Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on March 29, 2004, 04:14:09 AM
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ag3QirTIqL5s&refer=europe
curly
-
To offset the potential impact of the ban on sales of Guinness, Diageo, the world's largest liquor maker, will give away 10,000 free pints to persuade drinkers not to abandon pubs after the ban is introduced.
That's the paragraph I like. I'm off to the pub. 10,000 pints! Where will I start?
As for the smoking ban, never mind many pubs have beer gardens and in any case the ban is all but unenforceable outside big towns.
Sales of Guinness fell seven percent by volume in Ireland last year, as total sales at the country's bars declined by five percent.
This I don't understand seeing as a recent survey found the Irish were the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Some mistake surely. Anyway I'm off for my free beer. Yee haw!
-
in 8 weeks the smoking bad starts here to....i sure am glad i quit the stuff 2 months ago :)
-
uhhh... I don't smoke or drink.
That being said... I would never vote for a law that prohibited people from doing either or restricted them in private buildings.
California starts all this crap... third worlders, women and womenly men dominate our polls... but... What happens here eventually happens everywhere. All the weird stuff comes from democrats in California yet....
even with this example... some of you think the democrats are on your side? Helping the little people and the downtrodden and and and... don't forget the children! the poor little children!
If only one child can be saved then everyone living the life of nannied little socialists will be worth it right?
Throw the women and the buerocrats out. Any freedom you vote to remove from someone else is just one less freedom for you.. any democrat you vote for is one step closer to going home and living with your mom.
grow a pair fer chrissakes.
lazs
-
I don't see these smoking bans as nanny laws but rather a consensus that folks don't want to have to breath that stuff when they are in a public place if they don't want to. Kinda like masterbation, do it at home.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't see these smoking bans as nanny laws but rather a consensus that folks don't want to have to breath that stuff when they are in a public place if they don't want to. Kinda like masterbation, do it at home.
But it's not a public place. Bars and restaurants are privately owned places, that the owner has decided to offer an open invitation into.
If it was on city-owned land, such as a city park or sidewalk, then it'd be a public place and it wouldn't be such a nanny law but more of a consensus, as you said. But when you force the private owner of a restauraunt to disallow something, here comes the nannies. You're taking away his freedom to run his business as he sees fit.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
But it's not a public place. Bars and restaurants are privately owned places, that the owner has decided to offer an open invitation into.
If it was on city-owned land, such as a city park or sidewalk, then it'd be a public place and it wouldn't be such a nanny law but more of a consensus, as you said. But when you force the private owner of a restauraunt to disallow something, here comes the nannies. You're taking away his freedom to run his business as he sees fit.
Smoking was banned in California bars and restaurants based solely upon its harmful effects on the workers in those establishments. We have an orginization called OSHA which insures workplaces aren't hazardous to the health and safety of the workers- they make sure machinery has safety switches, there are handrails on stairways, people wear hardhats on construction sites, etc.-
You're still allowed to destroy your own lungs, just not the lungs of the busboy clearing your table.
-
I have to back down on private bars, owners should be able to decide if there will be smoking even though those are open to the public.
-
I'm interested to see if anyone actually follows the law. In San Francisco I remember the irish pubs were the only places you could smoke in the bar. :)
Most the pubs I used to frequent found ways around the law anyway they'd have a little fenced in area in the back with some space heaters, was technically outdoors so it was legit but was just as warm out there as it was inside. People would just take their drinks out there to have a smoke, worked fine.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have to back down on private bars, owners should be able to decide if there will be smoking even though those are open to the public.
Iron, by that logic then sawmill owners should be allowed to decide if they want guards on their saws or not. Fishing boat owners should be allowed to decide they don't need life jackets on board. High rise workers don't need life lines. After all, they work in the private sector, right?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Smoking was banned in California bars and restaurants based solely upon its harmful effects on the workers in those establishments. We have an orginization called OSHA which insures workplaces aren't hazardous to the health and safety of the workers- they make sure machinery has safety switches, there are handrails on stairways, people wear hardhats on construction sites, etc.-
You're still allowed to destroy your own lungs, just not the lungs of the busboy clearing your table.
So should motorcycles and cars be banned for cops to drive? Should cops not be allowed to perform traffic stops? These are the places where most cops are killed.
Of course not. Cops make a conscious decision... that the risk of injury is worth the compensation they're offered. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do the job. Same with busboys in smoking establishments. If a busboy feels the risk of second hand smoke is compensated by the benefits (hell, he may be a smoker himself -- better protect him from smoke!) then he should be allowed to work there. If the owner of the establishment can't find busboys because it's a smoking establishment, he'll either change his policy on smoking or change the pay scale. No need for nanny legislation -- individuals are intelligent enough to make that call for themselves.
-
I supported the ban even before i quit. I smoked way to much when i drank even tho i didnt really need the nico fix. The last few times ive gone out i have realised how much those places with smokers really stink, and i have left the places way before i used to in my smoking past.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Iron, by that logic then sawmill owners should be allowed to decide if they want guards on their saws or not. Fishing boat owners should be allowed to decide they don't need life jackets on board. High rise workers don't need life lines. After all, they work in the private sector, right?
Only if these requirements impinge on someone's liberty. A high rise worker finds a life line restrictive? Fine, but if he falls and injures or kills someone else as a result there should be a stiff penalty. Of course he may be dead but all of his assests should go towards the bystanders claim including a required insurance policy. The company for which he works is liable too.
A bar is a bit different, no one forces a bar tender to work there or patrons to go there.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
So should motorcycles and cars be banned for cops to drive? Should cops not be allowed to perform traffic stops? These are the places where most cops are killed.
Of course not. Cops make a conscious decision... that the risk of injury is worth the compensation they're offered. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do the job. Same with busboys in smoking establishments. If a busboy feels the risk of second hand smoke is compensated by the benefits (hell, he may be a smoker himself -- better protect him from smoke!) then he should be allowed to work there. If the owner of the establishment can't find busboys because it's a smoking establishment, he'll either change his policy on smoking or change the pay scale. No need for nanny legislation -- individuals are intelligent enough to make that call for themselves.
Apples and oranges, Tarmac. We make every effort to make police work safer- kevlar vests, radios , video monitors, guns, advanced training- likewise the smoking ban was initiated to make the workplace safer for restaurant/bar workers.
LOL Not to mention the average busboy doesn't choose to be a busboy because he believes in clean tables- most likely he's just trying to make a few bucks while he's in school- whereas most cops believe in the righteousness of what they do.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
A bar is a bit different, no one forces a bar tender to work there or patrons to go there.
Nobody forces anyone to work in a sawmill either. Or on a fishing boat. Or on a high rise building. However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.
Oh, and if a high rise worker refused to wear a harness he'd be fired quick, because OSHA inspects worksites and would write up the contractor for non-compliance in a heartbeat.
-
Of course they're different, but the spirit is the same. Both know the risks before they start, and take the job anyway because the compensation is sufficient.
If an employer does not take sufficient (by his prospective employees' definition) safety steps, there are ways to remedy it besides legislation. The employer can pay more, to get people working in the hazardous environment. These people, with their extra money, could buy safety devices themselves. Or they could pocket it. Or they could bargain with the employer for a pay cut in exchange for the employer's investment in safety equipment. Or they could all chip in and buy the safety equipment as a staff.
With legislation, you're forcing the employer to put in the safety equipment, and through scarce resources, pay less. This is removing all previously mentioned options from both the employer and the employees.
If I don't feel that smoking is a hazard to my health, while most people do, then I have a leg up on them in a competitive job market. They can refuse the job until they feel it is reasonably safe, while in the meantime I can demand increased compensation. Legislation removes my competitive advantage, and thereby my chance at setting myself apart from and above the rest of the workforce.
-
Ah, this will probably strike a nerve with everyone. Pierce County in Washington state just enacted, repealed and re-enacted a "no smoking" law in taverns, resturants, etc. More than likely it is going on a state wide ballot next session. IMO, I shouldn't have to inhale someone else's smoke when I'm in a public place. Smoking sections are a joke because the smoke is going to drift into my "non-smoking" area anyway. If this comes up on the ballot, I will definately be voting for "no smoking in ANY public place". If you want to smoke, go outside. Let me guess, someone will probably say "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" and "I should have to right to smoke if I want to". Well, that's really selfish when you're talking about someone else's health. Since smokers don't care about their own health, why should they care about someone else's health.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Nobody forces anyone to work in a sawmill either. Or on a fishing boat. Or on a high rise building. However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.
Oh, and if a high rise worker refused to wear a harness he'd be fired quick, because OSHA inspects worksites and would write up the contractor for non-compliance in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I know he would be fired. You don't have to tell me about safety regulations, 20 years in AF, you wanna talk about nanny laws. ;)
Government protection is really all a matter of degree. Most of those bemoaning "nanny" laws probably have no argument with speed limits or most traffic laws. We just need to find a balance that most can live with.
-
The only logical arguement for makeing those places non smokeing is the employee health reason. And it does make sence.
-
Originally posted by 2stony
"if you don't like it, go somewhere else" and "I should have to right to smoke if I want to". Well, that's really selfish when you're talking about someone else's health. Since smokers don't care about their own health, why should they care about someone else's health.
and you have exposed them for what they are. sellfish.
I think the issue is more about a safe work enviroment then anything.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
However, people have the RIGHT to work in as safe an enviroment as is possible.
There's our fundamental difference. I don't believe that's correct. I believe people should have the right to work wherever they see fit, and employers should have the right to run his business as he sees fit.
"As safe an environment as possible" -- wtf does that mean, anyhow? All jobs have some risk, and all could be made safer. Why aren't they? The only way to make a job "as safe as possible" is to not do the job, or failing that, to put everyone into big marshmallow suits in armored boxes to protect them from everything in the world.
Why don't we do that? Because it's impractical. That's my fundamental problem -- the government shouldn't decide what's practical for the millions of different businesses in this country, because each business (and workforce) knows what is practical for them better than any government ever can. They will find the ideal compromise between productivity and safety without the government telling them where it is.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Most of those bemoaning "nanny" laws probably have no argument with speed limits or most traffic laws. We just need to find a balance that most can live with.
No, I don't, becaue the roads are built with public funds and patrolled by public police officers. If they were privately built roads, then I'd have a problem with the government telling the private road operator how high the speed limit should be.
-
airhead... I believe that the workers should be able to decide if they want to work in a smoke free bar or not... There should be a sign outside stating if the establishment is or not. If it is a smoking bar then you should probly not apply.
as for guards on saws and lifejackets.... They should be available just like seatbelts in cars. If your boss requires you to use em then fine if not... you should be on your own.
osha can bite me. If they were disbanned today I would not care.
I don't really think that safety equipment is in the same category as the smoking in private establishments tho. Everyone is or, thinks they are, aware of the dangers of smoking... if they apply for a job in a smoking establishment then they take their chances... or, more likely... they smoke themselves.
lazs
lazs
-
Crikey, do I have to argue this in two threads now?
See the other one.
BTW, I don't smoke. How selfish of me. But I am intelligent enough to avoid places that I find too smoky.
-
what if you cant get another job for some reason?
-
I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and also understand the dangers for employees of restuarants and bars who must be exposed to it nonstop while on the job.
Sometimes I wonder what is really more objectionable, the stink, or the fact that smokers use the earth as their ashtray? Look on any street, and especially around intersections and you will find the ground littered with butts. Who hasn't seen where someone dumped their car ashtray in a parking lot?
It would be okay with me if the whole world outlawed smoking. It is a vice that does intrude on the non-participants.
dago
-
If i was a cop and saw someone flicking a butt i would fine them the maximum everytime. The smell and the polution are more offensive then their breath.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
airhead... I believe that the workers should be able to decide if they want to work in a smoke free bar or not... There should be a sign outside stating if the establishment is or not. If it is a smoking bar then you should probly not apply.
as for guards on saws and lifejackets.... They should be available just like seatbelts in cars. If your boss requires you to use em then fine if not... you should be on your own.
osha can bite me. If they were disbanned today I would not care.
I don't really think that safety equipment is in the same category as the smoking in private establishments tho. Everyone is or, thinks they are, aware of the dangers of smoking... if they apply for a job in a smoking establishment then they take their chances... or, more likely... they smoke themselves.
lazs
lazs
If they allowed child labor in coal mines, but as long as the kids agree to it you would be fine with that lazs?
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
No, I don't, becaue the roads are built with public funds and patrolled by public police officers. If they were privately built roads, then I'd have a problem with the government telling the private road operator how high the speed limit should be.
Public funds=my money
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Public funds=my money
Exactly. Your money. And mine. As such, a consensus on the safe limits of use is fine by me.
But if I were free to not use the highways, and also not pay for them, then I would have no say in how they should be run. You are free to stay out of private smoking establishents, so by the same logic you should have only as much say in their operation as the private owner allows.
-
children are not the same as they can't make decisions for themselves but... great little socialist arguement there....
Any loss of freedom is justified eh? let's turn it around.... swimming endangers lifeguards... hiking and rock climbing endager rescue workers. How much you willing to give up mommas boy? where do you draw the line?
lazs
-
looks like it's just a matter of time before this happens everywhere
if there ever comes a time when the non-smokers outnumber the smokers.. smoking will become something to do hidden away in private, something to be embarassed of...
oh wait.. we're already there in some parts of the country.
I can see it now..
a smoking section and non-smoking section in America...
maybe by state :eek:
Oklahoma:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
children are not the same as they can't make decisions for themselves but... great little socialist arguement there....
Any loss of freedom is justified eh? let's turn it around.... swimming endangers lifeguards... hiking and rock climbing endager rescue workers. How much you willing to give up mommas boy? where do you draw the line?
lazs
Well your right lazs, the arguement against allowing smokeing in a private buisness is kinda silly.
You must be a very afraid of your own sexulaity laz. Always scared of women in power and not being seen i a large truck or car.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
looks like it's just a matter of time before this happens everywhere
Interesting timing! As of midnight last night, smoking has been banned in all public places in Ireland. The focus of the ban is places where people are working. So, in theory, company car drivers are not allowed to smoke behind the wheel because they are in their place of work. You can still smoke in your own home in Ireland but not, apparently, if you have the plumber or electrician round because then you would be smoking in their workplace.
This must be the first smoking ban that's affected an entire country.
Full story in today's Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/29/nsmoke29.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/29/ixnewstop.html)
-
I hate cigarette smoke but I love freedom. Have to go with private ownerships should have the right to allow smoking. Of course I reserve the right to fart in your general direction. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Exactly. Your money. And mine. As such, a consensus on the safe limits of use is fine by me.
But if I were free to not use the highways, and also not pay for them, then I would have no say in how they should be run. You are free to stay out of private smoking establishents, so by the same logic you should have only as much say in their operation as the private owner allows.
Except that bars and restaurants aren't private clubs, they're open to the public and, thus, subject to regulation. A private club is like the VFW, and smoking is allowed in those.
How do you feel about health inspections in restaurants? You must be opposed, right?
I gotta run, but I'll address this later. It's a good discussion. Civil, even, for the most part. :)
-
Hurray for socialism!
-
froggie... I don't know that I am afraid of my sexuiality or not but I do know that letting women run your life is gonna make for some crappy living most of the time.. I know you don't belive this but women are different than men.... when you finaly get one undressed you will probly notice but...
it doesn't end there! They even (gasp!) think differently than us... they have different ideas about what we should be doing than we do.
one of my cars weighs 2100 lbs and has a 90 inch wheelbase. The other has a truck bed. Are you saying that anyone who thinks they need the utility of a truck is afraid of their sexuality? Allways interested in the opinions of teenagers like yourself when it comes to life or sex.... kids do say the darndest things...
airhead.. I would require that any establishment that allowed smoking have a large sign on every entrance that declared that it was a smoking establisment and that any who entered would be subject to the smokings effects .
I hate the stench of ciggs... I probly wouldn't go in.
lazs
-
Froggy drives a Prius Lazs. He's pretty much drunk the nannystate Kool-Aid.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Except that bars and restaurants aren't private clubs, they're open to the public and, thus, subject to regulation. A private club is like the VFW, and smoking is allowed in those.
How do you feel about health inspections in restaurants? You must be opposed, right?
I gotta run, but I'll address this later. It's a good discussion. Civil, even, for the most part. :)
Bars and restaurants are not private clubs, but they are private. If you make a legal distinction between the two, what's to stop a bar owner from declaring his bar a private club and then offering free memberships on the spot, which he can revoke at any time?
Bars are private. The owner can ask you to leave at any time, and you are free to not go there. As such, the government has no business regulating it.
As for health inspections, it's a mixed bag. If restaurants all disclosed their food preparation practices health inspections would not be necessary. It's dishonesty in preparation that could be regulated, not the preparation itself. If a restaurant drops your food on the floor and serves it to you anyhow, without telling you, they've done something wrong. But if they post a sign saying "all food may have been dropped on the floor," you as an intelligent adult can make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to eat there, no inspection or government nannying necessary beyond ensuring that the restaurant is not misleading you.
Gotta go as well. We'll continue this civil discussion later, commie poopyhead. ;)
-
I do not smoke, but smoke does not bother me.
I think this should be up to the owners. If you do not like it go work for the guy who runs a non smoking place, or go to the non smoking place.
There is room in the market for both.
All this anti smoking bull**** is just that, is you are so concerned about your health that you worrie about second hand smoke I feel sorry for ya.
My only problem with smokers are the ones who litter instead of tossing the butts in the garbage or ashtrays.
-
They should just enact it. Smoking indoors annoys me also and Im a smoker myself. I would rather run outside for a smoke than smoke inside the building. Second hand smoking is harm full and its annoying as heck for them.
-
yeah.. but then everyone has to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter a building... they always put the smokers at the entrances.. cracks me up.
Then there's the guy on the ski-lift ahead of you that smokes....
all outdoors and non-invasive right?
I say just let us non-smokers have open-season on smokers :)
Problem will even itself out heh
-
I like the BigSign idea.. post it at the entrances and let each individual decide whether or not they want to go in.
I usually don't need a sign but I guess some do...
all I have to do is take a breath and I know whether or not I want to eat/drink there.
ok, maybe it's the ciggie-stained glass on the vehicles parked around the bar that's a dead giveaway...
or the lung-busting coughing I hear as I approach...
-
Ahhh the land of the free...
LOL
Let 'em have guns...but ban them from smoking.
ROFLMAO
Funny stuff.
-
Earthquake? No biggie...
War? Balh... wussies...
Tornado? What... youve never seen one?
...what is that? Is that...? Oh my GOD! A cigarette! GET IT OUT OF HERE WERE ALL GOING TO D I E !!!!!
-
lol compare the two ?
smoking
guns
I don't get it.
we don't want to stop people from smoking...
-
I don't think it should be banned all together. it's just taken to stupid levels.
I agree on the smoking sections though, they just don't work. a bar or resturaunt should have to either provid a seperate smoking area (with ventilation and sealed doors to truely prevent the smoke from drifting), or declair the whole establishment as smoking or non-smoking.
then you can just vote with your $$. if you prefere a smoke free environment give those places your money and they will thrive.
-
Smoking is crazy!!! Each year, thousands of childred start smoking. Its totaly crazy.
:D
-
WTG Pierce County in Washington.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
lol compare the two ?
smoking
guns
I don't get it.
we don't want to stop people from smoking...
Lost point...lost scooter...its all the same to Curval :p
-
Smoking also causes forest fires so smoking outside is not all that wonderfull either. Smoking in general is just crazy. Please stop smoking.
-
pfffft...what lost point?
They are BANNING smoking in America...the land of the free. This is the same country that people on this board state should legislate that everyone should be required own guns, let alone be free to do so.
That to me is really funny.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by bong
Smoking also causes forest fires so smoking outside is not all that wonderfull either. Smoking in general is just crazy. Please stop smoking.
With a name of Bong you have given up all rights to whine!!
about smoking... Its for decoration right?!!!
-
So if we vote to ban smoking, are you going to accept it? You kill someone with a gun, you go to prison or are killed. You blow smoke in my face and I'm going to "beotch slap" you(for which I'll get in more trouble than you). Gotta love America!
-
Bong as in Richard Bong the famous WWII P-38 ace. Hence the RB signature.
:)
-
They are BANNING smoking in America...the land of the free. This is the same country that people on this board state should legislate that everyone should be required own guns, let alone be free to do so.
sigh. once again.
The US is NOT banning smoking
A citizen can smoke anywhere it isn't forcing someone else to breathe it. or at least that's the idea.
Freedom is about pursuing individual freedoms while not removing other citizens' freedoms.
NOT in blindly doing whatever we want.
Still , I find smoking 'bans' offensive.
Better to let the private business owner decide for themselves.
I can make my choice of where to spend my money.
-
If you ban smoking completely that would end any hopes of ever legalizing marijuana....
Sounds like a fair trade....
We can throw smokers in jail with murderers and rapists....
taxes will go up and revenue will go down, but the air will be cleaner...
IKON
-
I love the isolated smoking rooms I have seen at airports: a sealed glass room with just enough ventilation suction to keep the smoke from flowing out the door when somebody enters/exits. I have seen one so smoky that it looked like a thick San Francisco fog. They want to smoke, then they can breath it.
But one thing I have never even seen considered:
If smoking is banned because of its effects on others, what about everything else that smokes: cars, powerplants, etc. Should people who don't own cars be forced to breath filthy car exhaust? Should people who use gasoline powered cars have to suffer diesel fumes? Pollution from cars and factories is every bit as bad if no worse than cigarette smoke, but I don't see the government banning them.
As a nonsmoker, I appreciate all of the new laws. But as someone that also likes to see justice and logic prevail, I don't see the consistency in banning public smoking while permitting all sorts of other equally harmful chemicals to saturate the environment.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
But one thing I have never even seen considered:
If smoking is banned because of its effects on others, what about everything else that smokes: cars, powerplants, etc. Should people who don't own cars be forced to breath filthy car exhaust? Should people who use gasoline powered cars have to suffer diesel fumes? Pollution from cars and factories is every bit as bad if no worse than cigarette smoke, but I don't see the government banning them.
As a nonsmoker, I appreciate all of the new laws. But as someone that also likes to see justice and logic prevail, I don't see the consistency in banning public smoking while permitting all sorts of other equally harmful chemicals to saturate the environment.
cha ching
Wlfgng, perhaps you would like to comment?;)
and to LePaul...I haven't lost any scooters. Not a one.
-
exactly tarmac... signs on the door would inform you if the establishment allowed smoking or not... They are being honest with you... health inspections are to catch the dishonest. The cig "menace" is black and white... either there is cig smoke in the place or not. Your choice is simple and clear cut... go in or not... work there or not.
lazs
-
Smoking kills well over 1000 people in the US every day.
Guns dont kill anywhere near that much.
Nobody is banning smoking anyway, just some areas are banning smoking in places where people have to work. Most of those same places ban guns in those places too. Not a big differance Curval.
I hope you are getting a clearer picture of the discussion as we have tried to point out.
BTW, in the USA currently less than 30% of the population smokes.
dago
-
Smoking in bars is an infringement of my liberty. By golly if I want to eat hot wings and watch a Gators game without the smell of Pall Malls from the guy in the booth behind me, then I should be free to do so!
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Bars and restaurants are not private clubs, but they are private. If you make a legal distinction between the two, what's to stop a bar owner from declaring his bar a private club and then offering free memberships on the spot, which he can revoke at any time?
Cigar bars don't prohibit smoking. You can go there and light up all you want.
-
What I really wanna know, do those bubbles go up or down? ;)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/texasliving/stories/032904dnlivmonrail.7bba.html
Bubbling brew
05:44 PM CST on Sunday, March 28, 2004
Guinness is good for you – especially if you're a bored scientist looking for publicity.
In 1999, Australian researchers claimed that beer bubbles sometimes counterintuitively bubbled down rather than up.
Putting several liters of Guinness to the test, chemists in California and Scotland have now proved with high-speed video that bubbles rise more quickly in the center of a pint, then spill down along the side.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
But one thing I have never even seen considered:
If smoking is banned because of its effects on others, what about everything else that smokes: cars, powerplants, etc. Should people who don't own cars be forced to breath filthy car exhaust? Should people who use gasoline powered cars have to suffer diesel fumes? Pollution from cars and factories is every bit as bad if no worse than cigarette smoke, but I don't see the government banning them.
When was the last time you sat next to a Peterbilt at Pizza Hut? People smoke outside, just like the cars.
On a lighter note, I think that smoking bans are stupid, and I'm a non-smoker. If I have a problem with the smell, I'll leave. If there were no non-smoking establishments in the area, I'd open one up and make a fortune. Or if that went under I'd sell cigarettes.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Smoking kills well over 1000 people in the US every day.
Guns dont kill anywhere near that much.
Nobody is banning smoking anyway, just some areas are banning smoking in places where people have to work. Most of those same places ban guns in those places too. Not a big differance Curval.
I hope you are getting a clearer picture of the discussion as we have tried to point out.
BTW, in the USA currently less than 30% of the population smokes.
dago
Yea Dago..this clears everything right up, thanks. Especially the part where you say no-one is banning smoking and then you proceed to say just exactly "where" they are banning it.
:aok
-
It's funny to watch old movies and see people smoking EVERYWHERE. Could you imagine sitting on an airplane or in a movie theater and having someone light up a cigarette today? It is just the changing of the times. Someday we will look back on today's society with wonder and just say " wow, remember when we could smoke in BARS? that's CRAZY !!"
-
some of what you refer to is avoidable, some isn't.
To me it makes sense to avoid the ones you can. I.E. second hand smoke.
as I stated though, I dislike bans. I prefer to be aware of what's going on where and to be able to make a choice as to whether or not to expose myself to certain things. Knowledge of a given situation is more important to me than banning things.
I opt for knowing if a place allows smoking or not.
I personally find cig smoke offensive and avoid being exposed to it. I do the same with smog.. hence my move to the high mountains. some would say I do the same with certain types of people.. lol again, my move hah
Just because big businesses, factories, the oil industry and it's cars, etc etc get away with polluting and offending doesn't mean that it's acceptable. It also doesn't mean that it's ok to force people to breath second-hand smoke if they don't want to.
The 'freedom' to smoke, or do anything for that matter, stops where it takes someone else's freedom away. re-worded, that's the basic idea .
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Cigar bars don't prohibit smoking. You can go there and light up all you want.
So why not let the owner of a sports bar decide if he wants to let you smoke in his bar? Or does he have to declare it a "cigar bar" first?
-
Thank you Comrade Wlfgng. ;)
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
The 'freedom' to smoke, or do anything for that matter, stops where it takes someone else's freedom away.
So when a government legislates to take away a bar owner's freedom to allow or not allow smoking in his privately owned establishment, that's be wrong, right?
-
They can still smoke in the bars in Ireland.
They just cannot smoke tobacco products.
So feel free to light up herbal cigs. Also if you have 3 people at a table smoking herbal cigs and someone fires up a tobacco cig that looks the same how will they know.
They should make a tobacco cig that has 1 inch of tobacco then the rest herbal to really screw up the enforcement of this ban.
-
Ahh, still a comprehension issue for you Curval.
Smoking isn't being banned in the USA, not the act, not the sale of tobacco, not the right of those who choose to damage their health and smell bad.
The "banning" that is happening is location banning, and for better or worse, our government, acting on our behalf is protecting non-smokers from the injurious effects of smoking.
It is not differant than places where food is served not allowing entrance to persons not wearing shoes. That goes to hygenic protection, this issue also relates to health.
Didn't you have a young baby recently? Do you smoke in your babys room? Do you or do you allow anyone to blow smoke in the babies face?
If you answer no, should I call you a smoke nazi??
Well, we choose to try and protect ourselves from that health threat, and the utter distaste many have for the smell and trash resulting from smoking.
Now, you can choose to act like an arguementative word game playing fool, or you can uncork your head from your lower regions and stop trying to think of silly contexts to argue a stupid arguement.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Ahh, still a comprehension issue for you Curval.
No...you just need to be a bit more clear when you write.
Smoking isn't being banned in the USA, not the act, not the sale of tobacco, not the right of those who choose to damage their health and smell bad.
Correct...it is being banned in bars and restaurants one state at a time, in the USA.
The "banning" that is happening is location banning, and for better or worse, our government, acting on our behalf is protecting non-smokers from the injurious effects of smoking.
Lazs might call that a nanny law...but you will need to check that with him.
It is not differant than places where food is served not allowing entrance to persons not wearing shoes. That goes to hygenic protection, this issue also relates to health.
Allow me....Nanny law.
Didn't you have a young baby recently? Do you smoke in your babys room? Do you or do you allow anyone to blow smoke in the babies face?
I don't charge ridiculous prices for the priviledge of drinking and/or eating in my house. If I did, I'd have no right to stop you from smoking. When I smoke in a restaurant I do not purposly blow smoke in peoples faces and I wouldn't expect them to blow it in my baby's face....assuming I did charge ridiculous prices for the priviledge of smoking in my house. Which I don't, so the point is moot.
If you answer no, should I call you a smoke nazi??
I'm told that in America you have freedom of speech...call me what you like.
Well, we choose to try and protect ourselves from that health threat, and the utter distaste many have for the smell and trash resulting from smoking.
Who is "we"? You still have a few million smokers over there...are you speaking for them too?
Now, you can choose to act like an arguementative word game playing fool, or you can uncork your head from your lower regions and stop trying to think of silly contexts to argue a stupid arguement.
Now now...just because you write badly doen't mean you need to start throwing personal attacks about the place.
Light up....errr I mean, lighten up.
-
I blame Bush.
-
By the way, lets ban cars, motorbikes etc etc too... way to bad for our health...
Atleast in the crowded citys...
-
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
I was suprised that after hearing for years of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, apparently there isn't the danger "they" said it was. Read the EPA reports in the link. Interesting stuff.
I still would like folks to smoke elsewhere when I'm eating, but then I was that way back when I smoked.
h
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
So when a government legislates to take away a bar owner's freedom to allow or not allow smoking in his privately owned establishment, that's be wrong, right?
DING DING DING DING! WINNAH!
-SW
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I don't think it should be banned all together. it's just taken to stupid levels.
I agree on the smoking sections though, they just don't work. a bar or resturaunt should have to either provid a seperate smoking area (with ventilation and sealed doors to truely prevent the smoke from drifting), or declair the whole establishment as smoking or non-smoking.
then you can just vote with your $$. if you prefere a smoke free environment give those places your money and they will thrive.
that sounds good to me - but what about the employees - they assume the risk by applying to work there just like a miner or a fireman? Besides I dont think 2nd hand smoke is going to hurt you much if you have contact every now and then.
-
The human capacity for rationalization never fails to be entertaining.
Any sport on the water or on snow puts you and others at risk. If you do either and complain about cigarette smokers, then I surmise you are being hypocritical.
Second hand smoke may kill you in 50 years, but a ski through your skull is pretty instant.
By the way, I merged the two threads together.
-
Originally posted by Habu
They can still smoke in the bars in Ireland.
They just cannot smoke tobacco products.
So feel free to light up herbal cigs. Also if you have 3 people at a table smoking herbal cigs and someone fires up a tobacco cig that looks the same how will they know.
They should make a tobacco cig that has 1 inch of tobacco then the rest herbal to really screw up the enforcement of this ban.
That's true and I bet someone will try it. But have you ever smelt one of those herbal cigarettes. uuuugh. There's another kind of 'herbal' cigarette which is smoked in one or two bars. Illegal in a different kind of way. :D
I haven't ventured into a pub since the ban but I was in a Bookies. They used to be worse than anywhere else. I think someone was having a crafty studmuffin in the bog :eek: (err.. smoking a cigarette in the toilet). But otherwise it was clear. I did have a bet.....the stupid horse is still running. Bah they should ban gambling too.
But the smoking ban here is quite popular. I'm glad even if it has implications for a nanny state. I used to hate the smokey smell after a night out. Ironically this government is right of centre in general. Low tax and inclined to take on the unions and the left. Big business friendly too. But they're going out on a limb with this ban.
Most pubs are finding a way around it by having an open area out the back or somewhere with heat lamps and such. One has a double decker bus in the car park for smokers.
As an interesting point cops can't smoke in their squad cars either. If you see one you could report him and he would get a 3k fine.
-
cpxxx - are you in Eire or Ulster?
-
yes curval... I do think it is a "nanny" law... I don't believe the rest of us have the right to vote on wether a private establishment allows smoking or not. If you want to nanny and "vote" then vote with your dollars and don't patronize smoking establishments or....
if smoking is as horrible as everyone claims.... ban it alltogether along with other dangerous things like swimming and boating.
how long before the cig laws hit your little island curval? How far behind us are you.
lazs
-
Lazs said:
uhhh... I don't smoke or drink.
Sorry Lazs, I wasn't jerking your chain about drink or cigarets, rather your disdain for laws which meddle with public behavior.
Tarmac said:
But it's not a public place. Bars and restaurants are privately owned places, that the owner has decided to offer an open invitation into.
and Iron
I have to back down on private bars, owners should be able to decide if there will be smoking even though those are open to the public.
There is no such thing as a private bar or restaurant unless it is operated in someones home.
Bars/restaurants avail themselves of roads, garbage disposal, mail delivery, power and police services, all made available (at least initially) by good old John Q. Public.
John Q has every right to decide on matters which affect him.
Decisions made by the majority with builtin protection for the minorities. That's the way it works.
curly
-
Originally posted by beet1e
cpxxx - are you in Eire or Ulster?
Ireland, Republic of. Dublin in fact. The law doesn't apply to Northern Ireland. But it wouldn't surprise me if they copied the idea. It might be a test case for the rest of the UK. Publicans near the border worry that smokers in the Republic will go north for a smoke. But perhaps the non smokers will head south. LOL. One town actually straddles the border with pubs on both sides. That will be interesting.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
There is no such thing as a private bar or restaurant unless it is operated in someones home.
Bars/restaurants avail themselves of roads, garbage disposal, mail delivery, power and police services, all made available (at least initially) by good old John Q. Public.
John Q has every right to decide on matters which affect him.
Decisions made by the majority with builtin protection for the minorities. That's the way it works.
curly
Please explain the difference between your definitions of public and private then. Mine is simple -- if it's paid for by public money, it is public. If it's paid for by private money, it's private.
"Bars/restaurants avail themselves of roads, garbage disposal, mail delivery, power and police services, all made available (at least initially) by good old John Q. Public."
By that definition, every house in a city is also public. My house is connected to public roads, makes use of public garbage disposal (incidentally, most businesses have private trash disposal companies), my house has a private mailbox, and uses semi-public power and public police services. You don't propose to legislate against smoking there, do you?
Your definition makes no sense.
-
beat me to it Tarmac... of course your house is connected to public roads and sewer and garbage and sometimes even to another residence. cig smoke can emit from your windows and kill a child that is passing by.
but curly you are right... I am indeed against laws that meddle with human rights... That includes laws that are passed by the "majority" to discriminate against the"minority".
What is right is right and you shouldn't be allowed to vote on it.
For instance.. I don't believe it is our right to vote to send all blacks to africa. do you? It's not a matter of what the majority wants it is about intrinsic rights... like the right to defend yourself and your property and to use your property in any way that you see fit that does not endanger inocent bystanders.
A sign warning people that entering the establishment will certainly risk smelling and dieing from second hand smoke should be more than sufficient for any adult.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maniac
By the way, lets ban cars, motorbikes etc etc too... way to bad for our health...
Atleast in the crowded citys...
LOL As a matter of fact banning automibles would be too impractical- so what we've done is required them to be less polluting and, thus, less harmful. Costs the auto manufactuers billions, too. I'm surprised you never heard of the EPA. ;)
-
Blah, blah, blah, Mommy will take care of you, Blah,blahh,blah
fluff'n sheeps all of you.
'cept Laz.
-
airhead... no... it didn't cost manufacturers billions... their coffers were refilled by..... you guessed it.... you and me.
The EPA... yep heard of em... soon all of us will know then as well as we know the IRS... your sewer bill will tripple and so will your taxes. you will get very little or nothing for this and most will be based on junk science like the curren "MTBE" scam that is costing money and polluting the waters of California.
If the EPA ever gets to rule the farmers and ranchers we won't even be able to eat.
EPA will be able to jail you without trial and you will not be able to sue them.
lazs
-
you can smoke in stand alone bars all you want in Florida. You can't smoke in any other place of work though. Gov't had very little to do with it, it was on the ballot in 2002 as a constitutional amendment.
My friend tends bar in a local restaurant/pub. Since it isn't a stand alone bar, it falls under the smoking amendment and no smoking is at the bar. Personally, he likes it better because he doesn't have customers blowing smoke in his face. By the way, he is a smoker. The best thing for him, and the pub, is they actually do a better business at the bar after the ban than before the ban. The smokers who frequented the bar area are still there, but now more non-smokers frequent the bar. Also, since the bar isn't as "smelly" more people place food orders at the bar (increasing tips for my friend and the rest of the bar staff.) So in this case, the smoking amendment is definitely a good thing for the establishment, the patrons and the staff. The smokers just have to go outside to light up, and yes, they are allowed to take their drinks outside.
If you go next door, you can smoke inside all you want while drinking alcohol and looking at boobs. ;)