Smoking in Bars...

[FUNKED1]

BTW I don't smoke.  I just don't feel the need to impose my choice on others.  Funny how the liberal crowd are all about freedom of choice over one's body when it comes to an unborn child, but when it comes to choices like cigarettes or drugs they are all against it.  Boggles, mind, etc.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Get used to it smokers, your day is done. I have no objection to anyone killing themselves with any substance they choose. But I seriously object to smokers forcing me to inhale their crap and then telling me THEIR rights are being effected when their foul habit is banned. They can damage their health if they want but have no business damaging mine.

Here in Ireland the smoking ban in the workplace starts on March 21st and I for one can't wait. Now I can go out to a pub or nightclub for the night and not have to inhale the exhaled crud of the minority of ********s who still think smoking is socially acceptable.  Then go home smelling like a butt end.

Smokers are a dying breed as slogan goes. Now they can die on their own with the rest of us having to inhale their s**t.  This is nothing to do with the nanny state or rights. It's about a bunch of retards who been inflicting their dirty habit on the rest us for years. Smoking is now as socially acceptable as spitting these days.

LOL!  **** you!  

[miko2d]

vorticon: 1. common sense determines what is child abuse...

 All the examples I cited were common sense to those that imposed them.

2.err i was referring to the war of independance...

 Right. About a third supported independence. A miniscule number of them fought to help french win their independence.

that made absalutly no sense at all...no country has ever not had a leader...

 BS

and its usually a DICTATORSHIP in wich peoples rights can be removed on a whim...

 Which is what we have here.

not a DEMOCRACY where the people can choose to overrule a governments decision if it is not to there liking...

 Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

Alexander Hamilton:
 "a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent."
 -- Letter to Theodore Sedgwick,July 10, 1804

 "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
 --  Speech on June 21,1788


Elbridge Gerry (Declaration, Constitution, governor, vice president):
 The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.  The people do not want [do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
 -- Madison's Convention Notes, May 31st


John Adams:
 "Democracy will envy all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel."
 -- Letter to Jefferson, July 16, 1814

 "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
 -- Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814


John Quincy Adams:
 "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
 -- Speech April 30, 1839


Fisher Ames (Author of the House Language for the First Amendment):
 "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way."
 -- Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.
 -- "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.
"Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."
"..democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms."


James Madison:
"...Government capable of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of Democracy"
 -- Letter to Jared Sparks, April 8, 1831.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."


Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
 -- Letter to John Adams, October 28, 1813

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

cpxxx: But I seriously object to smokers forcing me to inhale their crap and then telling me THEIR rights are being effected when their foul habit is banned.

 Just because some smokers are ignorant idiots, does not mean you have to be too.
 It is not the smokers' rights that are violated, but the rights of the restaurant and bar owners to conduct a business on their property they way they see fit.

 miko

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by vorticon
so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???

You must not be from the U.S., let me explain it to you this way.
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voteing on what to have for lunch. As you notice, it doesn't work out well for the sheep who we shall call for this purpose "The Minority". That is why we are a Republic if this needs further explanation I would be glad to help....

[vorticon]

All the examples I cited were common sense to those that imposed them.

not the point...the point is that if a countries people had the right to sexually abuse there children and that right was removed you would be applauding it along with everyone else.

BS

prove it

Which is what we have here.

is it...or is it just a government that cares more about the majority than the minority

Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

most of your qoutes said to much or excess or pure...ideal government styles are like hydrogen...volatile and good for floating things...but mix in a bit of another ideal and you'll get helium...not quite as good at floating things but very stable...of course what they think and the current state of the worlds direct democracies seem to be opposite of each other...

but the rights of the restaurant and bar owners to conduct a business on their property they way they see fit.

even though there policies are slowly killing there employees and customers??? (talking aabout anything but bars)
why should the many patrons and workers suffer with second hand smoke just so that the owner can get rich?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by weaselsan
You must not be from the U.S., let me explain it to you this way.
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voteing on what to have for lunch. As you notice, it doesn't work out well for the sheep who we shall call for this purpose "The Minority". That is why we are a Republic if this needs further explanation I would be glad to help....

so what do they choose in a republic?

the problem all governments face is how to give the majority what they want while ensuring the minority doesnt get stomped on...canada seems to be doing pretty good at it...smoking in public buildings does not stomp the minority (smokers) rights because if they really need a smoke they can just step outside light up then come in when there done...while the majority (non-smokers) get what they want...

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by vorticon
why should the many patrons and workers suffer with second hand smoke just so that the owner can get rich?

Nobody is forcing them to work there or spend their money there.  Completely voluntary.  If the danger is so high, surely those people will vote with their feet, reducing labor supply and reducing customer demand, which will reduce the owner's profitability or drive him out of business.  Let people make their own decisions, and market forces will take care of the "problem".

(off topic) Also what makes you think the owner is always getting rich?  Sure he can benefit the most from success.  But he also takes a huge risk.  The employees get paid for their labor no matter what.  That's the law.  But if there is not enough money to make payroll one month, guess whose paycheck it comes out of?  The owner's.  And if the business goes under, who will the creditors come looking for?  Not the employees, the owner.  He takes great risks to give his employees the opportunity to make a good living, and in return, he has the possibility of significant rewards.  Businessmen like that made America great, and if our government continues to persecute them, we can look to the USSR for our future.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by vorticon
even though there policies are slowly killing there employees and customers??? (talking aabout anything but bars)
why should the many patrons and workers suffer with second hand smoke just so that the owner can get rich?

I just had to quote it. Read that one more time, then figure out what an owner is. Then figure out what patrons and employees are. Then find out what freedom is.

Then put it all together, and you'll find why the owner should be allowed to let people smoke in his resturaunt/bar/private corporation. If people were truly as strong as their convictions (I don't want to go to a smokey place), then that owner wouldn't be getting rich.
-SW

[vorticon]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nobody is forcing them to work there or spend their money there.  Completely voluntary.  If the danger is so high, surely those people will vote with their feet, reducing labor supply and reducing customer demand, which will reduce the owner's profitability or drive him out of business.  Let people make their own decisions, and market forces will take care of the "problem".

so if a person is trained as something highly specialized and theres only 1 place in town that can hire him but it allows smoking and he doesnt like that does he have a choice???
why should people lose access to that service/income from that service over a little thing like smoking when a petition to the government can achieve the same thing without any loss...of course in a place where there is a lot of that service and the people do have quite a bit of choice the only thing holding them back is the difficulty in orginizing boycots or labour unions/strikes...not to mention the fact that the dangers of second hand smoke (other than its annoying) have only fairly recently be found out...

(off topic) Also what makes you think the owner is always getting rich?  Sure he can benefit the most from success.  But he also takes a huge risk.  The employees get paid for their labor no matter what.  That's the law.  But if there is not enough money to make payroll one month, guess whose paycheck it comes out of?  The owner's.  And if the business goes under, who will the creditors come looking for?  Not the employees, the owner.  He takes great risks to give his employees the opportunity to make a good living.

good point...just pretend i said so the owner can try to get rich

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
BTW I don't smoke.  I just don't feel the need to impose my choice on others.  Funny how the liberal crowd are all about freedom of choice over one's body when it comes to an unborn child, but when it comes to choices like cigarettes or drugs they are all against it.  Boggles, mind, etc.

then they are not real libs funked. but nader fools in hideing.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Since the issue is primarily about smoking in bars... There is not ONE position in the ENTIRE bar that someone highly specialized would work in.

You mix drinks, hand out beer, collect money, make change, or are the tough guy at the door whose only speciality is reading numbers that form people's birth dates.
-SW

[vorticon]

BTW I don't smoke. I just don't feel the need to impose my choice on others. Funny how the liberal crowd are all about freedom of choice over one's body when it comes to an unborn child, but when it comes to choices like cigarettes or drugs they are all against it. Boggles, mind, etc.

smoke if you want...just dont do it where its gonna hurt me, or my kids...second hand smoke in a family resteraunt is about the same as a gang war next to a playground...just the speed they kill thats different

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by vorticon
smoke if you want...just dont do it where its gonna hurt me, or my kids...second hand smoke in a family resteraunt is about the same as a gang war next to a playground...just the speed they kill thats different

Worst analogy evar.
-SW

[Creamo]

[Frogm4n]

You were the one knowingly takeing your family to a restruant that had smokers. SO your also liable when the kids grow up and want to sue.
As a crazy liberal smoking bans are fundamentally against what i believe even though i hate smoke and smokers.