No Smoking in Bars.....

dunkman

jlew24asu wrote:

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...

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

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.....

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

you cant get your health harmed by someone drinking next to you...

Huh? What about when he passes out from being so drunk and slams into you?

the drunk-driver excuse is of no fault of the bar.. its the idiot trying to drive home.

I don't understand. How is smoking the fault of the bar, if drunk-driving is not?

it could just as likely be lightning... should we ban lightning?

Definitely. As a matter of fact, we should probably just ban death. That would be easier, no?

farfromglorified

Ericastrada wrote:

And it all comes full circle. Maybe the people that actually own the bars could be allowed to make that decision.

Hehe...fuck no! That's cooky talk.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

chromiam

Ericastrada wrote:

And it all comes full circle. Maybe the people that actually own the bars could be allowed to make that decision.

why should someone be able to decide how to operate their business???

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Kann

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

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.

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

banning smoking

This is not anything near what is being proposed by the lobbyists though. That would make them lose their jobs and revenue.

farfromglorified

Kann wrote:

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.

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

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...

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

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......

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

jlew24asu

Ericastrada wrote:

And it all comes full circle. Maybe the people that actually own the bars could be allowed to make that decision.

full circle is right.

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

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

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

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.

But the logic is different. You've banned drunk-driving everywhere. Why are you only banning smoking in bars?

if a barman sells a guy drinks and then he goes into his car then how is that the bar's fault...

Hehe...based on the logic here, that answer is simple: because the bar contributed to the situation.

we could just as easily blame the car company for allowing him to buy a car in the first place...

Sure! Why shouldn't we? And why not blame the government that build the road in the first place?

Kann

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

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

Don't put "we" into that. That's all you.

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

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.