never said they were publicly owned... i said they were public places
i.e. public transport... its there to serve the public... does that give me the right to take the wheels of the bus once i have arrived at my destination? no... silly argument
Most public transport is government owned which means it is owned by me.
Once again, who forces you into a bar that you have no ownership in?
Of course you do. What you keep forgetting is that you're saying "fuck my own rights" in process.
the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!
A bar, even a public bar, is a private establishment. It is owned by someone who has been granted a license to serve food and alcohol to the public. In order for these private establishments to meet the health and safety requirements to be allowed to sell food and drink they are subjected to rules and regulations. So...it's NOT a matter of Private vs. public. If being a private bar grants them the ability to decide their own smoking rules, then it would stand they could decide other things like kitchen cleanliness, washing hands, food prep and storage needs, pest control, etc. etc. Obviously, private bars and restaurants need to adhere to the standards for such issues and smoking is just one of those issues. Otherwise they will be shut down temporarily or permanently. Please, it does NOT matter private or public....standards must be met by all.
I assume you're also fine with the government regulating the use of trans fats. I also wonder if you would be OK with the government restricting calories or fat% and requiring a certain level of fiber in the food they prepare. After all, it is public health we're talking about. Perhaps they should regulate portion size, and restrict customers to 1 entree per day before cutting them off.
This would give an unfair advantage over enforced non-smoking bars.
At least you are honest enough to recognize that this law has and will cause hardship to businesses. Some people try to claim that businesses are more profitable after the ban. If that were the case, why wouldn't a smart business person have freely chosen that path? The fact that these businesses need to be coerced should highlight the anti-business nature of the law.
So, since the dangers of second hand smoke would infringe on the freedom of others, I don't personally view it as an act of freedom when in the presence of others.
What if others voluntarily put themselves in the presence of smokers? Hasn't the non-smoker just infringed on the freedom of the smoker by voluntarily associating with the smoker, and then making demands that the smoker change behavior?
Also, I agree with your take on smoking and kids.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
and i keep saying fuck business owners rights.. the day that business owners pay decent wages to staff, allow them scheduled breaks, dont force people into work on their days off, dont hire immigrants to do the job at half the wages, etc etc etc... is the day that i might listen to their plea's for their rights!
I keep hearing people say how "selfish" smokers are. What about non-smokers? Where I work, we have to go outside to smoke. So we did. Then people complained that we were standing next to the door they had to walk through. So, we moved the smoking area to another door and made the main entrance a "non smoking door". So as soon as we moved, people started going through th smoking door just so they could complain again. So we moved the smoking area across the parking lot. Now people complain that we smoke next to their cars. I mean, come on, they're not even standing there and they are complaining. How is this not selfish?
By the way, for all the people that want to bring up health issues, I work at a small airfield. We have private jets coming in here constantly with they're big 'ole engines puffing out more carcingens than an entire pack of cigs could create.
I keep hearing people say how "selfish" smokers are. What about non-smokers? Where I work, we have to go outside to smoke. So we did. Then people complained that we were standing next to the door they had to walk through. So, we moved the smoking area to another door and made the main entrance a "non smoking door". So as soon as we moved, people started going through th smoking door just so they could complain again. So we moved the smoking area across the parking lot. Now people complain that we smoke next to their cars. I mean, come on, they're not even standing there and they are complaining. How is this not selfish?
By the way, for all the people that want to bring up health issues, I work at a small airfield. We have private jets coming in here constantly with they're big 'ole engines puffing out more carcingens than an entire pack of cigs could create.
Sure one guy here suggested that it's rude of us to leave our company in a restaurant to go outside to smoke . Apparently we're supposed to sit tight and shut up... or something . Lol, what the fuck next?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Are the employees there against their will, or did they chose to work in the environment?
What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?
There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.
Cymru Am Byth
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
Sorry if this has already been said, it's a pretty long post!
Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.
That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.
What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?
There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.
What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?
There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.
They are OSHA (government) regulations, not something that is decided on a case by case, state by state, city by city basis.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
I assume you're also fine with the government regulating the use of trans fats. I also wonder if you would be OK with the government restricting calories or fat% and requiring a certain level of fiber in the food they prepare. After all, it is public health we're talking about. Perhaps they should regulate portion size, and restrict customers to 1 entree per day before cutting them off.
There ARE food regulations in restaurants similar to what you've described. By being in the restaurant I am forced to breath the air they provide, but I'm not forced to order fatty foods. I could order a salad. There is a difference between food ingestion and breathing air. Please don't forget that.
At least you are honest enough to recognize that this law has and will cause hardship to businesses. Some people try to claim that businesses are more profitable after the ban. If that were the case, why wouldn't a smart business person have freely chosen that path? The fact that these businesses need to be coerced should highlight the anti-business nature of the law.
Hardship only in relative terms. Once all restaurants are on the same playing field, none has an advantage over another on this particular topic. I guarantee you restaurants in my area (where smoking has been banned for over 7 years) are flourishing...even shitty-run restaurants are doing well. I'm not kidding. Dance bars have taken a hit, but pub bars and restaurants have done amazing business.
What if others voluntarily put themselves in the presence of smokers? Hasn't the non-smoker just infringed on the freedom of the smoker by voluntarily associating with the smoker, and then making demands that the smoker change behavior?
I think you're splitting hairs a bit here. If you make an effort to distance yourself from me while smoking, and I follow you, I've waived my right to clean air. Normal people will allow you the time to finish your smoke before starting up a discussion again.
Is it weird that I think they should make Marijuana 100percent legal and ban smoking cigarettes altogether? Ii have my reasons...they are long and boring, but those are my thoughts.
That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.
In this situation, it provides unfair competition, so the bar-owner with no employees would be given an unfair advantage over restaurants with employees. That wouldn't last.
In this situation, it provides unfair competition, so the bar-owner with no employees would be given an unfair advantage over restaurants with employees. That wouldn't last.
just as a smoker is free to leave the bar and have a smoke outside
He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.
He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.
Nice post. I tried the choice argument, but people are less interested in choice than control.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.
the owner could choose to piss in the cooking oil too, but I'm glad there are regulations against that.
I'm sorry but a lot of you folks are seriously delusional. Basically you won't be happy until there is complete anarchy and then you will call it true freedom...because you can choose to do whatever the hell you want.
If freedom were only about choice, then I could choose to shoot you in the head, and that would be ok, because I had the freedom to do it. I was just exercising my freedom to point the barrel at your cranium and squeeze the trigger.
As I said earlier, Freedom should be the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.
What is your excuse on why there shouldn't be a smokers bar? Everybody in the place would know of the health hazard and would be in their at their own will. As a nonsmoker this would somehow offend you or any other person who dosen't smoke? You would feel compeled to see what you are missing, just to whine about your clothes smelling? I don't get why you people can't fathom a smoking bar for smokers.
Forgive me for "whining" about dying, tumors, and cancer because of someone else's uncontrollable addiction.
clothes...lol... you said clothes...
as an Ex smoker I can assure you I am missing nothing... I'm free of that curse... perhaps smokers should be the jealous ones...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm sorry but a lot of you folks are seriously delusional. Basically you won't be happy until there is complete anarchy and then you will call it true freedom...because you can choose to do whatever the hell you want.
What do you think is going on now, friend? When you can just make a bar owner change his practices based on your whims and desires, suggesting in the process that you own him and his establishment, you are the one championing violent anarchy. Try selling the anarchy crap to people who aren't defending property rights.
If freedom were only about choice, then I could choose to shoot you in the head, and that would be ok, because I had the freedom to do it. I was just exercising my freedom to point the barrel at your cranium and squeeze the trigger.
No. You don't understand the philosophical meanings or roots of freedom. Please read some philosophy on the subject. I don't care if it's Rand or if it's Marx or whatever, but "freedom to kill someone" is a contradiction.
As I said earlier, Freedom should be the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.
Then your law is invalid since it infringes on everyone's freedom.
Then your law is invalid since it infringes on everyone's freedom.
Second hand smoke kills. The government promotes safe workplaces. All workplaces should be subjected to the same rules. End of story. Good luck with your crusade.
Second hand smoke kills. The government promotes safe workplaces. All workplaces should be subjected to the same rules. End of story. Good luck with your crusade.
So does working on a fishing boat in the Bering Strait should that be outlawed.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
Most public transport is government owned which means it is owned by me.
Once again, who forces you into a bar that you have no ownership in?
Of course you do. What you keep forgetting is that you're saying "fuck my own rights" in process.
Wow...
It is sovereign land, subject to their laws in many cases.
I assume you're also fine with the government regulating the use of trans fats. I also wonder if you would be OK with the government restricting calories or fat% and requiring a certain level of fiber in the food they prepare. After all, it is public health we're talking about. Perhaps they should regulate portion size, and restrict customers to 1 entree per day before cutting them off.
At least you are honest enough to recognize that this law has and will cause hardship to businesses. Some people try to claim that businesses are more profitable after the ban. If that were the case, why wouldn't a smart business person have freely chosen that path? The fact that these businesses need to be coerced should highlight the anti-business nature of the law.
Good definition. What if others voluntarily put themselves in the presence of smokers? Hasn't the non-smoker just infringed on the freedom of the smoker by voluntarily associating with the smoker, and then making demands that the smoker change behavior?
Also, I agree with your take on smoking and kids.
dude are you serious?
By the way, for all the people that want to bring up health issues, I work at a small airfield. We have private jets coming in here constantly with they're big 'ole engines puffing out more carcingens than an entire pack of cigs could create.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
to my knowledge, this is why the law originated
Are the employees there against their will, or did they chose to work in the environment?
What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?
There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
that doesnt matter. its like an employer (construction company) requiring their construction workers to wear hard hats on site, for their protection.
That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.
ha thats funny, we use the same example.
They are OSHA (government) regulations, not something that is decided on a case by case, state by state, city by city basis.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Yeah, noticed that. Great minds think alike. Or is it fools never differ?!!!
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
Is it weird that I think they should make Marijuana 100percent legal and ban smoking cigarettes altogether? Ii have my reasons...they are long and boring, but those are my thoughts.
In this situation, it provides unfair competition, so the bar-owner with no employees would be given an unfair advantage over restaurants with employees. That wouldn't last.
Once again, I thought this was good for business.
The best for overall business is an even playing field.
He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Nice post. I tried the choice argument, but people are less interested in choice than control.
That's because a lot of people what their government to hold their hand from craddle to grave.
SO that they can blame the government instead of blaming themselves for making bad choices.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
the owner could choose to piss in the cooking oil too, but I'm glad there are regulations against that.
If freedom were only about choice, then I could choose to shoot you in the head, and that would be ok, because I had the freedom to do it. I was just exercising my freedom to point the barrel at your cranium and squeeze the trigger.
As I said earlier, Freedom should be the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.
Forgive me for "whining" about dying, tumors, and cancer because of someone else's uncontrollable addiction.
clothes...lol... you said clothes...
as an Ex smoker I can assure you I am missing nothing... I'm free of that curse... perhaps smokers should be the jealous ones...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What do you think is going on now, friend? When you can just make a bar owner change his practices based on your whims and desires, suggesting in the process that you own him and his establishment, you are the one championing violent anarchy. Try selling the anarchy crap to people who aren't defending property rights.
No. You don't understand the philosophical meanings or roots of freedom. Please read some philosophy on the subject. I don't care if it's Rand or if it's Marx or whatever, but "freedom to kill someone" is a contradiction.
Then your law is invalid since it infringes on everyone's freedom.
Second hand smoke kills. The government promotes safe workplaces. All workplaces should be subjected to the same rules. End of story. Good luck with your crusade.
So does working on a fishing boat in the Bering Strait should that be outlawed.