No Smoking in Bars.....

jeffbr

dunkman wrote:

second hand smoke kills

stinking of shit doesnt


i was pointing out the hypocracy of the statement... people who smoke would try and get me thrown out cos i stink of shit, but smoke is killing people in that very pub... and this is why the government bans smoking and not stinking of shit... which quite rightly gets left to the managers discretion

Obesity from a high-fat diet is a big killer. Why do we leave that up to a manager's discretion at McDonalds? Shouldn't the government mandate Big Mac sales?

spiral out

mammasan wrote:

It's not Americans it's just those whinny bitch ass non-smokers. Bunch of pussies they are if you ask me.

Your so right we should want to kill ourselves quicker what are thinking. I'm going to a packet right now.

blackredyellow

I am against the laws on principal, but am ok with it in practice if that makes any sense.

I am not a fan of governments dictating how a private business operates, but let's face it, they do A LOT. In most state laws against smoking, they are not creating a disadvantage to any individual bars, and quite honestly I enjoy going out and not coming home smelling like an ashtray.

There is a law that is being fought in Allegheny county (where Pittsburgh, PA is located) that bans smoking there for bars and restaurants, but not for the new casinos (slot licenses were passed last year). Not only are the local bars now at a competitive disadvantage against the casino bars, but on the edges of the counties a lot of bars are going to be hurt because right down the block in a surrounding county smoking would be allowed.

I just think that with the health care issues and ridiculous expense that smoking causes, it is in our best interest as a country to help reduce that expense that we all have to pay for.

Kann

jeffbr wrote:

Obesity from a high-fat diet is a big killer. Why do we leave that up to a manager's discretion at McDonalds? Shouldn't the government mandate Big Mac sales?

that's a bad analogy. dunkman is speaking of second hand smoke while your speaking of voluntary bigmac eating.

mammasan

spiral out wrote:

Your so right we should want to kill ourselves quicker what are thinking. I'm going to a packet right now.

I was making a stupid generalization to counter Mookies stupid generalization.

martina78

even flow? wrote:

Either way you slice the issue, if you are putting up the money to build a bar and want smoking in it. You should be allowed to have that option. Just as the staff and patrons will have the option to work and drink there. Don't like the smoke, just move on down the line.

That's such a dumb comment to make. If you want customers and employees, which you probably need to run the place, then it's a public place, open to the public, and just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you should have to 'move on down the line'. Isn't that just a tad discriminatory. Why are some smokers so blinkered about this?

Sludge Factory

Kann wrote:

the argument is not over the cigarettes, going out to smoke is not a big deal. the argument is over the government telling us where we can smoke and where we can't.
anyone considered these small steps (public places, bars, workplaces...) are going towards a complete ban of tobacco and rendering cigarettes illegal?

Personally, I'd be all for making cigarettes illegal. It's a pointless waste of time and money (although it can be argued it's a great money maker for businesses and the economy and that it's one's own choice to waste their time and money...but I choose to look past that) no matter how good it supposedly makes you feel or how relaxed you become from it. Not to mention the health consequences. Talk about paying to slowly kill yourself, it just doesn't make sense to me.

But really, if they were illegal, would they really go away? I mean, people wouldn't have to deal with the everyday occurence of walking into a puff of smoke cloud because people wouldn't be doing it out in the open; they'd just find places to do it like all the other illegal substances. Which would kind of be nice from the perspective of those who would enjoy being able to go outside and not have to deal with smokers.

If only the King of England way back in the day would've went with his gut instinct and outlawed this habit instead of going with his pocketbook instinct.

With that said, nearly everyone in my family smokes.

jeffbr

Kann wrote:

that's a bad analogy. dunkman is speaking of second hand smoke while your speaking of voluntary bigmac eating.

Was anyone in the there under duress? I'm betting there is a lot of voluntary patronage and employment by choice going on.

Mookie Baylock

even flow? wrote:

Just as the staff and patrons will have the option to work and drink there. Don't like the smoke, just move on down the line.

You're so right. Just like if I worked in a mine let's say, and my bosses didn't want to install special equipment to prevent mines collapsing, that's fine, I should just leave the mine business. Or if I'm a nurse and I don't want to use a new syringe for each injection, I shouldn't be forced to. And if you don't like it, you don't have to get that tetenus shot.

LikeAnOcean

I can definitely understand the need to smoke in a bar for I have friends who smoke and its gonna suck for them in 2008 here, BUT.. I'm a non smoker and would prefer no smoking, since it only dries out my eyes, gives me second hand smoke and makes my jacket and clothes smell like shit, so I will silently vote in favor of non-smoking bars.

Drew263

As a non smoker and hater of smoke filled bars...I still think it should be left up to each individual establishment. Not Big Brother.

mammasan

Kann wrote:

the argument is not over the cigarettes, going out to smoke is not a big deal. the argument is over the government telling us where we can smoke and where we can't.
anyone considered these small steps (public places, bars, workplaces...) are going towards a complete ban of tobacco and rendering cigarettes illegal?

Well in New Jersey they are no trying ban smoking in your car. In San Fran they are trying to ban smoking in your home. Where does the government interference end.

Kann

jeffbr wrote:

Was anyone in the there under duress? I'm betting there is a lot of voluntary patronage and employment by choice going on.

so basically it's not the cigarettes that are hazardous to health but the bars?

LikeAnOcean

mammasan wrote:

Well in New Jersey they are no trying ban smoking in your car. In San Fran they are trying to ban smoking in your home. Where does the government interference end.

I would think thats a smart idea to not smoke in your car. It is only a distraction. Same with cell phones.

jeffbr

martina78 wrote:

That's such a dumb comment to make. If you want customers and employees, which you probably need to run the place, then it's a public place, open to the public, and just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you should have to 'move on down the line'. Isn't that just a tad discriminatory. Why are some smokers so blinkered about this?

I'm not a smoker, but I am a business owner.

Maybe it is cultural or semantics, but a private business is by definition not a public business. It is open to people who chose to work or patronize the business, but it is privately owned and operated. Accessible to the public does not change the ownership structure of the establishment.

mammasan

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I would think thats a smart idea to not smoke in your car. It is only a distraction. Same with cell phones.

Ever have a screaming kid in the back seat of your car? Should we ban them.

martina78

Kann wrote:

the argument is not over the cigarettes, going out to smoke is not a big deal. the argument is over the government telling us where we can smoke and where we can't.
anyone considered these small steps (public places, bars, workplaces...) are going towards a complete ban of tobacco and rendering cigarettes illegal?

That's no going to happen. If it works there like it does here the government are not going to ban tobacco products because they make too much fucking money out of the sales of cigarettes through massive taxes. Can you not for one second consider a non-smokers right to not have to inhale second hand smoke? Why get so bogged down in the idea of being told what to do? There are some arguments in favour of the government interfering in our day to day lives.

Drew263

mammasan wrote:

Well in New Jersey they are no trying ban smoking in your car. In San Fran they are trying to ban smoking in your home. Where does the government interference end.

Govt interference in the People's Republic of San Francisco?? You don't say..

LikeAnOcean

mammasan wrote:

Ever have a csreaming kid in the back seat of your car? Should we ban them.

Yes. Yes we should.

But seriously, what is a typical long car ride, an hour? You're telling me people can't go an hour without smoking??? Thats just one less hazard. I think its a worthy proposal.. I don't agree with banning in your own home though.

jeffbr

Kann wrote:

so basically it's not the cigarettes that are hazardous to health but the bars?

There are many things found in bars which aren't healthy. Cigarettes, alcohol, greasy hamburgers & fries, people with STDs, etc...