No Smoking in Bars.....

floyd1975

Uncle Leo wrote:

Minnesota just adopted a statewide smoking ban: http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6529847

I am going to love going into all the smoke free places (just like when I lived in CT). It is truly awsome.

Nevertheless, I cannot support the rule. If I don't want to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking, that's my business. When smokers get up in arms about some public place disallowing smoking, then screw them (seriously, I don't give two shits about your nic fits). But this is not a public building. It's not our (society's) role to tell them they cannot allow smoking. I intentionally patronize smoke free places more often and appreciate those that have chosen to take on that policy. But it's not appropriate to shove it down their throats.

Very good post.

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Freedom for many seems to be a very selfish term.

selfish cos people dont want to inhale second hand smoke... i think you'll find its smokers* who are selfish



*smokers who think its ok to let others inhale their fumes

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

selfish cos people dont want to inhale second hand smoke... i think you'll find its smokers* who are selfish



*smokers who think its ok to let others inhale their fumes

Maybe so. But I've gone over this with you many times and it seems freedom in this thread has been defined as "everyone is free do do as I (the people who support this ridiculous ban on business owners' rights) wish." That is not freedom to me or to many others. That is where the selfishness is coming through.

dunkman

Uncle Leo wrote:

Minnesota just adopted a statewide smoking ban: http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6529847

I am going to love going into all the smoke free places (just like when I lived in CT). It is truly awsome.

Nevertheless, I cannot support the rule. If I don't want to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking, that's my business. When smokers get up in arms about some public place disallowing smoking, then screw them (seriously, I don't give two shits about your nic fits). But this is not a public building. It's not our (society's) role to tell them they cannot allow smoking. I intentionally patronize smoke free places more often and appreciate those that have chosen to take on that policy. But it's not appropriate to shove it down their throats.

a restaurant is a public building... it has to apply for a licence to serve the public and it also has to adhere to other public laws that accompany running a restaurant.

if we go by others arguments then surely we should allow restauranters the 'right' to serve mouldy chicken to its customers... we should allow restaurants to never clean their toilets... public safety dictates that restaurants must be clean and healthy to serve its purpose and its public

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

a restaurant is a public building... it has to apply for a licence to serve the public and it also has to adhere to other public laws that accompany running a restaurant.

if we go by others arguments then surely we should allow restauranters the 'right' to serve mouldy chicken to its customers... we should allow restaurants to never clean their toilets... public safety dictates that restaurants must be clean and healthy to serve its purpose and its public

I want my damn cut from every restaurant since they are publicly owned. Should I take this to court?

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Maybe so. But I've gone over this with you many times and it seems freedom in this thread has been defined as "everyone is free do do as I (the people who support this ridiculous ban on business owners' rights) wish." That is not freedom to me or to many others. That is where the selfishness is coming through.

and i keep saying fuck business owners rights.. the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

ever notice that you always evade the points by replying in the form of a question

What was the point? That the definition of the word "pub" somehow equates to a social mandate on how they should be treated? I responded directly to the point by suggesting similar reasoning -- that the definition of "bar" could then do the same thing.

And please don't accuse me of "evading points" in a post where you cherry pick one of mine among many. If you feel I've evaded something, ask me a direct question and I'll respond to it directly.

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

I want my damn cut from every restaurant since they are publicly owned. Should I take this to court?

never said they were publicly owned... i said they were public places


i.e. public transport... its there to serve the public... does that give me the right to take the wheels of the bus once i have arrived at my destination? no... silly argument

firecrotch23

i work in a bar just outside of ne philly where you can smoke, unlike all of the bars inside the city limits. if i had my way, i would take the no smoking. but our business has been better because you cant smoke everywhere else. i hate the smoke, but i love the money

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

and i keep saying fuck business owners rights.. the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!

What do you contribute to society to earn your rights?

Many business owners do pay decent wages, allow breaks, etc... Do you say fuck them too?

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

never said they were publicly owned... i said they were public places


i.e. public transport... its there to serve the public... does that give me the right to take the wheels of the bus once i have arrived at my destination? no... silly argument

Most public transport is government owned which means it is owned by me.

Once again, who forces you into a bar that you have no ownership in?

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

and i keep saying fuck business owners rights..

Of course you do. What you keep forgetting is that you're saying "fuck my own rights" in process.

the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!

Wow...

jeffbr

Derrick wrote:

It's just odd because they allow smoking in office buildings and restaurants and bingo halls etc. on Native reserves but not on non-native lands.

It is sovereign land, subject to their laws in many cases.

Derrick wrote:

A bar, even a public bar, is a private establishment. It is owned by someone who has been granted a license to serve food and alcohol to the public. In order for these private establishments to meet the health and safety requirements to be allowed to sell food and drink they are subjected to rules and regulations. So...it's NOT a matter of Private vs. public. If being a private bar grants them the ability to decide their own smoking rules, then it would stand they could decide other things like kitchen cleanliness, washing hands, food prep and storage needs, pest control, etc. etc. Obviously, private bars and restaurants need to adhere to the standards for such issues and smoking is just one of those issues. Otherwise they will be shut down temporarily or permanently. Please, it does NOT matter private or public....standards must be met by all.

I assume you're also fine with the government regulating the use of trans fats. I also wonder if you would be OK with the government restricting calories or fat% and requiring a certain level of fiber in the food they prepare. After all, it is public health we're talking about. Perhaps they should regulate portion size, and restrict customers to 1 entree per day before cutting them off.

Derrick wrote:

This would give an unfair advantage over enforced non-smoking bars.

At least you are honest enough to recognize that this law has and will cause hardship to businesses. Some people try to claim that businesses are more profitable after the ban. If that were the case, why wouldn't a smart business person have freely chosen that path? The fact that these businesses need to be coerced should highlight the anti-business nature of the law.

Derrick wrote:

My definition of freedom is: Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want provided you do not infringe on the freedom of others.

Good definition.

Derrick wrote:

So, since the dangers of second hand smoke would infringe on the freedom of others, I don't personally view it as an act of freedom when in the presence of others.

What if others voluntarily put themselves in the presence of smokers? Hasn't the non-smoker just infringed on the freedom of the smoker by voluntarily associating with the smoker, and then making demands that the smoker change behavior?

Also, I agree with your take on smoking and kids.

jlew24asu

dunkman wrote:

and i keep saying fuck business owners rights.. the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!

dude are you serious?

Ericastrada

I keep hearing people say how "selfish" smokers are. What about non-smokers? Where I work, we have to go outside to smoke. So we did. Then people complained that we were standing next to the door they had to walk through. So, we moved the smoking area to another door and made the main entrance a "non smoking door". So as soon as we moved, people started going through th smoking door just so they could complain again. So we moved the smoking area across the parking lot. Now people complain that we smoke next to their cars. I mean, come on, they're not even standing there and they are complaining. How is this not selfish?
By the way, for all the people that want to bring up health issues, I work at a small airfield. We have private jets coming in here constantly with they're big 'ole engines puffing out more carcingens than an entire pack of cigs could create.

Heineken Helen

Ericastrada wrote:

I keep hearing people say how "selfish" smokers are. What about non-smokers? Where I work, we have to go outside to smoke. So we did. Then people complained that we were standing next to the door they had to walk through. So, we moved the smoking area to another door and made the main entrance a "non smoking door". So as soon as we moved, people started going through th smoking door just so they could complain again. So we moved the smoking area across the parking lot. Now people complain that we smoke next to their cars. I mean, come on, they're not even standing there and they are complaining. How is this not selfish?
By the way, for all the people that want to bring up health issues, I work at a small airfield. We have private jets coming in here constantly with they're big 'ole engines puffing out more carcingens than an entire pack of cigs could create.

Sure one guy here suggested that it's rude of us to leave our company in a restaurant to go outside to smoke . Apparently we're supposed to sit tight and shut up... or something . Lol, what the fuck next?

pirlo21

Sorry if this has already been said, it's a pretty long post!

Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.

jlew24asu

pirlo21 wrote:

Sorry if this has already been said, it's a pretty long post!

Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.

to my knowledge, this is why the law originated

jeffbr

pirlo21 wrote:

Sorry if this has already been said, it's a pretty long post!

Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.

Are the employees there against their will, or did they chose to work in the environment?

pirlo21

jeffbr wrote:

Are the employees there against their will, or did they chose to work in the environment?

What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?

There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.