Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: aztec on February 17, 2004, 04:37:38 AM
-
On January 1st Maine passed a no smoking in bars law.
I'm curious how many States now have this law and what ya all think of it.
-
Is it okay to drink in a tobacconist shop?
The nanny state is gaining ground..... :(
-
We can not smoke in restaurants, but if the bar doesn't serve food we can smoke.
I think it's dumb..
-
In certain cities in Ohio smoking is not allowed in bars or restaurants. I know Toledo is one of them.
-
Started in California.. We have a state full of women democrats in power pass all sorts of nanny laws every day... What happens in California eventually appeals to your women and they make your life misserable too.
What I don't get is all the people who laugh at California (or worse) and then go and vote democrat women into power in their own state.
lazs
-
Florida passed the no smoking nanny law a while back..restaurants are starting to close after a year of %40-%60 less revenue's from drinking smokers.. Where there were 3 deep at the bar on Friday or Saturday night restaurants are lucky to have 3 patrons at one time sitting at the bar... A family friend works for Darden Group in Orlando, "Red Lobster, Olive Garden Corp. HQ"
She stated that they had to raise Dinner prices to cover the lost revenue and that it was around %30 a year so far.. Because of this Darden's growth has slowed. This translates into less state revenue for a state that has constant revenue issues.
My wife and I stopped going out to eat and generally order takeout if anything.. Because of this I have found a renewed interest in cooking and grilling out, we have had a blast over the last year doing this and I dont have to put up with the non smoker hand wave and evil stares.
So in my opinion the nosmoking law is the best thing since sliced bread.
IKON
-
Nevermind the terrorists - BURN THE SMOKERS!!!
(When can we sue for reparations? If this isnt discriminsation, I dunno what is)
-
You should be able to go out to eat in a restaurant without sitting next to smokers. I do not enjoy that, but seriously can't remember a place where you can sit down for a meal that there isn't a non-smoking section. To make a “bar” non-smoking though? Cripes, that's like banning pitchers of beer in a bowling alley, or better yet their indoor burger grills and grease fryers which give them their unique awful stench which greets you at the door, sticks to your clothes, and makes them spraying the rental shoes laughable.
The worst thing is states that actually close bars with a “bartime” law. That’s just insane.
-
In California you can't smoke in bars.... some of the men here got a little testy whgen the law was passed but soon knuckled under like good little boys after a few "time outs". I believe most of them then went out and voted for the same women who had taken away their rights in the first place.
lazs
-
Once the feds pulled off the "2nd smoke causes cancer" scam, the door was open for this. Our basic liberties are completely at the mercy of nannies and tort lawyers.
ra
-
ra: Once the feds pulled off the "2nd smoke causes cancer" scam, the door was open for this.
Whether 2nd hand smoke causes cancer or not, is irrelevant since people are free to abstain from visiting or working at the smoke-friendly businesses.
The government needs a pretext to justify the natural expansion of its powers. It would always find one or another. Today it's smoking and lack of health insurance, tomorrow it will be something else, untill all the miniscule aspects of individual's life are totally controlled.
miko
-
Well as someone who was a waiter and bartender for many years, I can completely appreciate the ban on smoking. It used to be awful to smell that stuff all day, etc. Some smokers were polite, didnt blow it in your face and stuff. But the restaurant didnt have "smoke eaters" or those devices that clean out the air...it really sucked.
I'm sorry some smokers find it really offensive :rolleyes:
-
Let me get this straight, LePaul. You volunteered to work in the restaurant that smells of smoke and to be paid money for serving the smoking customers.
The only problem you have is that you do not like the smell and do not want to serve those customers... :rolleyes:
miko
-
florida's new law is great ...
recently traveled to Indiana, ate at an Outback which allowed smoking in their non enclosed smoking "section" and it stunk - ruined the entire meal
yep - take out for the smokestacks or airport enclosed booths for them to "enjoy" themselves while not polluting the entire space
as for the public drunks, they are usually too stoned or to busy looking for mr/mrs goodbar to care
-
Or require ventilation, kinda like the casinos have. Everyone’s happy, and businesses don’t have to suffer one way or the other.
-
I once dumped a girlfriend because she smoked. She was a pain in the arse too, but I don't think that had anything to do with the smoking.
-
miko
-
Dowding: florida's new law is great
Dowding: I once dumped a girlfriend because she smoked. She was a pain in the arse too, but I don't think that had anything to do with the smoking.
Did you lobby your congressman to outlaw smoking by girlfriends and mandate them to be nice to you?
miko
No, I went on some random BBS, became immensely confused by the whole convoluted reply authoring system, thereby mistakenly attributing one person's comments with someone elses and commenting on it.
Didn't work though. Just made me look like a self-satisfied, pretentious dick.
-
They have banned smoking in just about every public indoor place in Toronto. A few years back they had an exception for bars that put in seperate smoking areas that were totally isolated from the rest of the bar. Now after spending 10's of thousands to put in fancy glass walls and seperate ventilation they local politicians have said even in those areas it is going to be banned (because it is bad for the health of people that work in them).
-
guess they can issue the help these:
(http://www.adamsfire.com/respiratory/Masks/Parar_c.gif)
-
If you don't like smoke in a bar, don't go to bars. That simple.
If there were enough people like you, someone would open up a non-smoking bar to cater to the non-smoking crowd.
How much do you want to bet that many of the people who voted for these laws are not regular bar patrons? Yet they can't keep their nose out of other people's business, so they invent these crusades against the nasty smelly smoker to save everyone. Like lazs said - womanly voters.
Once again, not the government's business.
-
Welcome to the Nanny State Aztec. Please check your genitals at the door.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
ra: Once the feds pulled off the "2nd smoke causes cancer" scam, the door was open for this.
Whether 2nd hand smoke causes cancer or not, is irrelevant since people are free to abstain from visiting or working at the smoke-friendly businesses.
miko
Not any more. OSHA can declare that certain environments are unsafe for workers. And tort lawyers can sue anyone they want anytime they want for as much money as they want. Once the 2nd hand smoke scam was completed it opened the door for nannies to pass their new laws, and it puts employers at risk of law suits if they continue to allow smoking even where it remains legal.
ra
-
Eagler, your becoming the Weasel of conservatives.
Just saying.
-
Dowding: No, I went on some random BBS, became immensely confused by the whole convoluted reply authoring system, thereby mistakenly attributing one person's comments with someone elses and commenting on it.
Didn't work though. Just made me look like a self-satisfied, pretentious dick.
My sincere appologies. My copy-paste operation somehow did not work properly and your name stayed in the copy buffer and ended up where Eagler's name was intended to be.
I should have been more carefull proof-reading my post before comitting it. I will post the corrected version with explanation shortly, so that nobody thinks you could spell a State name without a capital letter or approve of the Florida's smoking ban.
I agree that mis-copying somebody's name could be a sign of a confusion, though hardly an "immense confusion" on my part, but how does that make a person a "self-satisfied, pretentious dick"? Wouldn't that require a moral blunder on my part, not just a technical one?
Just in case, what would be your treshhold of tolerance for imperfection where you would just say "miko, you seem to have made a typo there." :rolleyes:
miko
-
Yep Weazel is a "libertarian" who votes the DNC party line. Eagler says he is a Republican but these posts read like a Nader voter. :)
-
Eagler: florida's new law is great
Dowding: I once dumped a girlfriend because she smoked. She was a pain in the arse too, but I don't think that had anything to do with the smoking.
Did you lobby your congressman to outlaw smoking by girlfriends and mandate them to be nice to you?
[NOTE: The above statement is a sarcasm directed towards Eagler. The sarcasm is a form of humor that consists of saying something that is obviously contrary to what the speaker believes. The effect in this case is achieved by advising Dowding to solve his personal problems Eagler-style - via legislature rather than dealing with them personally.
With sarcasm stripped aside, the meaning of my post is:
Dowding - good guy. Takes care of himself.
Eagler - socialist who approves of the state interfering with people's personal and property rights if that benefits him.]
miko
-
we have both.. it's up to the bar owner.
one bar I play at is smokey as hell.. kinda reminds me of the Blues-brothers movie... (minus the chicken wire)
many others don't allow smoking and those bars have more patrons than those that do allow it..
needless to say, if you want to talk/spend time with a woman that doesn't have tobacco breath, the non-smoking bars are better.
and my clothes don't smell like an ashtray afterwards
-
hmm...i get the no smoking in most public placesbut bars...thats just plain silly
i think the increase in "nanny" governments is due to a decrease in intelligent population...by wich i mean people are getting stupid (look at all those ******* imitators) so they need to be nannied...not people are getting stupid because they vote democrat...not everyone (except maybe 14 year olds who have figured it all out) is as enlightened as you...miko...laz...
-
I think its silly, i think all smokers should chain smoke all the time and have a short pointless life.
A buisness should do what it wants, and as a non smoker i dont care. If a place has smokers i just wont go.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yep Weazel is a "libertarian" who votes the DNC party line. Eagler says he is a Republican but these posts read like a Nader voter. :)
hehe
just saying ur right to smoke at my meal/bar isn't anymore right than my right not to smell it -
if you need ur nicotine, cram a wad of this in your jaw and spit quietly :)
(http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~schacht/rhe309k/redman.jpg)
nothing says "class" than a grown man spitting or a woman smoking
-
Originally posted by ra
Once the feds pulled off the "2nd smoke causes cancer" scam, the door was open for this. Our basic liberties are completely at the mercy of nannies and tort lawyers.
ra
lol scam.... ignorant tard
-
ra: Not any more. OSHA can declare that certain environments are unsafe for workers. And tort lawyers can sue anyone they want anytime they want for as much money as they want. Once the 2nd hand smoke scam was completed it opened the door for nannies to pass their new laws, and it puts employers at risk of law suits if they continue to allow smoking even where it remains legal.
OSHA did not make the smoking environments unsafe - they really are unsafe, like many other work environemnts.
What the federal government did was take from the consenting adults the right to enter a contract were one side assumes the job associated with increased risks for appropriate compensaton reflecting those risks.
It did not start with second-hand smoke or work safety laws but with the abandonment of Constitutional limits on Fed Government powers much earlier.
miko
-
Just quit smoking ya rutabagas.
-
midnight Target: Just quit smoking ya rutabagas.
It's not about smoking at all. The government will find reasons to expand. As long as they hire more bureaucrats to control and reglate, they do not care what they control and regulate.
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Just quit smoking ya rutabagas.
:aok
Smoker's rights...pfft...
-
lol miko, the people of these states started the movements. Your losing sight of the fact that alot of our government is still run by the people. A reason why its so huge and confusing. In florida i know it started out as a petition and was put to vote and passed with like 70+ percent.
I personally dont think its right, but if all the smokers crying about it would have actually voted it might not have passed. I ask all the ones i know, and they didnt even know it was on the ballet in 2000.
-
being a non smoker my dad was irritated by the smell of smoke...so when he realized the smokers didnt like the smell of malt vineger so he poured some into the ventilation...in the end this didnt really work...so when the driver banned something else on the bus because he didnt like cleaning them up...so my dad started spilling cigarette buts all over the place...it may or may not have worked because shortly afterwords the bus company banned smoking on the bus...
It's not about smoking at all. The government will find reasons to expand. As long as they hire more bureaucrats to control and reglate, they do not care what they control and regulate.
of course the fact that there are less smokers than non and the non smokers don't like the smell of smoke couldent possibly had anything to do with it...america is still a democracy and majority still rules...
-
Frogm4n: lol miko, the people of these states started the movements. Your losing sight of the fact that alot of our government is still run by the people.... In florida i know it started out as a petition and was put to vote and passed with like 70+ percent.
How am I losing sight? I fully recognise that people of those states voted and a majority decided to steal/confiscate the property of a minority to use it to their perceived advantage.
A reason why its so huge and confusing...
It is huge but no more confusing - or legitimate - than a gang-rape. It's how totalitarian democracy is intended to work.
if all the smokers crying about it would have actually voted it might not have passed.
The smokers are minority. Or could be a minority in a particular jurisdiction. Or any other group could be a minority. As with any minority, when their property or rights are being stolen by democratic vote, they have to lose. Any other outcome would be dishonest and a distortion of a democratic process.
I personally dont think its right, but...
That does not seem consistent with your previously declared views. You are a militant supporter of a totalitarian government.
Or do you mean you do not approve of just that particular way to violate people's property and contract rights?
miko
-
The things i vote for and what i believe in are a tad different miko.
Most of my views are very libertarian, but i wont vote that way because i understand that it just wont work.
Sure in a perfect world we would all be free to do what we want, and business's would be able to do what they please but if they go to far the consumer would punish them. But it is far from a perfect world
-
vorticon: of course the fact that there are less smokers than non and the non smokers don't like the smell of smoke couldent possibly had anything to do with it...
If some people do not like the fact that you allow - or disallow - smoking inside your own private house, so what? Nobody is forced to come in and enjoy/suffer your hospitality or work for you.
america is still a democracy and majority still rules...
What do you mean "still"? America is now a democracy. It was not a democracy originally and for the most part of its history. It took a while to replace the Rule of Law with majority rule.
The government obviously looks for easy targets in the beginning - those that would not elicit much sympathy. Most people do not realise that itbis not a particular right that is important but the concept of rights itself.
miko
-
What do you mean "still"? America is now a democracy. It was not a democracy originally and for the most part of its history. It took a while to replace the Rule of Law with majority rule.
so what your saying is in the beginning american presidents were just picked out of thing air?
If some people do not like the fact that you allow - or disallow - smoking inside your own private house, so what? Nobody is forced to come in and enjoy/suffer your hospitality or work for you.
this isnt about what you do in your house...it about what you do in a public place...and as i already said its pretty dern stupid to ban it in bars...next they wont let you bvring your own cue into a pool hall because it will give you an advantage over the people who are stuck using crappy house cues
-
Frogm4n: The things i vote for and what i believe in are a tad different miko.
Most of my views are very libertarian, but i wont vote that way because i understand that it just wont work.
I do not know anything about your voting but only about the views you profess here.
Do you believe in the right of countries to self-determination?
Do you think that people can aspire to freedom in a country that is occupied and ruled by another country? You seem to do so and I do not see how it fits with your supposed libertarian views.
miko
-
Funny
Lots of people said that the banning of smokeing in bars and resteraunts would close lots of them down here. Been about 8 years and none of them have closed that I see. Still lots of business.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Funny
Lots of people said that the banning of smokeing in bars and resteraunts would close lots of them down here. Been about 8 years and none of them have closed that I see. Still lots of business.
They always scream that. The other myth is that if you raise corprate taxes.(or just make them pay the ones they owe now) that the price will be passed on to the consumer. Of course if they raise their prices someone will always undercut them.
-
The government obviously looks for easy targets in the beginning - those that would not elicit much sympathy. Most people do not realise that itbis not a particular right that is important but the concept of rights itself.
so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???
-
vorticon: so what your saying is in the beginning american presidents were just picked out of thing air?
They were elected by the electoral college. The members of the electoral college were appointed by the States according to whatever rules the States had. There is no specification whatsoever in the Constitution that the electors should be elected democratically or that their votes should reflect the democratic preferences of their electorates. And neither were they.
"In the beginning" only a tiny percentage of the non-representative elite - wealthy property owners - were entitled to vote for the electors.
Even now in most (all?) States the electors do not reflect the democratic voting of the states' populations but the majority - or the biggest minority.
The Holy Roman Habsburg Empire had an electoral college that elected it's emperors for hundreds of years. Surely that does not qualify them as democracy though it would not be "picking emperors out of thin air".
US was created as a Constitutional Republic, not democracy. The founders abhored the very idea of democracy - and rightly so.
The first america president ever to utter the word "democracy" in an official setting was Woodrow Wilson.
miko
-
didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...
-
Frogm4n: They always scream that. The other myth is that if you raise corprate taxes that the price will be passed on to the consumer. Of course if they raise their prices someone will always undercut them.
That is plain impossible. You cannot take resurces out of the private economy and still have the same amount of resources left - or even the same amount of production going on.
The mystical "will always undercut them" never shows up - unless it's a chinese who sell us stuff and loan the money back to us so that we could buy more.
miko
-
US was created as a Constitutional Republic, not democracy. The founders abhored the very idea of democracy - and rightly so
so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???
-
Just shoot me. This has gone beyond retarded.
(http://www.kersbergen.com/temp/cc.jpg)
-
I have that album!
-
vorticon: so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???
Who determines what constitutes abuse? Soviets took children away from religious families because they considered raising children religious to be abuse. Australians took children away from aboriginal families because they consider raising a children by native australians to be abuse. Americans take children away if the bureaucrats believe them to be overweight or if the parents want to spank their children or for countless other reasons.
vorticon: didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...
Who are you talking about? Americans? To start with, very few fough to escape and not that hard. "The system" was hardly oppressive by our standards - the tax rates were around 3-4%, not 50%. And the system they established was a Confederation. It degenerated into Union later.
so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???
That is a non-sensical question. The concept of rights is not compatible with the existence of a "leader".
The people should only have the right to choose who will administer Law and guard their rights - not who will create the Law and/or limit people's rights.
People can only have rights in a republic. They can have no rights whatsoever in a democracy - only the privileges granted or taken away on a whim of the government.
miko
-
Arrrg.
Kapow.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
vorticon: so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???
Who determines what constitutes abuse? Soviets took children away from religious families because they considered raising children religious to be abuse. Australians took children away from aboriginal families because they consider raising a children by native australians to be abuse. Americans take children away if the bureaucrats believe them to be overweight or if the parents want to spank their children or for countless other reasons.
vorticon: didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...
Who are you talking about? Americans? To start with, very few fough to escape and not that hard. "The system" was hardly oppressive by our standards - the tax rates were around 3-4%, not 50%. And the system they established was a Confederation. It degenerated into Union later.
so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???
That is a non-sensical question. The concept of rights is not compatible with the existence of a "leader".
The people should only have the right to choose who will administer Law and guard their rights - not who will create the Law and/or limit people's rights.
People can only have rights in a republic. They can have no rights whatsoever in a democracy - only the privileges granted or taken away on a whim of the government.
miko
1. common sense determines what is child abuse...as in rape, torture, beating your kid half to death just cause your drunk outta your mind...use as in making em work 12 hours a day for pennies...you know the sorta thing that makes you wish there wasn't a law against murder
2.err i was referring to the war of independance...
3. that made absalutly no sense at all...no country has ever not had a leader...and its usually a DICTATORSHIP in wich peoples rights can be removed on a whim...not a DEMOCRACY where the people can choose to overrule a governments decision if it is not to there liking...
-
I've been to bars where there are loud mouthed meat head jerk asses, when are they going to ban those *******s? I don't like dealing with them while I'm drinking.
Oh wait, nevermind... I just go to another bar.
Its amazing, thats exactly the same situation it should be like in a bar... and thankfully still is in VA and DC. MD seems to be becoming the east coast CA. They even advertise on TV "Smoking stops here." MD is also second to VA on the east coast for producing tobacco.
I just don't understand why it can't be left up to the decision of the bar owner? Are they incapable of choosing for themselves what they want for their business?
For an enlightened society and a super power, we sure are some ***** bellybutton sorry mother ****ers that can't think for ourselves and actually excercise our freedoms. Freedom to work in a smokey bar, freedom to not. Freedom to own a bar and let people smoke in it, freedom to not. Freedom to go to a smokey bar, freedom to not. Creamo, pass the gun.
-SW
-
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.
-
Right on! Lets go to Pubs and drink Diet Soda!
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Right on! Lets go to Pubs and drink Diet Soda!
:confused: Go on if that's your thing, Diet Soda! Just don't piss it all over me when you finish with it. Which in effect is what smokers do.:eek:
-
And don't come to drink beer in a bar and act like cotton candy should be served instead of shots of Jeager, we will get along.
Until then, I can do without *****s' crying at an adult establishment about adult vices.
-
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.
-
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! :aok
-
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
-
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....
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
:lol
-
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.
-
How long until we ban alcohol in bars? Word on the street is that second hand vapor can intoxicate you.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
How long until we ban alcohol in bars? Word on the street is that second hand vapor can intoxicate you.
I am waiting for the fundies to call for abolition again.
-
Let them. Ill return to my roots and make a fortune bootlegging.
Say 'ello to ma lil friend!
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Worst analogy evar.
-SW
yep
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.
restraunt is liable actually...since its THEM who should make sure the smoking and non are adequetly seperated (smoking SHOULD be banned anywhere that you cant seperate the 2...uh oh...you just changed my mind on something...)
what about the fire hazard that unproperly put out cigarrets pose?i dont see anyone complaining about not being allowed to smoke near gas stations...while alcoholic substances are less flammable its still enough to do a lot of damage
^^^^^^^^^most pathetic argument ever^^^^^^^^^
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I once dumped a girlfriend because she smoked. She was a pain in the arse too, but I don't think that had anything to do with the smoking.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I am waiting for the fundies to call for abolition again.
My money's on the Naderites.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
My money's on the Naderites.
Yea your right. I think the farther you go left you start becomeing part of the right wing. Its like a big circle, with moderates at one end and naderites/religious right wingers at the other end.
-
No hard feelings, miko, I was just pulling your leg.
-
vort...you don't have kids...did ya forget?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yea your right. I think the farther you go left you start becomeing part of the right wing. Its like a big circle, with moderates at one end and naderites/religious right wingers at the other end.
How do you find the end of a circle...? ;)
-
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
What the hell are your kids doing in my tittie bar?
-
Lighting beer on fire with cigarettes sounds like.
-
I don't smoke and hate the smell of it.. I also don't think I have the right to VOTE or even consider what a person does about smoking on his private property. If it is his establishment the most I feel that I can do is have him post a sign that warns me that people will be smoking inside...
At that point it is my choice to enter or not... Just as it was the choice of the workers to work there or not.
letting women vote will just bring more of this insanity. Letting anyone vote on other peoples basic rights will just bring more of this insanity.
I expect that I will soon be told that I can't allow anyone to smoke in my house either. I probly won't lert people but I want it to be my choice not the womens.
lazs
-
vorticon: 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.
You did not say "sexually abuse" but what the heck, I will give it a try.
In ancient Sparta a child was taken from his mother at the age of 7 and paired with an adult for training in warrior arts. The sexual relations between the pair were considered normal and encouraged. Such practices produced incredibly well-adjusted, balanced and happy individuals. Spartans were unmatched as warriors but famously hard to provoke to agression or violence.
According to our definitions those were child sex-abuse on a massive scale. But for them it was common sense.
Marrying at 12 or 14 or definitely 16 was common sense in all societies and is common in most - but in US that constitutes a child sex-abuse, since the legal age of consent in most jurisdictions is 18.
In some muslim societies letting a 9-year girl out uncovered constitutes exposing her to sex-abuse - according to their common sense.
Common sense differs so wildly among cultures and times that claiming that general common sense exists is contrary to common sense.
Besides, what if a canadian commits a child-sex abuse - which may not even be a sex abuse according to their customs. Does our government in Washington, D.C. has a right to invade Canada and punish the offender? Not really. We do not have a jurisdiction. By the same token, I do not see why the government in Washington, D.C. has a right to enforce its silly laws in my State of New York - based on preferences of other states. We can sort our own issues here.
that made absalutly no sense at all...no country has ever not had a leader...
BS
prove it
First, even if that were true, the logic that "every country was ruled tyranically, so we must be too" is nonsensical.
Second, there were multitudes of countries in history who's governments - elected or not - did not "led" them anywhere but only administered the laws and maintained order.
Swiss have about 800 years history of direct democracy. Could you name a leader that led them anywhere or could have led them if he wanted to? Not really. Swiss settle most issues locally - on canton and municipal level. Their government expenses are still split 30-40-30 - even afted considerable increase in centralised power over the last 50 years.
Even USA of the first 50 years could not be said to be "led". The population would have been outraged at the very idea that the government should tell them what to do locally.
Romans elected heads of government for a year - in pairs, with veto power over each other. Could such a leader lead anyone anywhere he did not want to?
most of your qoutes said to much or excess or pure...ideal government styles are like hydrogen...volatile and good for floating things...
Why don't you read them yourself - you would know exactly what they were talking about. They give a very detailed analysis of all the past and present (swiss, etc) democracies, with though understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and tendencies and reasons of downfall.
even though there policies are slowly killing there employees and customers???
Working in most occupations kills employees - sometimes quickly. Just check the list of ten America's most dangerous jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/)
As for the customers, many goods and services they purchase kill them either slowy like food and alcohol or quickly like skiing or skuba-diving or driving cars.
So what? As long as the risks are disclosed, people make their choices based on the benefits they expect. Risky or unplesant jobs command higher salaries. It is a prerogative of every free person to risk his healh for financial gain rather than sit idly and preserve it in safety.
What you end up with if you follow your views to their logical conclusion will be a mix of a communism and taliban - no frivoluous activity whatsoever, only work (in safe environment for the same salary) and prayer (to the all-mighty governent).
What do you think, vorticon - if you owned your house, would it be your right to let your friends in and let them smoke there? How about let them smoke and serve them food? What if some of them help you serve the food to the others?
Would it mean that you are killing your dining friends and helping friends? What would change if you collected money for food and gave some of it to the helpers? Just where is the limit that the government must invade and save your friends from you and themselves?
..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...
That's not correct. "Outisde" is a public property - owned by everyone in the country. It is a nuisance to walk by the smokescreen set by smokers standing on public property in front of a building.
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???
It was nobody's fault that a person has trained in something that has a very narrow choice of employment. If his expertise is rare, the empoyer will have to accomodate his wishes. If there are fewere jobs than experts in that area, the applicants woudl have to compete.
People do not have a right to work at any particular job.
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
Do you advocate taking children away from smoking parents in general? How about a private party where smoking is alowed that a family could attend? Should the house owner get jailed?
smoking SHOULD be banned anywhere that you cant seperate...uh oh...you just changed my mind on something...
Right. Smokers and non-smokers are naturally separated - they can go to smoking or non-smoking establishments. If non-smkoers decide to visit a smoking establishment, it's their responcibility of breaking the separation.
Dowding: No hard feelings, miko, I was just pulling your leg.
OK.
miko
-
My county enacted a smoking ban in all establishments that serve food, including bars, about two years ago.
I love it. I can take the family out to any restaurant and not have to worry about whether the non-smoking section is full or not, because it's all non-smoking.
But there are still a few bars in town that don't serve food, so all the smokers congregate there and can smoke themselves silly.
I think it's the best thing to happen in my community, evar!
-
Originally posted by banana
I think it's the best thing to happen in my community, evar!
Oppressing people is fun!
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Oppressing people is fun!
Not sure about oppression, but breathing clean air in restaurants is a blast. :)
-
wait wait...i got it...
you all say "if you dont like the smoke go to a different resteraunt" which basicly means let your choice of where to eat be controlled by the smokers...can you tell me why its all right for the smokers to choose where the non smokers (who are really iffy about that sorta thing) cannot eat but the government can't tell the smokers to step outside?
Why don't you read them yourself - you would know exactly what they were talking about. They give a very detailed analysis of all the past and present (swiss, etc) democracies, with though understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and tendencies and reasons of downfall.
yet right before this
Swiss have about 800 years history of direct democracy
the entire downfall statement is bull...sure they have weaknesses but so does every government...honestly i dont know much about governments but i do know when someone isnt making any sense whatsoever
Do you advocate taking children away from smoking parents in general? How about a private party where smoking is alowed that a family could attend? Should the house owner get jailed?
no...
the logic that "every country was ruled tyranically, so we must be too" is nonsensical
didnt say that...meant that every country had a leader who made big decisions on the military taxes what countrys they would trade with etc. etc.
Second, there were multitudes of countries in history who's governments - elected or not - did not "led" them anywhere but only administered the laws and maintained order
exactly...but somewhere along the line the government elected or not made decisions about what those laws would be...
Would it mean that you are killing your dining friends and helping friends? What would change if you collected money for food and gave some of it to the helpers? Just where is the limit that the government must invade and save your friends from you and themselves?
the government is preserving the non smokers right(to eat wherever they choose) in exchange for the smokers right to smoke however they choose...actually the owner doesnt even come into play because as any good owner he would want to maximize profits and by letting smokers smoker (without proper seperation for those who dont like the smoke...its a good trade off really) he drives away a large amount of paying costumers that may outumber the smokers...
Besides, what if a canadian commits a child-sex abuse - which may not even be a sex abuse according to their customs. Does our government in Washington, D.C. has a right to invade Canada and punish the offender? Not really. We do not have a jurisdiction. By the same token, I do not see why the government in Washington, D.C. has a right to enforce its silly laws in my State of New York - based on preferences of other states. We can sort our own issues here.
your right...but it wouldent change the fact that if canadians changed it you would applaud it...
-
Originally posted by banana
Not sure about oppression, but breathing clean air in restaurants is a blast. :)
What was stopping restaurants from banning smoking in the past?
-
I still say that "bar-owners choice" works...
that way you can choose where you want to drink...
with or without breathing in someone elses smoke.
it's all about making my own choice.
-
vorticon: you all say "if you dont like the smoke go to a different resteraunt" which basicly means let your choice of where to eat be controlled by the smokers...can you tell me why its all right for the smokers to choose where the non smokers (who are really iffy about that sorta thing) cannot eat but the government can't tell the smokers to step outside?
It is not the choice of smokers - it is the choice of a private business owner to open a restaurants for the smokers. He bears full financial responcibility for the success or failure of that venture. He serves certain customers. By serving them he does not deny you an opportunity to get service elsewhere. Private business is based on consent.
Government on the other hand bears no responcibility for the outcome and it denies people an opportunity to get service they want. Government decisions are based on force only.
It seems like you somehow feel entitled to get a smoke-free dinner at some establishment - let's say of a guy named Bob. What gave you that entitlement? What if Bob is running a swimming pool or a smithy or a shooting range and you want to have dinner only at that place? Does that make him obligated to switch from whatever line of business he was in and drop his customers and serve you?
didnt say that...meant that every country had a leader who made big decisions on the military taxes what countrys they would trade with etc. etc.
Not really. In US it's the Congress has the authority over the budget and to declare war and regulate trade - and in the beginning it was actually practiced. And in US the president has more executive power than in most countries.
...but somewhere along the line the government elected or not made decisions about what those laws would be...
That is the exact point when a legitimate government turns into a tyrany. Most democratic governments became tyranys fairly quickly but other forms existed for centuries. Constantinople existed for 1100 years, IIRC, and was militarily conquered by turks with the help of europeans.
You are confusing Law with legislation passed for law.
It is a common misconception that governments create laws because most historical documentation is left by the governments who attribute to themself the deeds they did not do. Society emerges and develops the laws and customs and then the government appears to administer them - except in case of outright conquest.
Anyway, in an oppressive state it's a government that creates law - no question about it. Most states were/are oppressive. I am not arguing that US governments cannot ban smoking - surely they can.
All I am claiming that people do not have rights. After all how can one say he posesses rights if somebody else determines whether he can exercise them or not. Ownership or posession means control. If someone controls your rights, it means he owns them, not you.
your right...but it wouldent change the fact that if canadians changed it you would applaud it...
Sure. I could even exert whatever influence I could on them that does not involve coercion. That's the difference - everything that the government does is based on coercion.
miko
-
miko is correct... it is not the choice of the smokers or the non smokers... it is the choice of the property owners...
you and I have no right to vote on whether a private bussiness allows smoking or not.
We may have the right to vote on if public buildings allow smoking or not and we may have the right to make bussiness owners post warnings that smoking is allowed in their establishment.
workers have no right to work in a smoke free environment... they have the right to refuse to work in one where smoking is allowed.
lazs
-
All I am claiming that people do not have rights. After all how can one say he posesses rights if somebody else determines whether he can exercise them or not.
hmm...isnt there a little government document that assures certain rights...in canada its called the charter of rights and freedoms...in america i beleive its called the constitution...are you saying that those documents have no real meaning because someone can (rather difficultly but can) change something on it and will probably lose the next election if they do?
laz...you made sense there...and i mostly agree...till that end bit...and you do realize that you just agreed with miko...
workers have no right to work in a smoke free environment... they have the right to refuse to work in one where smoking is allowed.
exactly so where they can work is limited by smokers...the smokers are infringing on the workers right to work where they want
t is not the choice of the smokers or the non smokers... it is the choice of the property owners...
yes...but what im ticked off at is the fact that the smokers smoking there means that non smokers are forced to choose not to do whatever service is offered there...
-
workers do not have the right to work where they want. They have a right to choose where they apply for work and the right to quit if they don't like the conditions.
Again... it is not the smokers who are telling the workers where they can work.. It is simply the employer telling potential employees that the environment they wish to work in is either a smoke free one or not.
lazs
-
workers do not have the right to work where they want. They have a right to choose where they apply for work and the right to quit if they don't like the conditions.
exactly...and the smokers are creating conditions in which the worker does not like thus causing them to simply not apply there in the first place...
-
I've always wanted to work in a sawmill. But saws are loud and unsafe. Can someone please ban saws in sawmills?
-
Nothing is stopping an anti-smoking worker from opening his own establishment. Nothing.
-
the smoker did not create any such condition.. it was not his choice in the first place. The choice was that of the owner of the establishment and, after that, the patrons based on the OWNERS choice.
If you don't agree with the owner don't go there. Maybe you are a vegetarian and the sight of meat sickens you.... Are the meat eaters in the restaurant to blame?
lazs
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nothing is stopping an anti-smoking worker from opening his own establishment. Nothing.
but watch smokers scream when he does...;)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
but watch smokers scream when he does...;)
No, if he did, they probably wouldn't scream. They'd either go somewhere else (that whole free will thing), or they'd refrain from smoking there. The owner wouldn't be banning smokers from his establishment, he'd be banning the practice of smoking. Big difference.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
yes...but what im ticked off at is the fact that the smokers smoking there means that non smokers are forced to choose not to do whatever service is offered there...
When the employer is looking to hire a person, that person must meet a certain criteria, part of which that person would have to fit into the workplace culture, whatever that might be. You cannot make a law that changes that workplace culture simply because you want to work there. Note this is not specific to smoking ... this applies to pretty much anything. If all the workplaces around you have the same culture that doesn't appeal to you, then you can either tolerate it, or move. Or you can demonstrate that you are so good and will be so important to the company, that the employer will change his policies.
-
I don't think smokers would have any problem with a restaurant choosing to forbid smoking. Assuming their state has no intrusive laws forbidding smoking in all places, they would just go to another place that allows smoking. Supply and demand would determine how many places allowed smoking and how many didn't. This concept is called "freedom".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the smoker did not create any such condition.. it was not his choice in the first place. The choice was that of the owner of the establishment and, after that, the patrons based on the OWNERS choice.
If you don't agree with the owner don't go there. Maybe you are a vegetarian and the sight of meat sickens you.... Are the meat eaters in the restaurant to blame?
lazs
hmm...good point...now what else can i use tot argue...discrimination wont do...neither will the kids not having a choice where they eat even though they may not like the smoke...blast...
well looks like you win laz...i still dont think smoking should be allowed in resteraunts (i honestly dont carte about bars) but since i dont have anything to argue with i guess its over
-
vort... like I said... I hate smoke. I don't like scooters or nose rings either. I don't like a lot of things and there are even more things that I don't care about one way or the other... for instance.... banning rock climbing would save lives and maybe even save me a buck or two on rescuing the idiots but....
You simply can't vote to take away other peoples rights even if they inconvienience you or are repugnant to you or even save you money or... you think it is for their own good.
Thing is.... no matter what it is that you like to do.... there is a group out there that thinks it should be banned. There are also plenty of govenment leeches out there that are willing to ban anything under the sun if they can get enough support. everyh ban puts money in their pockets and grows their little corner of the burocracy.
lazs
-
vorticon: hmm...isnt there a little government document that assures certain rights...in canada its called the charter of rights and freedoms...in america i beleive its called the constitution...
Those documents do not give people rights. At most they list them. The US Constitution is a document that describes which of their rights/powers the free people are delegating to the government that they are forming and that sets limits on the powers of that government. Obviously, people brought their rights in to the deal, not got them out of the deal.
re you saying that those documents have no real meaning because someone can (rather difficultly but can) change something on it and will probably lose the next election if they do?
The US Constitution has no meaning - besides sentimental and historical value - because it is very easy to adopt legislation that totally contradicts the Constitution and nobody can do anything about it. Most of the US legislation is currently unconstitutional. Read the Constitution and you will hardly find a line that proscribes certain actions by the government that is not directly violated. As for government not having a power to do anything besides enumerated items, that is not even questioned.
...and you do realize that you just agreed with miko...
You must have confused one of us with someone else. Lasz and I are quite often in agreement on plenty of issues. He thinks that voting women are the problem while I think that voting men are a problem too but that is hardly a major point of contention...
exactly so where they can work is limited by smokers...the smokers are infringing on the workers right to work where they want
No. The non-smokers never had any right to work where they want, so the smokers could not deprive them of it. You are confusing righs with opportunities. You should really understand what the righst are before you use that term - otherwise you use it very inappropriately.
Every time you occupy some space or buy an item, etc., you are denying someone an opportunity to occupy that space or buy that item. Every time you do not open and run a non-smoking restaurant in your house, you deny some non-smokers an opportunity to have dinner there.
That does not mean you are violating someone's rights.
Vorticon, what do you think "rights" are? Any rights? Could you give the best definition you could that would be consistent with what you want to express?
yes...but what im ticked off at is the fact that the smokers smoking there means that non smokers are forced to choose not to do whatever service is offered there...
But you will fill better if that establisment stops serving food in order to be able to allow them to smoke? How does them not having food makes you better off?
What if that establisment charges higher prices than what you want to pay or plays the wrong kind of music?
How are you forced to do anything? They are not offering you a service, that's true - but they are not forcing you to do anything. In fact, you are the one who would force them to serve you against their will - using the real violence of teh armed government enforcers.
It seems that you are talking out of spite. People are trying to exercise their freedom of association by gathering in a private establishment and sharing a disgusting habit while having food and you would stop them for no reason except that you feel that you entitled to the owner's services as if he was you slave.
miko
-
and you would stop them for no reason except that you feel that you entitled to the owner's services as if he was you slave.
no i would stop them because i do not wish to share in the habit nor do i wish to suffer the consequences of that habit. i just want to enjoy my food in a smoke free enviroment...while i can choose to eat elsewhere the food in most non-smoking establishments is crappy...the most i can do is choose to sit in non smoking...and honestly im happy with that...its worked for years and im happy with it...the only legislation against smoking i do want is to keep people from smoking inside places like mcdonalds...the food is unhealthy enough without a bunch of people filling the place with smoke
Vorticon, what do you think "rights" are? Any rights? Could you give the best definition you could that would be consistent with what you want to express?
rights are things that people are allowed to do freely without having to worry about someone shooting there head off because they dont agree...but when some peoples rights are interfering with others then the majorities rights must be assured first while stepping on the minority as little as possible (the entire sit in a different section while smoking in a resteraunt thing...it works and everyone is happy...)
the charter of rights and freedoms ASSURES peoples rights...it makes sure that they do not get completly trampled by our other document...the criminal code...
-
Vorticon... do you drive a car on a regular basis?
Because if you're going to be consistent with this argument, you shouldn't as it causes more pollution than smoking does.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Vorticon... do you drive a car on a regular basis?
Because if you're going to be consistent with this argument, you shouldn't as it causes more pollution than smoking does.
Ravs
cant do anything about cars though...except support the "earth friendly" cars...
honestly im not going to argue the issue any more...we've said all that can be said and since no ones budged a inch (okay so i gave in a little) i dont think anyone is gonna get anything done...anything more and its just a waste of bandwidth...
over...out
-
Hence endeth all BBS arguments!
Thanks Vorti!
Ravs
-
vorticon: no i would stop them because i do not wish to share in the habit nor do i wish to suffer the consequences of that habit. i just want to enjoy my food in a smoke free enviroment...
But they do not make you suffer the consequences. They do not come to your place to smoke at you or to any place where they are not invited. They congregate in the establishments that are specifically opened for smoking people so they could gather there and smoke without bothering anyone.
rights are things that people are allowed to do freely without having to worry about someone shooting there head off because they dont agree...but when some peoples rights are interfering with others then the majorities rights must be assured first while stepping on the minority as little as possible (the entire sit in a different section while smoking in a resteraunt thing...it works and everyone is happy...)
That is not correct definition of rights - in fact it is not a definition at all.
In one place you say rights is what you want to do and what you have power to impose. In this particular case you claim the rights to steal what you like but you could claim the "rights" to kill and rape by the same logic.
In another place you say rights is what is allowed by some overlord - which means that a dog may posess rights or a slave may posess rights, because they are allowed to do certain things.
Then you claim that rights can conflict with each other and that those conflicts can be arbitrarily resolved by violence alone and such resolution could still be consistent with legitimacy.
Do you care to try for a better definition of rights, maybe do some research? I could give you an answer, but it will not be as good as if you made some effort to further your education - examining wrong definitions and thinking about the topic is valuable for the development of the mind.
You are using the word "rights" and awfull lot and I would advise you to waste some more bandwidth to understand what that word means.
miko
-
I don't see why you Libertarians are getting all bent out of shape about this. The writing is on the wall for smokers, and the establishments that cater to them...and it has been for some time now.
As the numbers of smokers in the U.S. drops, the numbers of places available to smoke are going to decrease as well.
Your defense of smoking in establishments is similar to arguing that bar owners should be able to choose to build their new buildings with asbestos if they want to.
-
banana: I don't see why you Libertarians are getting all bent out of shape about this. The writing is on the wall for smokers, and the establishments that cater to them...and it has been for some time now.
It's the same as an argument that if you kill an old person, you should not be held liable because he/she was going to die soon anyway.
It is not the smoking that libertarians defend but the property rights and the right to free association and the right to voluntary contract and the right to own one's body.
If I want to let my smoking friends congreagate in my private house and smoke and eat food at the same time, how does it justify an invasion, robbery and kidnapping by the government's thugs?
Plenty of people smoke, drink, use drugs etc. There was "the writing on the wall" for drinkers, smokers, drug users, owners of gold, etc. - all things that the government tried to nanny people out of. That writing - as well as plenty of smokers - will still be there long after you and I die of old age.
Socialists have been issuing smug comments about "writings on the wall" ever since they got that crazy idea that human nature can be changed by them. The market, money, marriage, family, raising children by the parents - all were supposed to be naturally gone soon, so some mass killing and stealing and enslaving to speed up the "natural" process was not a big sin when done or condeoned by them.
Your defense of smoking in establishments is similar to arguing that bar owners should be able to choose to build their new buildings with asbestos if they want to.
Why shouldn't they? As long as it is disclosed and they find construction workers willing to work with asbestos and the employees willing to work around asbestos and the customers willing to visit such a building and there is no asbestos contamination to public space and other people's properties, why should anyone care?
Most of the asbestos scare is a junk science propagated by lawyers anyway.
miko
-
banana answer my question pls.
-
You can't light up in your cubicle, so why do you think you should be able to in a bar or resaurant? Smoking is offensive to the majority of people, and public places where people are allowed to go to freely, such as a restaurant, should be free of smoke. You can't sit at a bar naked, or yell at the top of your lungs without getting kicked out. Same thing.
And yeah, smoking is something that we will look back on as a quaint and dangerous habit in 50 years... get over it.
-
Originally posted by Stridr417
You can't light up in your cubicle, so why do you think you should be able to in a bar or resaurant? Smoking is offensive to the majority of people, and public places where people are allowed to go to freely, such as a restaurant, should be free of smoke. You can't sit at a bar naked, or yell at the top of your lungs without getting kicked out. Same thing.
And yeah, smoking is something that we will look back on as a quaint and dangerous habit in 50 years... get over it.
It is not the same thing. A bar or a restaurant is NOT a public place. It is a private business, just like a business with a cube farm. It should be up to the business owner to allow or disallow any activities.
-
Stridr417: You can't light up in your cubicle, so why do you think you should be able to in a bar or resaurant?
You can light up in your cubicle, as well as in your house, appartment or other property of yours.
Your employer may disallow smoking in his cubicle that you call yours but which really is not.
Smoking is offensive to the majority of people, and public places where people are allowed to go to freely, such as a restaurant, should be free of smoke.
Public places are the places owned by public. In such places the public can certainly vote to disallow smoking because.
The restaurant is a private property and it is the owner that allows people to enter it. He is the one who should decide whether his place should be free of smoke, sound, smell or people.
You can't sit at a bar naked, or yell at the top of your lungs without getting kicked out.
Because the owner does not allow that.
Same thing.
You really do not see the diffeence between the owner imposing rules in his property or the government that sets rules in his provate property?
I see that you skipped this thread because you raise the issues already covered, so I will repeat muself using your examples.
If you allow your friends to smoke and eat at the same time in your private house, and also sit naked also yell at the top of their lungs, why would the government be justified in arrsting you?
And yeah, smoking is something that we will look back on as a quaint and dangerous habit in 50 years... get over it.
You are smugly claiming something that you have no way to prove as true. It indicates you are just a wishfull thinker who confuses his fantasies with reality.
Why don't you get over the fact that unless we live in a total police state worse than Soviet Union, people will smike, drink, use drugs and eat junk food? we have heard inane predictions like yours for centuries. Somehow the pessimists were proven right every time.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The restaurant is a private property and it is the owner that allows people to enter it. He is the one who should decide whether his place should be free of smoke, sound, smell or people....
...You really do not see the diffeence between the owner imposing rules in his property or the government that sets rules in his provate property?...
So, Miko..... what of the rules about serving all races? IE, the desegregation laws?
Lester Maddox and his restaurant? He closed rather than obey the laws.
So, are these laws in error as well?
-
Toad: So, Miko..... what of the rules about serving all races? IE, the desegregation laws?
Lester Maddox and his restaurant? He closed rather than obey the laws.
So, are these laws in error as well?
I am not sure what you mean by "in error".
I believe that desegregation laws restricting the actions of provate businesses are illegitimate because they violate property rights and the right of the free association.
If someone does not want to have particular people enter his private premices, he may be immoral or repugnant to me but it's his right to choose who he invites.
You would not invite a rasist into your house and any law that would make it mandatory for you to admit him would violate your propert rights as well.
miko
-
Thats a nice leap, going from choosing whether or not you'd like to have the business of someone who smokes to racial segregation. If anything, banning smoking in bars is closer to segregation than allowing it. You are denying a certain people service unless they change to suit your tastes.
If you people want a smoke free bar, why not get a lot of support from the community and take it up with the bar owner?
The more laws you pass regulating what people can and can not do, the closer to socialism you get.
-SW
-
But SW we must be safe. Think of the children! If you breath stinky smoke particles, you could die or something! Nobody should die, EVAR.
-
I was just wondering at the consistency aspect.
It does seem to me that if you allow the owner to "make the rules" that apply to his place, then you have to accept segregated establishments.
Note that I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just saying the argument has to apply to the full range of social interaction.
IE: Restaurants that do not allow women.
Restaurants that do not allow blacks.
Restaurants that do not allow whites.
Restaurants that do not allow smokers.
Restaurants that do not allow pharters.
It's all of the same piece, is it not?
-
Don't confuse behaviors with attributes.
-
Well, there ARE gay bars... would you willingly walk into a bar called "Backdoor Brothers" or "The Y ----- Ask"? ****, I know I wouldn't. So, while it may be under my own volition, I am not allowed into a bar like that.
Same if it were a woman's bar, because I can be certain within a .002% error that they are all dykes, old, married, or busted as all hell.
I've walked into a biker bar before... I walked back out three minutes later because it was more than obvious my kind (non-biker) wasn't wanted there.
I could go through a whole list, but some bars are clear as day as to their preferred customers. You may be able to get in, but how long are you really going to stay when its evident from the bartender and the customers that your kind ain't welcome?
-SW
-
That's not what I'm saying Funk.
Miko has postulated that the owner should be the sole arbiter of who may or may not come into his establishment.
There's no mention of behaviors.
-
Well I gotta agree with him. First of all, every liberal group (hell just about everybody short of the KKK or Nation of Islam) would jump all over them with boycotts and protests. Second, they would lose business by restricting their clientele. Third and most important, the group being excluded could always start a business that caters to their kind.
-
Oh sure.... how many freaking bars do you think there are for 3 legged trolls??? HUH??
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
the group being excluded could always start a business that caters to their kind.
You're not going to qualify as a "uniter". ;)
-
Who cares.
Let's be real.
If a local restaurant put up a sign that said "Absolutely no N*ggers", I don't think too many of us whiteys would patronize it. I imagine that suppliers and potential employees would think twice also. And it would be hard to get in there with Al Sharpton's crew blocking the entrance. Some smart entrepeneur would put up a restaurant with a "Negroes Welcome!" sign and put that schmuck out of business.
-
Well, there is a clientele for that sort of place. I'm sure some of the "white power" and "aryan nation" types would love it. Maybe enough to make the owner rich. Or not.
Under Miko's assessment, that's how it should be.
All I was asking and all I'm observing is that it won't be just smoking. It'll cover a whole lot more ground than that.
-
Don't smoke aroung my food!
But around my beer LOL thats ok :aok
-
Interesting that this thread came up.
The town i was spawned in (Moose Jaw SK) passed a no-smoking bylaw on Feb 11th.
The bylaw applys to any public building, not just bars and restaurants.
To my suprise the bars and restaurants arent empty...same goes for the bingo halls. However there is a new problem.
Aside from the discussion regarding segregation and all that there seems to be a new problem that has developed. People walking out on bar and restaraunt tabs.
Eg. party of people A go out for a smoke and dont come back. Apparentley alot of local establishments have had to hire many more staff to keep an eye on the smokers and collect tabs before people step out. That of course hurts their bottom line and drives prices up accordingly.
I'm interested to see how this will play out.
-
public places don't include bars..
but they do include the ski slopes...(ok.. I wish)
the only time I mind is if I'm on the chair behind theirs...
still. smokers think they want a cig at 11k while skiing.
tards.
they usually end up in ICU or on the little stretcher back to the hotel with an oxygen bottle.
-
I spent a lot of time in New York/Manhattan in the years 95-99. Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time. It was wonderful to go to restaurants and breathe clean air! We would choose restaurants as opposed to bars which served food to be guaranteed a smoke free environment. I'm very surprised that restaurants are losing money by adopting a no smoking policy. In New York, we sometimes had to wait 45 minutes to get a table for those Sunday brunches. No downturn in business there.
Just this evening, I went with Tomato to the Caffé Uno in Marlow. All the tables in the nonsmoking area were taken. We had to choose between a long wait or a table in smoking, but the maître D' advised us that most of the smoking section was empty, so we were given the end table. It was OK because the next 2-3 tables were empty. Seems most people prefer the nonsmoking section.
-
Toad: It does seem to me that if you allow the owner to "make the rules" that apply to his place, then you have to accept segregated establishments.
Toad: Miko has postulated that the owner should be the sole arbiter of who may or may not come into his establishment.
Right. An owner of an appartment is allowed to make such rules - who he allows in and who he does not.
A person is allowed to choose his friends or mates.
But somehow if the relations involve money changing hands rather than non-monetary values (companionship, sex, entertainment, etc.) the outsiders are supposed to have the right to dictate.
Note that I'm not saying this is good or bad.
Racism may be immoral. But oppression and coercion is evil. When a person offers a service to some category of people, he does not take anything away from other categories of people. He may be making them feel envious of those who enjoy his services and may be losing valuable customers but if he did not offer his services to some people, others would still not get any.
Well, there is a clientele for that sort of place. I'm sure some of the "white power" and "aryan nation" types would love it. Maybe enough to make the owner rich. Or not.
Under Miko's assessment, that's how it should be.
I would not be caught dead in such place but if some people do not want to associate with blacks, what right do I have to prevent them from associating with each other?
About as much right as I have to tell you that you are not allowed to marry a woman of your race, only a different one.
beet1e: I spent a lot of time in New York/Manhattan in the years 95-99. Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time. It was wonderful to go to restaurants and breathe clean air! We would choose restaurants as opposed to bars which served food to be guaranteed a smoke free environment.
You are confused. The ban was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg - who replaced Juliani in 2002. So it's less than a year old. You could not have enjoyed it in 95-99.
What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You are confused. The ban was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg - who replaced Juliani in 2002. So it's less than a year old. You could not have enjoyed it in 95-99.
What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones.
No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate. If I were entering a restaurant in the US in which smoking was allowed, the first two things the maître D would ask me is "For how many" and "Smoking or Non". I distinctly remember not having been asked the second question in New York in 1995 because by then it was a redundant question. And I distinctly remember not seeing anyone smoke - even if passing through to the rest room etc.
There were TWO Acts. There was the original Smoke-Free Air Act of 1995, and there was the 2002 Act which you are talking about. The 2002 Act was an extension of the 1995 Act.
Here’s something I found doing a Google search. By all means do your own. Not only does this confirm that I was correct about the nonsmoking law being in effect in 1995, but it also confirms what I said about the restaurant trade booming in spite of the ban - indeed, because of the ban.
http://www.smokefreekids.com/nycrest.htm
Researchers at Cornell University found that a smokefree policy for restaurants attracts more business -- and revenue -- than it drives away. The conclusion was based on a study, "Should NYC's Restaurateurs Lighten Up?" that examined the economic effects of New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act, a law that banned smoking in almost all restaurants in the city. The findings refute assertions made by the tobacco industry and some restaurant groups before the Act went into effect in April 1995 that banning smoking would cause a tremendous loss of business for restaurants.
The legislation is described in detail here.
http://www.dglaw.com/resource/winter2003_02.shtml
As you will see, although the 2002 Act is discussed at length, there are numerous references to the 1995 Act which preceded it.
I think I'm old enough to know the difference between a nonsmoking restaurant, and one which has a separate area for smoking. :rolleyes:
Miko, I think you need to spend less time reading books and researching political facts. You should try to get out a bit more. :p
-
ignore the quote I deleted, the people at your second link are idiots. Not sure if that's the researchers themselves or people trying to draw from the research, but the interpretations are crap.
In the 1995 version smoking was allowed in restaurants with less than 35 people, and in the bar area of all restaurants.
-
Look, its very simple. Bars *are* public places. No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them. If a bar decides they simply don't like the look of me and won't let me in, is that allowed? I think that that would not hold up in a court of law.
That being said, when the elected government decides that the majority of the population does not smoke, and that all of the evidence shows that smoking and breathing second hand smoke directly cause cancer, heart disease, and a whole host of other unplasantness, they have the power to say that establishments must restrict smoking in the same way that an establishment can't do one of many other things that are health hazards to all of the potential patrons. You can still do what you wnat at home or outdoors, but ina palce that is open to the public it is different. You business is not necessarily your home!
Anyw hy is it that smokers get more wortk-breaks than non-smokers?
-
If a bar decides they simply don't like the look of me and won't let me in, is that allowed? I think that that would not hold up in a court of law.
Maybe in the US, I don't know about that. But over here the management reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone. This is especially the case in clubs, which are also licensed. Try to get into a club with a group of lads and you might get refused entry. Happened to me a few times. That's why it is useful to chat up the girlies in the queue. ;)
-
Stridr, you are not from the US so it is somewhat difficult for you to understand the problem we have with the government becoming involved in a private business regarding smoking.
Cigars and pipes are NOT allowed in bars due to the amount of smoke they produce, however, cigarettes are because some people just love getting a nicotine buzz while boozing.
Yes, just as in England, people can be denied service for how they look. You look too hammered, you won't get service. You go into a bar where you're not wanted, you won't get service. Etc.
Its not UP to the government, it should simply be up to the business' owner. When the majority of the population doesn't smoke and decides they aren't going to go to a bar that allows smoking, he can decide whether or not he wants the majority of the population's business. If he doesn't, then ****, why the hell can't he just allow people in who smoke? They aren't a different race, and there are no parallels to race or sexual orientation with smokers and non-smokers.
Simply put, if a owner of a private business (it is not under the ownership of the public) wants to have smokers as his customers - then he should be allowed to. If he doesn't, well then it'd be a non-smoking bar with a snap of the fingers and no government intervention is necessary.
Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.
-SW
-
Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.
that's gonna' leave a mark :eek:
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.
-SW
Hehe, coming from the country which had Prohibition of alcohol. (1926-1933) :aok
-
Boy that's really on-topic Beetle. :rolleyes:
-
notice how we (burp) abolished that
-
beet1e: No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate.
Maybe you are not confised. Maybe you just are obstinate and dishonest.
http://www.dglaw.com/resource/winter2003_02.shtml
As you will see, although the 2002 Act is discussed at length, there are numerous references to the 1995 Act which preceded it.
You though you would get away with that lie because I would be too lazy to read that link? None of the "numerous references" to the 1995 Act deals with the smoking in the bars and restaurants - the page only talks about the smoking in the office buildings.
I did my google search. It totally confirms that there was smoking going on in thousands of restaurants untill the summer of 2002 - which is obvious to anyone who has been in New York City at that time.
Harward Center for Cancer Prevention (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/context/archive/context_9_12_02.html)
Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2002, which would expand coverage of a current workplace smoking ban to include all restaurants, bars, offices, pool halls, bingo parlors, bowling alleys, and other indoor areas. Passage of this act would mean the enforcement of no-smoking laws in the 13,000 bars and restaurants that are currently exempt under the 1995 ordinance.[/i]
The main motivation for expanding the smoking ban is to protect bar and restaurant workers from secondhand smoke, which causes both lung cancer and heart disease.
Not only does this confirm that I was correct about the nonsmoking law being in effect in 1995, but it also confirms what I said about the restaurant trade booming in spite of the ban - indeed, because of the ban.
That is BS - the study claims things that may be true but most likely are not and that cannot possibly be proven. First, there was plenty of smoking in NYC restaurants. Second, everything was booming in New York city from 1995 to 2000. It was the biggest bubble in history. New York was awash in easy money, and people were spending it like there is no tomorrow.
Anybody who had really visited New York at that time would have clrearly seen it - and smelled it.
Stridr417: No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them.
The person/entity who controls the property is the one who owns it. So in reality the restaurants are owned by the government - being injustlu confiscated without proper compensation. The ownership title of the formal proprietor is a fig leaf just like private ownership of the companies was in fascist Germany and Italy. That is why the owner cannot control who and on what conditions he allows to enter into his establisment.
That is clearly unconstitutional but who gives the damn anymore.
No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them.
Power - yes. Legitimate right - no.
miko
-
No lie, Miko. The facts are all over the web.
Here's another link: http://www.nypirg.org/health/tobacco/ciachart.html
If you click on the above link, you will see a tabulation of the scope of nonsmoking legislation in various New York counties. (Some counties enacted legislation in other years, but for NYC it was 1995) For New York City (1995), the scope was: 100% of seating capacity nonsmoking except:
1. Separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room (<25% of entire seating capacity)
2. Establishments with fewer than 35 seats
Well, I guess I was going to establishments with more than 35 seats then. And there was definitely no "separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room". :rolleyes: But even in those small cafés like Paz on Broadway near 84th St., there was no smoking allowed. What the 2002 Act appears to have done is to snuff out smoking at those few establishments which were exempted from the 1995 Act. But on the upper West Side where I was, the only places where food was served that allowed smoking were ones where there was also a bar.
What's the problem, Miko? Do you deny that there actually was a 1995 Smoke-Free air Act?
-
beet1e: No lie, Miko. The facts are all over the web.
I live in New York City. I work in New York City. I frequently go the the restaurants in New York City. I know what I see and what I smell and I know english well anough to understand "Smoking or non-smoking" when I enter.
I also know what kind of commotion the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2002 created here, no comparison with what happened in 1995 - even though according to you it was totally useless because all smoking was elimnated in 95. I must be an idiot who does not get around much but so must be Mayor Bloomberg. If only he could talk to you, he would know that there was no need for a hugely controversial act or 2002.
Well, I guess I was going to establishments with more than 35 seats then. And there was definitely no "separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room".
Yes, propbaly you did not go into any one of the 13,000 establishments in which smokers could smoke. Or maybe you went into one and did not even notice the smoking - because it is separated and did not bother anyone.
The act of 2002 was clearly intended to "protect" employees only - not to allow non-smokers enjoy meals unmolested, as ignorants claim here. With less then 25% of seats dedicated to smoking in a separate ventilated area, nobody had to go hungry because of evil smokers in NYC stinking the place up.
What's the problem, Miko? Do you deny that there actually was a 1995 Smoke-Free air Act?
I do not deny that there was such an act. I deny your false assertion that 1995 Act eliminated smoking in the NYC restaurants. It clearly did not. I deny you false assertion that "Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time." It was not a "no smoking" law. It was "smoking restricted to separate area with no more than <25% of seating if more then 35 places" law.
I told you that "What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones." - exactly like it was.
On which you disagreed: "No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate. If I were entering a restaurant in the US in which smoking was allowed, the first two things the maître D would ask me is "For how many" and "Smoking or Non". I distinctly remember not having been asked the second question in New York in 1995 because by then it was a redundant question."
Now you post the quote indicating that it was exactly as I described - "Separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room (<25% of entire seating capacity) ". And maybe there was no smoking allowed in Paz on Broadway near 84th St. but you are making statements about all NYC based on one visit to one place - not 13,000 others.
How could the question have been redundant if in 13,000 restaurants smoking was allowed?
What the 2002 Act appears to have done is to snuff out smoking at those few establishments which were exempted from the 1995 Act.
Yes, just the measly 13,000 of them...
Did I forget to mention that there was smoking allowed in 13,000 of NYC restaurants before the 2002 act?
miko
-
River rafting tours and guided tours in the Grand Canyon are very dangerous for the staff as are driving schools... perhaps all those things should be banned so that the employees are not put at risk? Ski instructors? Range masters? Para sailing? Parachute instructors?
lazs
-
Miko,
I find it all very surprising. We used to hang out in the upper west side - Broadway/Amsterdam/Columbus from around 80th to 99th. Some hangouts were the French Roast (85th & Broadway) Fred's (83rd & Amsterdam) The Saloon (63rd & Broadway - not far from Columbus Circle) and City Diner (91st & Broadway/West End). I was never offered a smoking table, I never saw anyone smoking, there was no separate enclosed area (I would surely have seen it) and there was never any cigarette odour (I would definitely have noticed that). All the restaurants I have listed had more than 35 seats. I assume therefore that they were covered by the 1995 Act. (?)
Of the 13,000 remaining that you are telling me about, how many are in Manhattan, and how many have fewer than 35 seats?
What is the position on smoking where the seating is outdoors on the street? Many upper west side restaurants had outdoor seating.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
River rafting tours and guided tours in the Grand Canyon are very dangerous for the staff as are driving schools... perhaps all those things should be banned so that the employees are not put at risk? Ski instructors? Range masters? Para sailing? Parachute instructors?
lazs
YES BAN THEM
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!