No Smoking in Bars.....

24567…20

Comments

  • dunkman
    dunkman 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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    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.
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    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.
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • Kann
    Kann 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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman 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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • moeaholic
    moeaholic 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
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    The issue of public v private workspaces is interesting. In England, smoking will be banned in all enclosed public workspaces, but not in private ones. One contentious blurring of the distinction between public and private is in the case of truck drivers, whose commercial vehicles are considered public workplaces. They won't be able to smoke, for example.

    Anti-smoking lobbyists are calling for banning smoking in residential homes when they become places of work for visiting doctors or tradespeople.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    dunkman wrote:
    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

    To your first statement I don't think the government should require you to wear a seatbelt. If you want to stupid enough to not wear one that is your problem. Many restrictions that government pose on businesses I think are unnecassry, not just the smoking ban. just because an action is deemed sensible doesn't mean that it should be a law.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    PART 2

    Exemptions

    Application of Part 2
    2. The exemptions in this Part apply only to premises that would be smoke-free under section 2 of the Health Act 2006 if those exemptions had not been made.

    Private accommodation
    3. —(1) A private dwelling is not smoke-free except for any part of it which is—

    (a) used in common in relation to more than one set of premises (including premises so used in relation to any other private dwelling or dwellings); or

    (b) used solely as a place of work (other than work that is excluded by paragraph (2)) by—

    (i) more than one person who does not live in the dwelling;

    (ii) a person who does not live in the dwelling and any person who does live in the dwelling; or

    (iii) a person (whether he lives in the dwelling or not) who in the course of his work invites persons who do not live or work in the dwelling to attend the part of it which is used solely for work.

    (2) There is excluded from paragraph (1)(b) all work that is undertaken solely—

    (a) to provide personal care for a person living in the dwelling;

    (b) to assist with the domestic work of the household in the dwelling;

    (c) to maintain the structure or fabric of the dwelling; or

    (d) to install, maintain or remove any service provided to the dwelling for the benefit of persons living in it.

    (3) In this regulation, "private dwelling" includes self-contained residential accommodation for temporary or holiday use and any garage, outhouse or other structure for the exclusive use of persons living in the dwelling.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    that's discriminatory... it means people who value their health cant work in a bar.
    that doesnt make sense. its like saying working in a cubicle is discriminatory against people who like to stand.
    dunkman wrote:
    whats so fucking hard about walking 10 yards to a designated smoking area to have a cig... lazy fuckers!!
    its quite easy actually. but you can scream till your blue in the face, it wont happen unless people are forced
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    true. definitely private.

    a bar is a private business but a public service... its called a "public bar", serves the general public and this is where the phrase "pub" comes from
    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.
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    jlew24asu wrote:
    that doesnt make sense. its like saying working in a cubicle is discriminatory against people who like to stand.

    Not really health is an important issue standing or sitting in your job is not.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    dunkman wrote:
    a bar is a private business but a public service... its called a "public bar", serves the general public and this is where the phrase "pub" comes from

    Answer me this should bars and resteraunt be required by law to only serve you one or two drinks because there is a possibility you may get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. Seems sensible don't you think.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    I can't wait for 1st july here, bring on the ban.

    I feel a persons right to health is more important than a persons right to smoke.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    mammasan wrote:
    To your first statement I don't think the government should require you to wear a seatbelt. If you want to stupid enough to not wear one that is your problem. Many restrictions that government pose on businesses I think are unnecassry, not just the smoking ban. just because an action is deemed sensible doesn't mean that it should be a law.

    Ok, then a comparable situation would be to forbid you to drive while drunk.
    Your car is your property, alcohol is a legal drug, but alcohol + driving is dangerous for others. So there is a ban on drunk driving. I think it's a pretty good idea (since I already have trouble walking when I'm drunk) though it strips me from some freedom.
    edit : right, since we're talking business owners, let's say you're a drunk truck driver.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.

    What you're asking here is "how come I don't have a right to dictate to someone else how to use their property"? So I can't really answer your question about "freedom rights", since you don't seem to have the same definition of freedom that I do.

Categories