No Smoking in Bars.....

mammasan

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!

I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.

What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.

jeffbr

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!

This sounds like a great argument for sterilizing welfare mothers, or even couples who don't have the financial means to care for their offspring.

JOEJOEJOE

mammasan wrote:

I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.

What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.

The ball is in motion with tranfat bans.

PaperPlates

jeffbr wrote:

This sounds like a great argument for sterilizing welfare mothers, or even couples who don't have the financial means to care for their offspring.

sounds like socialized medicine too. Is he saying that in America, if you cant afford healthcare, its provided by tax dollars?

JOEJOEJOE

jeffbr wrote:

This sounds like a great argument for sterilizing welfare mothers, or even couples who don't have the financial means to care for their offspring.

denying reproduction is much harsher then denying smokers rights.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Enacted into law in my home province a few years ago...best thing ever had done...PLUS....it went against the common perception that bar/restaurant owners always say..."we will lose business"....sorry folks once again stats from they very same business owners showed over a period a year following a few months of decreased attendance....the amount of business went up....its a good law and should be enforced everywhere IMHO.....

Well yeah..more people in society don't smoke cigarettes, and for good reason.

Cigarette smokers are the minority. So what most people (and the gov't) see as common sense, smokers call incessant whining and unfair discrimination.

Smokers have no valid argument except for just complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and pointing fingers.

it's been a looong time coming..

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

I pay for my own insurance so no one is footing my bill.

What about obese people. They require a greater amount of healthcare so should we tell all resturaunt that they can no longer serve fattening foods.

Food doesn't kill you...eating too much or being addicted to it is the problem.

There is no safe level of cigarette smoke...

It's the people that can't control themselves that are the problem

...like smokers...lol

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well yeah..more people in society don't smoke cigarettes, and for good reason.

Cigarette smokers are the minority. So what most people (and the gov't) see as common sense, smokers call incessant whining and unfair discrimination.

Smokers have no valid argument except for just complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and pointing fingers.

it's been a looong time coming..

I find it funny that not one smoker on this board has stated that they dislike this law because it is discrimination against them, not one. You even have non-smokers who are stating the samething I am. The only people I see whinning are a few, not all, of the non-smokers.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

I find it funny that not one smoker on this board has stated that they dislike this law because it is discrimination against them, not one. You even have non-smokers who are stating the samething I am. The only people I see whinning are a few, not all, of the non-smokers.

Who's whining? ...I'm only stating facts...you can choose to see what you want. If you think smokers don't feel somewhat alienated , infringed upon, and discriminated against you're sadly sadly (sadly) mistaken...

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Who's whining? ...I'm only stating facts...you can choose to see what you want. If you think smokers don't feel somewhat alienated , infringed upon, and discriminated against you're sadly sadly (sadly) mistaken...

I don't care that some or many smokers may feel that way. It is ridiculous for them to feel that way because no one is prohibiting them from smoking. Their arguement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The true arguement here and the only one that has merit to it is the arguement of the right of the business owner. Now you may disagree with me and that is fine, but that arguement has merit.

decides2dream

i love it.


those who argue for business owners rights and all, of course you are right...but then i also think, how many OTHER ways are the regulated, what hours they can be open, noise ordinances, whether they can have live acts, etc. if you are at all supportive of any of these regulations, i just think...why not one for public health? and yes, i DO think of it first and foremost as a health issue. sure, one can argue from eiher side, one can argue many bars COULD choose to be smoke-free, etc. fact of the matter is, none did...not at least near me. it DID take being 'forced' for it to happen, and amazingly enough it did NOT negatively affect bar owners' business in the least.

i AM a formewr smoker, and it did happen before i quit and it was a bit annoying, but i did understand it, and i always respected the fact that no one 'should' be forced to endure my bad habit...so yea...i didn't truly have a problem with it. now, as a non-smoker, i ADORE it....b/c i can go and see a band and NOT be subjected to smelling like an ashtray, breathing in smoke, etc. however, i am for judicious government controls, depending on the situation...and i realize it is a slippery slope, subjective, etc....but i HAVE and do support governmental controls over other ares...such as noise, so why not smoke? it's all where you choose to draw the line. for someone like ffg, he wants NO governmental controls, so it makes sense if he or others who think like him not to want it...but for anyone else who supports SOME, or certain situations, etc....it's difficult to decide where you draw such distinctions.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

to the post above from Decides...

exactly...so much is regulated already (common sense stuff mind you)... now we have a real reason to ban something with hard evidence that it actually kills people and... well....still there is controversy..

like...jeez quit already... the verdict is in. Do it for your wife, kids, or whoever else depends on you.... heck....do it for yourself even!

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i love it.


those who argue for business owners rights and all, of course you are right...but then i also think, how many OTHER ways are the regulated, what hours they can be open, noise ordinances, whether they can have live acts, etc. if you are at all supportive of any of these regulations, i just think...why not one for public health? and yes, i DO think of it first and foremost as a health issue. sure, one can argue from eiher side, one can argue many bars COULD choose to be smoke-free, etc. fact of the matter is, none did...not at least near me. it DID take being 'forced' for it to happen, and amazingly enough it did NOT negatively affect bar owners' business in the least.

i AM a formewr smoker, and it did happen before i quit and it was a bit annoying, but i did understand it, and i always respected the fact that no one 'should' be forced to endure my bad habit...so yea...i didn't truly have a problem with it. now, as a non-smoker, i ADORE it....b/c i can go and see a band and NOT be subjected to smelling like an ashtray, breathing in smoke, etc. however, i am for judicious government controls, depending on the situation...and i realize it is a slippery slope, subjective, etc....but i HAVE and do support governmental controls over other ares...such as noise, so why not smoke? it's all where you choose to draw the line. for someone like ffg, he wants NO governmental controls, so it makes sense if he or others who think like him not to want it...but for anyone else who supports SOME, or certain situations, etc....it's difficult to decide where you draw such distinctions.

I'm a smoker, but I do like the idea of having smoke free bars and resturaunts. I have nothing against the idea of having establishments that cater to non-smokers. I wouldn't care if every bar/resturaunt in this country was smoke free. My problem is that this was forced upon the business owner. And yes there are many other regulations that are imposed upon business owners and for the most part I don't agree with most of them. With such regulations like closing time and noise levels, those are town ordinances and are voted on during town meeting where the owner(s) can attend and be heard. The owner(s) have a say in how the town votes on this ordinance where as the smoking laws they do not. The government never even attempted to make this a voluntary program, with financial incentives for those that go non-smoking.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I'm a smoker, but I do like the idea of having smoke free bars and resturaunts. I have nothing against the idea of having establishments that cater to non-smokers. I wouldn't care if every bar/resturaunt in this country was smoke free. My problem is that this was forced upon the business owner. And yes there are many other regulations that are imposed upon business owners and for the most part I don't agree with most of them. With such regulations like closing time and noise levels, those are town ordinances and are voted on during town meeting where the owner(s) can attend and be heard. The owner(s) have a say in how the town votes on this ordinance where as the smoking laws they do not. The government never even attempted to make this a voluntary program, with financial incentives for those that go non-smoking.

um, we VOTE for the representatives who make such decisions, do we not? so to me, that is *our say*...and like i said, if you are at all supportive of other governemental controls...it is a slippery slope to decide *where* to draw the line, but i personally am comfortable with it....and in this particular instance, am 100% comfortable with it.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

um, we VOTE for the representatives who make such decisions, do we not? so to me, that is *our say*...and like i said, if you are at all supportive of other governemental controls...it is a slippery slope to decide *where* to draw the line, but i personally am comfortable with it....and in this particular instance, am 100% comfortable with it.

Ah yes because elected representative always vote with the public's best interest at heart. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean i support or should support every decision he or she makes. Also I'm not comfortable with any instance of government overstepping it's bounds regardless of their intentions.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I didn't vote for those representatives and no I'm not comfortable with any instance of government overstepping it's bounds regardless of their intentions.

and i am perfectly comfortable with you or anyone else disagreeing with me. and it IS all a matter of opinion of just exactly *where* the government is overstepping their bounds. it's ok for them to set noise ordinances, issue liquor licenses, issue caberet licenses, but not regulate a public health issue? anyway, i am not 'arguing' i am ALL for it...agree, disagree...i honestly don't care... i am simply enjoying smoke free environemtsn when i go out to eat, for drinks, to see a band in a bar.....etc.....something before i could not beofre this law was inacted.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i am simply enjoying smoke free environemtsn when i go out to eat, for drinks, to see a band in a bar.....etc.....something before i could not beofre this law was inacted.

Well we can both agree on this aspect.

hippiemom

Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.

dunkman

hippiemom wrote:

Noise levels and operating times are regulated because they affect the entire neighborhood, not just the people who choose to go into the bar. Health regulations are put into place because it is impossible to look at a salad and tell whether or not it's crawling with e-coli. It's easy enough to take one look at an establishment, see that it's smoke-filled, and decide to take your business elsewhere.

i only have 3 bars within 21 miles of me... if all 3 were smoked filled where could i take my business.

so i have to drive 42 miles round trip to the futrhest one in the hope its not smoke filled... all a smoker has to do is walk 10 yards to the door, smoke, walk 10 yards back...

self·ish [sel-fish] adjective
1. Smokers
2. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
3. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

jeffbr

dunkman wrote:

i only have 3 bars within 21 miles of me... if all 3 were smoked filled where could i take my business.

so i have to drive 42 miles round trip to the futrhest one in the hope its not smoke filled... all a smoker has to do is walk 10 yards to the door, smoke, walk 10 yards back...

self·ish [sel-fish] adjective
1. Smokers
2. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
3. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Selfish isn't a bad word. Everyone acts in their own self interest, and the honest ones admit it.

And if you can't find a non-smoking bar near you, open one. Why is it a requirement for someone else to accomodate you?