they have negative effects on freedoms and property rights. How would you feel about a law that forced people to smoke? Or forced bar owners who didn't like smokers to allow smoking?
  • surfanddestroysurfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    It all depends on what you mean by the relatively meaningless term "greater good". Certainly these laws could have positive effects on health, but they have negative effects on freedoms and property rights. How would you feel about a law that forced people to smoke? Or forced bar owners who didn't like smokers to allow smoking?

    What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118

    Certainly these laws could have positive effects on health, but they have negative effects on freedoms and property rights.
    100% true, and the core of the debate. I guess the common ground would be to let the bar decide.

    How would you feel about a law that forced people to smoke?

    key word here is force. but here the law is forcing you to do something harmful, where the other side is forcing you to do something that protects people from very harmful smoke.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.

    they are free to leave the bar at any time.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.

    That's simple don't work or frequent establishments that allow smoking.

    The proper way to go about this is to offer business owners an insentive to voluntarily prohibit smoking in their establishments.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    we applied it last year

    overwhelming success... even smokers attest to that fact.

    and waking up the next day is much better as i dont feel my eyes hurting, my clothes dont have the stench of death and when i go in the shower i dont have to worry about the smell of smoke coming out of my hair..

    Ireland, Scotland, Wales have all implemented it and all with huge success... England will be next on July 1st and hopefully they will embrace it
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    they are free to leave the bar at any time.

    just as a smoker is free to leave the bar and have a smoke outside
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    dunkman wrote:
    we applied it last year

    overwhelming success... even smokers attest to that fact.

    and waking up the next day is much better as i dont feel my eyes hurting, my clothes dont have the stench of death and when i go in the shower i dont have to worry about the smell of smoke coming out of my hair..

    Ireland, Scotland, Wales have all implemented it and all with huge success... England will be next on July 1st and hopefully they will embrace it

    I'm a smoker and I like being able to go into a bar or resteruant and not having to smell like an ash tray when I leave, but I don't think it is right for government to force this up businesses. It should be up to the business owner to make that decision and if the government wants to reward those that do, some tyoe of tax break, that is even better.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • surfanddestroysurfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    jlew24asu wrote:
    they are free to leave the bar at any time.

    Yeah true, but why should I have to. I have asthma and sometimes in a really smokey room I have difficulty breathing. I understand that smokers have a right to smoke and that is not being taken away from them, is it really that much hard work to step outside for a few mins?
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    mammasan wrote:
    That's simple don't work or frequent establishments that allow smoking.

    that's discriminatory... it means people who value their health cant work in a bar.

    whats so fucking hard about walking 10 yards to a designated smoking area to have a cig... lazy fuckers!!
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    just as a smoker is free to leave the bar and have a smoke outside


    yea but a smoker, typically, wouldnt go out of his/her way, to prevent other people from inhaling their smoke unless forced.
  • surfanddestroysurfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    dunkman wrote:
    that's discriminatory... it means people who value their health cant work in a bar.

    whats so fucking hard about walking 10 yards to a designated smoking area to have a cig... lazy fuckers!!

    Well said :D
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Yeah true, but why should I have to. I have asthma and sometimes in a really smokey room I have difficulty breathing. I understand that smokers have a right to smoke and that is not being taken away from them, is it really that much hard work to step outside for a few mins?

    It's not about smokers rights it's about business owners rights. The law doesn't prohibit me from smoking but it prohibits the business owner from running his establishment without undue government intervention.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Dustin51Dustin51 Posts: 222
    This is neither a health issue nor a freedom issue. It is a property issue, IMO. Is a bar a public institution, or is it private?

    Exactly! I quit smoking a few years ago but if I'm at a bar much like going to a ROCK concert I don't mind if people smoke. You go to a bar to unwind, have fun for a few hours and forget about life for a while.

    In my opinion this issue highlights some major hypocrisy in our society as well. So adults are being told what to do in a bar, yet we force feed our children soda's, chicken nuggets, pizza, candy, and all other kinds of crap that will inevitably alter their eating habits and their health for the rest of their lives in public schools around the country but as long as they don't smoke that’s ok.
    Be excellent to each other
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    mammasan wrote:
    It's not about smokers rights it's about business owners rights.


    i dont give a fuck about business owners rights... i care about mine, and my right is to sit somewhere in a bar and not have someone blowing smoke into my lungs.

    the day business owners give a fuck about their staffs rights is the day i'll listen to that argument..
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    dunkman wrote:
    that's discriminatory... it means people who value their health cant work in a bar.

    whats so fucking hard about walking 10 yards to a designated smoking area to have a cig... lazy fuckers!!

    Like I stated this arguement has nothing to do with smokers rights. that is where people are confused. The laws do not prohibit me from having a cigerette but it does infringe on a business owners rights to run his shop with undue government interference. The decision should be up to the owner, not the government. As the government if you want to pursuade owners to prohibit smoking offer them some insentive and I'm sure many will take it and voluntarily prohibit smoking.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.

    It can always be argued you're free to go out and find a non somking bar on your own. If you don't want to second hand smoke don't give money to bars who let that happen.
    On the other side though, I like this law. The more it goes the more lethal cigarettes seem to be. The state already forces bar to not let you use heroin, cocaine, crack... and it doesn't seem to bother anyone. So why not add another very dangerous drug?
    I'm a smoker, and I know it's extremly harmful, but I do enjoy smoking while having a drink. The exact same law has been voted here and will effect in 2008. I used to agree with the ffg argument, but a bartender made me change my mind : he told me he was a non smoker but let people smoke in his bar because (here at least) a vast majority of the clients smoke while drinking (some don't even smoke the rest of the time, just when they go out) so if he should choose to ban smoking on his own he would loose most of his clients. That law means a great deal to him.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    dunkman wrote:
    i dont give a fuck about business owners rights... i care about mine, and my right is to sit somewhere in a bar and not have someone blowing smoke into my lungs.

    the day business owners give a fuck about their staffs rights is the day i'll listen to that argument..

    Well that is your choice and opinion but I shouldn't have to live under the yoke of your choices and opinions.

    I'm also pretty damn sure you would give a fuck about business owners right if one day you own a business and the government comes in and tells you how to run it.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Yeah true, but why should I have to.I have asthma and sometimes in a really smokey room I have difficulty breathing.
    because you are concerned about your health. thats why you have to.
    I understand that smokers have a right to smoke and that is not being taken away from them,
    if you think they have a right to smoke then you shouldnt want a law forced them not to do so.
    is it really that much hard work to step outside for a few mins?
    absolutely not, it would be great if everyone were considerate people.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    It can always be argued you're free to go out and find a non somking bar on your own. If you don't want to second hand smoke don't give money to bars who let that happen.
    On the other side though, I like this law. The more it goes the more lethal cigarettes seem to be. The state already forces bar to not let you use heroin, cocaine, crack... and it doesn't seem to bother anyone. So why not add another very dangerous drug?

    Well the difference is that heroin, cocaine, and crack are illegal substances, cigerettes are not.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    mammasan wrote:
    Well the difference is that heroin, cocaine, and crack are illegal substances, cigerettes are not.

    exactly my point, the law forbids you to use those drugs hence stomping your personal freedom. I don't see the difference between the state not allowing you to use coke in your living room and the state not allowing you to smoke a cigarette in a bar.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    mammasan wrote:
    I'm also pretty damn sure you would give a fuck about business owners right if one day you own a business and the government comes in and tells you how to run it.


    i drive a car... the government tells me i have to wear a seatbelt... why should I? oh thats right... its for the common good... its sensible

    and how are they tellign you how to run it? they are imposing a condition upon you just as they impose condition on pharmacies, vet practices, car garages, bookmakers, restaurants, hotels, etc

    bars are no different and no more special
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    exactly my point, the law forbids you to use those drugs hence stomping your personal freedom. I don't see the difference between the state not allowing you to use coke in your living room and the state not allowing you to smoke a cigarette in a bar.

    Well I don't the think the state should have the right to prohibit me from using drugs, but we do have laws in place that state that those substances are illegal and cigerettes are not. Because of that distinction you really can't compare the two.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • moeaholicmoeaholic Posts: 535
    i live in ny, so there hasn't been any smoking allowed indoors for a while now. doesn't really bother me much. i don't really go out all that much, anyway. a lot of the bars around here have gone to opening up patios out back so people have a place to smoke and drink.

    i don't mind banning smoking at restaurants. for as long as i've been a smoker, not once did i go out to eat and think to myself immediately after the meal "fuck, i need a cig right now". i've always been able to wait until i left.

    what i'm having a problem with is this banning smoking at outdoor events. not once have i seen someone complain at an outdoor event about too much smoke. but it's coming. they've already banned tobacco sales at the nys fair, and within a couple years they're going to phase in designated outdoor smoking areas. i've seen these areas at other parks before. tiny roped off section, hidden in the corner of the park where you're not in anyone else's eyesight.
    "PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
    ~Michael Bolton
Sign In or Register to comment.