No Guiness for Lazs :)

[AKcurly]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ag3QirTIqL5s&refer=europe

curly

[cpxxx]

To offset the potential impact of the ban on sales of Guinness, Diageo, the world's largest liquor maker, will give away 10,000 free pints to persuade drinkers not to abandon pubs after the ban is introduced.

That's the paragraph I like. I'm off to the pub. 10,000 pints! Where will I start?

As for the smoking ban, never mind many pubs have beer gardens and in any case the ban is all but unenforceable outside big towns.

Sales of Guinness fell seven percent by volume in Ireland last year, as total sales at the country's bars declined by five percent.

This I don't understand seeing as a recent survey found the Irish were the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Some mistake surely. Anyway I'm off for my free beer. Yee haw!

[Nilsen]

in 8 weeks the smoking bad starts here to....i sure am glad i quit the stuff 2 months ago

[lazs2]

uhhh...  I don't smoke or drink.

That being said... I would never vote for a law that prohibited people from doing either or restricted them in private buildings.

California starts all this crap... third worlders, women and womenly men dominate our polls... but...  What happens here eventually happens everywhere.   All the weird stuff comes from democrats in California yet....


even with this example... some of you think the democrats are on your side?  Helping the little people and the downtrodden and and and... don't forget the children!   the poor little children!

If only one child can be saved then everyone living the life of nannied little socialists will be worth it right?  

Throw the women and the buerocrats out.   Any freedom you vote to remove from someone else is just one less freedom for you..  any democrat you vote for is one step closer to going home and living with your mom.

grow a pair fer chrissakes.

lazs

[AKIron]

I don't see these smoking bans as nanny laws but rather a consensus that folks don't want to have to breath that stuff when they are in a public place if they don't want to. Kinda like masterbation, do it at home.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by AKIron
I don't see these smoking bans as nanny laws but rather a consensus that folks don't want to have to breath that stuff when they are in a public place if they don't want to. Kinda like masterbation, do it at home.

But it's not a public place.  Bars and restaurants are privately owned places, that the owner has decided to offer an open invitation into.  

If it was on city-owned land, such as a city park or sidewalk, then it'd be a public place and it wouldn't be such a nanny law but more of a consensus, as you said.  But when you force the private owner of a restauraunt to disallow something, here comes the nannies.  You're taking away his freedom to run his business as he sees fit.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Tarmac
But it's not a public place.  Bars and restaurants are privately owned places, that the owner has decided to offer an open invitation into.  

If it was on city-owned land, such as a city park or sidewalk, then it'd be a public place and it wouldn't be such a nanny law but more of a consensus, as you said.  But when you force the private owner of a restauraunt to disallow something, here comes the nannies.  You're taking away his freedom to run his business as he sees fit.

Smoking was banned in California bars and restaurants based solely upon its harmful effects on the workers in those establishments. We have an orginization called OSHA which insures workplaces aren't hazardous to the health and safety of the workers- they make sure machinery has safety switches, there are handrails on stairways, people wear hardhats on construction sites, etc.-

You're still allowed to destroy your own lungs, just not the lungs of the busboy clearing your table.

[AKIron]

I have to back down on private bars, owners should be able to decide if there will be smoking even though those are open to the public.

[Soulyss]

I'm interested to see if anyone actually follows the law.  In San Francisco I remember the irish pubs were the only places you could smoke in the bar.  

Most the pubs I used to frequent found ways around the law anyway they'd have a little fenced in area in the back with some space heaters, was technically outdoors so it was legit but was just as warm out there as it was inside.  People would just take their drinks out there to have a smoke, worked fine.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by AKIron
I have to back down on private bars, owners should be able to decide if there will be smoking even though those are open to the public.

Iron, by that logic then sawmill owners should be allowed to decide if they want guards on their saws or not. Fishing boat owners should be allowed to decide they don't need life jackets on board. High rise workers don't need life lines. After all, they work in the private sector, right?

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Airhead
Smoking was banned in California bars and restaurants based solely upon its harmful effects on the workers in those establishments. We have an orginization called OSHA which insures workplaces aren't hazardous to the health and safety of the workers- they make sure machinery has safety switches, there are handrails on stairways, people wear hardhats on construction sites, etc.-

You're still allowed to destroy your own lungs, just not the lungs of the busboy clearing your table.

So should motorcycles and cars be banned for cops to drive?  Should cops not be allowed to perform traffic stops?  These are the places where most cops are killed.  

Of course not.  Cops make a conscious decision... that the risk of injury is worth the compensation they're offered.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't do the job.  Same with busboys in smoking establishments.  If a busboy feels the risk of second hand smoke is compensated by the benefits (hell, he may be a smoker himself -- better protect him from smoke!) then he should be allowed to work there.  If the owner of the establishment can't find busboys because it's a smoking establishment, he'll either change his policy on smoking or change the pay scale.  No need for nanny legislation -- individuals are intelligent enough to make that call for themselves.

[Nilsen]

I supported the ban even before i quit. I smoked way to much when i drank even tho i didnt really need the nico fix. The last few times ive gone out i have realised how much those places with smokers really stink, and i have left the places way before i used to in my smoking past.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Airhead
Iron, by that logic then sawmill owners should be allowed to decide if they want guards on their saws or not. Fishing boat owners should be allowed to decide they don't need life jackets on board. High rise workers don't need life lines. After all, they work in the private sector, right?

Only if these requirements impinge on someone's liberty.  A high rise worker finds a life line restrictive? Fine, but if he falls and injures or kills someone else as a result there should be a stiff penalty. Of course he may be dead but all of his assests should go towards the bystanders claim including a required insurance policy. The company for which he works is liable too.

A bar is a bit different, no one forces a bar tender to work there or patrons to go there.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Tarmac
So should motorcycles and cars be banned for cops to drive?  Should cops not be allowed to perform traffic stops?  These are the places where most cops are killed.  

Of course not.  Cops make a conscious decision... that the risk of injury is worth the compensation they're offered.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't do the job.  Same with busboys in smoking establishments.  If a busboy feels the risk of second hand smoke is compensated by the benefits (hell, he may be a smoker himself -- better protect him from smoke!) then he should be allowed to work there.  If the owner of the establishment can't find busboys because it's a smoking establishment, he'll either change his policy on smoking or change the pay scale.  No need for nanny legislation -- individuals are intelligent enough to make that call for themselves.

Apples and oranges, Tarmac. We make every effort to make police work safer- kevlar vests, radios , video monitors, guns, advanced training- likewise the smoking ban was initiated to make the workplace safer for restaurant/bar workers.

LOL Not to mention the average busboy doesn't choose to be a busboy because he believes in clean tables- most likely he's just trying to make a few bucks while he's in school- whereas most cops believe in the righteousness of what they do.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by AKIron


A bar is a bit different, no one forces a bar tender to work there or patrons to go there.

Nobody forces anyone to work in a sawmill either. Or on a fishing boat. Or on a high rise building. However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.

Oh, and if a high rise worker refused to wear a harness he'd be fired quick, because OSHA inspects worksites and would write up the contractor for non-compliance in a heartbeat.