What's next... if you don't like smoking on this planet then create or find another one... :rolleyes:
shaddap!....quit killing yourselves and others out of weakness and sheer habit ya hosers! Gov't laws be damned..
get a grip on living already....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Lol, it’s odd cos I’ve just read through all the posts since yesterday and I pretty much agree with everyone :cool: apart from being too bothered about business owners rights, I’m a consumer so all I care about are my rights. Call me a selfish fucker… and see if I care
I like the smoking ban... but I also like when I travel and can smoke in pubs... it's weird though cos for a split second when you see someone light up you think 'huh? :eek: what the fuck's he doing?' and then ya think 'ahhhhhhh' and light one up yourself but you feel like you're a kid misbehavin! It's like knacker drinking again
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
No one has answered why there can't be designated smoking bars. Sure, I hear the argument, "well then I couldn't go in there. I would have to go some where else." How is this not being selfish? businesses are not required, by law, to cater to everyone.
No one has answered why there can't be designated smoking bars. Sure, I hear the argument, "well then I couldn't go in there. I would have to go some where else." How is this not being selfish? businesses are not required, by law, to cater to everyone.
who decides which bars can be "designated smoking bars" ?
How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants? I mean, it meets all the same standards. Hell, more people die from exposure to drunk drivers each year than from exposure to second-hand smokers. Plus, drunk people are annoying and selfish.
How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants? I mean, it meets all the same standards. Hell, more people die from exposure to drunk drivers each year than from exposure to second-hand smokers. Plus, drunk people are annoying and selfish.
ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.
and where are the chicks? arent you sick of all the annoying drunk guys hitting on you?
How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants?
you cant get your health harmed by someone drinking next to you... the drunk-driver excuse is of no fault of the bar.. its the idiot trying to drive home.
it could just as likely be lightning... should we ban lightning?
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.
ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.
and where are the chicks? arent you sick of all the annoying drunk guys hitting on you?
'drunk drivers' are a result of stupidity mixed with drink... not drink alone.
'drunk guys'... same formula!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.
so do morons with guns...
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.
Huh? What about when he passes out from being so drunk and slams into you?
Once again 'stupidity + drink'
stupidity should be banned cos that's what the problem is. If you're stupid enough to go somewhere you can't breathe just cos you want to be there, your problem. If you're stupid enough to fall asleep with a cigarette in your hand well that's completely different too.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Huh? What about when he passes out from being so drunk and slams into you?
i'll recover from a few wee bruises... lung cancer is harder to shake off
I don't understand. How is smoking the fault of the bar, if drunk-driving is not?
smoking takes place IN the bar.. drunk-driving does not... you're smart enough to understand that my good man
Definitely. As a matter of fact, we should probably just ban death. That would be easier, no?
banning death would be quite hard to enforce.. banning smoking so that people dont die of cancer is a lot easier to enforce.
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.
How come no one is demanding that we ban alcohol from bars and restaurants? I mean, it meets all the same standards. Hell, more people die from exposure to drunk drivers each year than from exposure to second-hand smokers. Plus, drunk people are annoying and selfish.
It's not the same, there is a law that forbids you to drink and drive. The same thing would be to forbid people from taking their smokes when going to a bar. Then, the freedom of business owners would be safe.
Also, bars and restaurants do not make their business on the sale of cigarettes, but they do it on the sale of alcohol.
stupidity should be banned cos that's what the problem is. If you're stupid enough to go somewhere you can't breathe just cos you want to be there, your problem. If you're stupid enough to fall asleep with a cigarette in your hand well that's completely different too.
Hehe...I was going to respond to the first statement with "then ban stupidity"...but I see you've already taken care of that.
Drunk driving is an effect of people going to bars, drinking, and then driving home. Lung cancer can be an effect of people going to bars and inhaling smoke. If your decisions are based on an expectation of the opposite effect of what will lead from a cause, you are stupid. And that leaves you too choices: get smart or just force people to submit to your stupidity. Bans fall very much into the latter, IMO.
It's not the same, there is a law that forbids you to drink and drive. The same thing would be to forbid people from taking their smokes when going to a bar.
It's not "the same". At least in the former you arguably own the roads. You don't own the bar.
Then, the freedom of business owners would be safe.
Huh? You've directly prevented him from using his property how he sees fit. And, yes, you have all sorts of precedent for doing this. But that doesn't change the fact that he's less free.
Also, bars and restaurants do not make their business on the sale of cigarettes, but they do it on the sale of alcohol.
Ugh......so what??? The purposes of a bar are whatever the owner decides, not necessarily the maximization of profit. You might as well start justifying corporate welfare with the above arguments.
Hehe...I was going to respond to the first statement with "then ban stupidity"...but I see you've already taken care of that.
Drunk driving is an effect of people going to bars, drinking, and then driving home. Lung cancer can be an effect of people going to bars and inhaling smoke. If your decisions are based on an expectation of the opposite effect of what will lead from a cause, you are stupid. And that leaves you too choices: get smart or just force people to submit to your stupidity. Bans fall very much into the latter, IMO.
i think you'll find drink-driving is already an offence... as is smoking in bars here... both are harmful to people hence the banning of them.
if a barman sells a guy drinks and then he goes into his car then how is that the bar's fault... we could just as easily blame the car company for allowing him to buy a car in the first place...
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.
i'll recover from a few wee bruises... lung cancer is harder to shake off
3,000 people die each year from second-hand smoke (EPA est). Drunk driving kills 6 times that number.
smoking takes place IN the bar.. drunk-driving does not... you're smart enough to understand that my good man
So what? Both are the effects of the bar's policies and activities. If the bar didn't allow smoking, then lung cancer would be reduced. If the bar didn't serve alcohol, the drunk-driving would be reduced. The logic is exactly the same. What does it matter where it occurs?
banning death would be quite hard to enforce.. banning smoking so that people dont die of cancer is a lot easier to enforce.
It sure is. And when in doubt, go with what's easy......
Hehe...I was going to respond to the first statement with "then ban stupidity"...but I see you've already taken care of that.
Drunk driving is an effect of people going to bars, drinking, and then driving home. Lung cancer can be an effect of people going to bars and inhaling smoke. If your decisions are based on an expectation of the opposite effect of what will lead from a cause, you are stupid. And that leaves you too choices: get smart or just force people to submit to your stupidity. Bans fall very much into the latter, IMO.
Oh dear, now see what I've started
So you'd be ok with banning stupidity then? But what about people who can't help but be stupid, like me you're ok with the government forcing everyone to change, even when it's impossible??? Wouldnt it just be easier to ban smoking in bars?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Huh? You've directly prevented him from using his property how he sees fit. And, yes, you have all sorts of precedent for doing this. But that doesn't change the fact that he's less free.
your still hung up on this being a PRIVATE/PUBLIC thing... i think we've ascertained that a bar is a public place, run by a private entity but nevertheless its a public issue
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.
Ugh......so what??? The purposes of a bar are whatever the owner decides, not necessarily the maximization of profit. You might as well start justifying corporate welfare with the above arguments.
I was just saying that banning cigarettes from a bar was less likely to put it out of business than banning alcohol. And banning alcohol would kind of rid the bar of it's original purpose.
I get your points, but since we already have regulations everywhere for now and that personal freedom just ain't what it should be, don't you think this one isn't such a bad idea?
your still hung up on this being a PRIVATE/PUBLIC thing... i think we've ascertained that a bar is a public place, run by a private entity but nevertheless its a public issue
your still hung up on this being a PRIVATE/PUBLIC thing... i think we've ascertained that a bar is a public place, run by a private entity but nevertheless its a public issue
We haven't "ascertained" that. You've simply proclaimed that. Why don't you define what makes a place private, and what makes a place public, and we'll go from there.
Comments
shaddap!....quit killing yourselves and others out of weakness and sheer habit ya hosers! Gov't laws be damned..
get a grip on living already....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I like the smoking ban... but I also like when I travel and can smoke in pubs... it's weird though cos for a split second when you see someone light up you think 'huh? :eek: what the fuck's he doing?' and then ya think 'ahhhhhhh' and light one up yourself but you feel like you're a kid misbehavin!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
who decides which bars can be "designated smoking bars" ?
That being said, I do not think this is any of the government's business.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
ha i'm surprised it took so long to make this suggestion. good point. drunk drivers kill so many people every year.
and where are the chicks? arent you sick of all the annoying drunk guys hitting on you?
you cant get your health harmed by someone drinking next to you... the drunk-driver excuse is of no fault of the bar.. its the idiot trying to drive home.
it could just as likely be lightning... should we ban lightning?
'drunk guys'... same formula!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And it all comes full circle. Maybe the people that actually own the bars could be allowed to make that decision.
so do morons with guns...
As does the government whose task it is to enforce these bans. The ban list is getting pretty long here.....
Huh? What about when he passes out from being so drunk and slams into you?
I don't understand. How is smoking the fault of the bar, if drunk-driving is not?
Definitely. As a matter of fact, we should probably just ban death. That would be easier, no?
Hehe...fuck no! That's cooky talk.
stupidity should be banned cos that's what the problem is. If you're stupid enough to go somewhere you can't breathe just cos you want to be there, your problem. If you're stupid enough to fall asleep with a cigarette in your hand well that's completely different too.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
why should someone be able to decide how to operate their business???
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
i'll recover from a few wee bruises... lung cancer is harder to shake off
smoking takes place IN the bar.. drunk-driving does not... you're smart enough to understand that my good man
banning death would be quite hard to enforce.. banning smoking so that people dont die of cancer is a lot easier to enforce.
It's not the same, there is a law that forbids you to drink and drive. The same thing would be to forbid people from taking their smokes when going to a bar. Then, the freedom of business owners would be safe.
Also, bars and restaurants do not make their business on the sale of cigarettes, but they do it on the sale of alcohol.
Hehe...I was going to respond to the first statement with "then ban stupidity"...but I see you've already taken care of that.
Drunk driving is an effect of people going to bars, drinking, and then driving home. Lung cancer can be an effect of people going to bars and inhaling smoke. If your decisions are based on an expectation of the opposite effect of what will lead from a cause, you are stupid. And that leaves you too choices: get smart or just force people to submit to your stupidity. Bans fall very much into the latter, IMO.
This is not anything near what is being proposed by the lobbyists though. That would make them lose their jobs and revenue.
It's not "the same". At least in the former you arguably own the roads. You don't own the bar.
Huh? You've directly prevented him from using his property how he sees fit. And, yes, you have all sorts of precedent for doing this. But that doesn't change the fact that he's less free.
Ugh......so what??? The purposes of a bar are whatever the owner decides, not necessarily the maximization of profit. You might as well start justifying corporate welfare with the above arguments.
i think you'll find drink-driving is already an offence... as is smoking in bars here... both are harmful to people hence the banning of them.
if a barman sells a guy drinks and then he goes into his car then how is that the bar's fault... we could just as easily blame the car company for allowing him to buy a car in the first place...
3,000 people die each year from second-hand smoke (EPA est). Drunk driving kills 6 times that number.
So what? Both are the effects of the bar's policies and activities. If the bar didn't allow smoking, then lung cancer would be reduced. If the bar didn't serve alcohol, the drunk-driving would be reduced. The logic is exactly the same. What does it matter where it occurs?
It sure is. And when in doubt, go with what's easy......
So you'd be ok with banning stupidity then? But what about people who can't help but be stupid, like me
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
full circle is right.
your still hung up on this being a PRIVATE/PUBLIC thing... i think we've ascertained that a bar is a public place, run by a private entity but nevertheless its a public issue
But the logic is different. You've banned drunk-driving everywhere. Why are you only banning smoking in bars?
Hehe...based on the logic here, that answer is simple: because the bar contributed to the situation.
Sure! Why shouldn't we? And why not blame the government that build the road in the first place?
I was just saying that banning cigarettes from a bar was less likely to put it out of business than banning alcohol. And banning alcohol would kind of rid the bar of it's original purpose.
I get your points, but since we already have regulations everywhere for now and that personal freedom just ain't what it should be, don't you think this one isn't such a bad idea?
Don't put "we" into that. That's all you.
We haven't "ascertained" that. You've simply proclaimed that. Why don't you define what makes a place private, and what makes a place public, and we'll go from there.