No Smoking in Bars.....

13567…20

Comments

  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    that doesnt make sense. its like saying working in a cubicle is discriminatory against people who like to stand.

    no its not... people like to stand but sitting at their job doesnt harm their health.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its quite easy actually. but you can scream till your blue in the face, it wont happen unless people are forced

    of course it's easy... so just do it!!! and forced they will be.
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    spiral out wrote:
    Not really health is an important issue standing or sitting in your job is not.
    doesnt matter
  • surfanddestroy
    surfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    jlew24asu wrote:
    if you think they have a right to smoke then you shouldnt want a law forced them not to do so.

    The law is not to force people not to smoke it's to make public places smoke free environments. I don't care if you wanna kill yourself and waste a hell of a lot of money while you are at it, I just don't want to inhale you smoke when I go to a pub for a few drinks.
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    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.

    Because you pose a serious threat to the safety of other motorists on the road. With the smoking ban you can always go to an establishment that is smoke free. With drunk driving what am i supposed to do stay off the roads constantly because there may be a drunk driver on the road.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    spiral out wrote:
    I feel a persons right to health is more important than a persons right to smoke.

    Hehe..this is what happens when we invent rights.

    No one has a "right to health", nor does anyone have a "right to smoke". Health is a bodily condition, not a right. And smoking is a behavior, not a right.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    and how does this relate to someone being allowed to smoke?

    doesnt seem sensible at all... if you get behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk then how is that the bar's fault? its your own fault... if, like the case of several barstaff who campaigned for the Smoking Ban in Scotland, your health is harmed by continually having to breathe in smoke at your job... then thats not your own fault

    smoking kills... fact
    ban people smoking doesnt kill ... fact

    making fat lazy selfish cunts walk 10 yards to a covered and heated smoking area is a good idea... fact
    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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    doesnt matter

    if it doesnt matter then your analogy was shit...
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    The law is not to force people not to smoke it's to make public places smoke free environments.
    but I dont think a bar is a public place. as for public places, I agree.
    surfanddestroy wrote:
    I don't care if you wanna kill yourself and waste a hell of a lot of money while you are at it, I just don't want to inhale you smoke when I go to a pub for a few drinks.
    then you shouldnt go to a bar.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    if it doesnt matter then your analogy was shit...

    my point is that its not discriminatory
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    but I dont think a bar is a public place. as for public places, I agree.


    of course it is... it maybe run by a private entity but its a public place

    1. it has to apply for a licence to serve the public
    2. it serves the general public
    3. the name "pub" is an abbreviation of the phrase "public bar"


    the only thing private about is the ownership.. and even then some larger 'chain style' pubs are PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES!!
    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:
    and how does this relate to someone being allowed to smoke?

    doesnt seem sensible at all... if you get behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk then how is that the bar's fault? its your own fault... if, like the case of several barstaff who campaigned for the Smoking Ban in Scotland, your health is harmed by continually having to breathe in smoke at your job... then thats not your own fault

    smoking kills... fact
    ban people smoking doesnt kill ... fact

    making fat lazy selfish cunts walk 10 yards to a covered and heated smoking area is a good idea... fact

    See you stiil see it as a smoking issue and it's not. It's a property rights issue and until people start understanding that they will continue to keep their head in the sand. Most smokers I know don't give a flying fuck about having to walk 10 yard or 100 yards to have a smoke. The problem is that government is interfering in private business and that is a FACT.

    Tell me what is wrong with making this ban a voluntary program where those that decided to ban smoking would receive a tax break. If the government would have followed this course of action I wouldn't have one fucking complaint because the decision was left to the business owners.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    mammasan wrote:
    Tell me what is wrong with making this ban a voluntary program where those that decided to ban smoking would receive a tax break. If the government would have followed this course of action I wouldn't have one fucking complaint because the decision was left to the business owners.

    It can easily be argued that banning cigarettes in your bar while the one next to you doesn't may get you to loose customers. And the fear of going out of buisness is enough to stop an owner from banning smoking even if he wanted to.
  • surfanddestroy
    surfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    jlew24asu wrote:
    but I dont think a bar is a public place. as for public places, I agree.

    then you shouldnt go to a bar.

    A bar is a public place hence why we call them public houses over here!

    I have the right to go to a bar and not have difficulty breathing because smoking is a choice, when you were born you wasn't a smoker it is not in your genes to become a smoker, you smoke because you decided you want to for whatever reason.
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that government is interfering in private business and that is a FACT.


    the government is tasked with looking after the common good of the public... all private business is interfered with to some extent

    by your rationale i should be allowed to sell a deranged mental patient with a nazi slogan tattooed on his head a machine gun (if i owned a gun store)... but government 'interference' has made it so that when i check up on this guy it comes up on a computer screen

    "do not sell the mad fucker a gun"

    but if we go your route then why cant i sell it to him? and maybe throw in some free grenades for him as well!!
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    of course it is... it maybe run by a private entity but its a public place

    1. it has to apply for a licence to serve the public
    2. it serves the general public
    3. the name "pub" is an abbreviation of the phrase "public bar"


    the only thing private about is the ownership.. and even then some larger 'chain style' pubs are PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES!!

    ok. and for the record dunk, I do my best to not smoke in front of people who do not smoke. I'm not trying to defend a smokers right to blow smoke in peoples faces. just some friendly debate. relax a bit mate.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    It can easily be argued that banning cigarettes in your bar while the one next to you doesn't may get you to loose customers. And the fear of going out of buisness is enough to stop an owner from banning smoking even if he wanted to.

    It can easily be argued that there are many people who would prefer a non smoking establishment to a smoking establishment regardless of their proximity to each other.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    relax a bit mate.

    roll me a fat one then buddy :D
    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.
  • Dustin51
    Dustin51 Posts: 222
    God I can’t believe how many people are so crazy about people not smoking in a bar. Dude it’s a Bar. You people are insane. If someone smoked at my gym I'd have a problem with it. If someone wanted to work out at a bar I guess I wouldn't really have a problem it would be pretty funny actually but it would still be odd. I just don't get it. Why is everyone trippin on a little smoke at a bar? If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke go to a library.
    Be excellent to each other
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dunkman wrote:
    roll me a fat one then buddy :D
    I would but its banned! damn government
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Dustin51 wrote:
    God I can’t believe how many people are so crazy about people not smoking in a bar. Dude it’s a Bar. You people are insane. If someone smoked at my gym I'd have a problem with it. If someone wanted to work out at a bar I guess I wouldn't really have a problem it would be pretty funny actually but it would still be odd. I just don't get it. Why is everyone trippin on a little smoke at a bar? If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke go to a library.

    the law is more geared towards the people who work in the bars.

Categories