Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Haha, well that makes just as much sense as the other way really.

But it has one BIG, HUGE advantage.

A smoking ban isn't legislated.

It's voluntary for a specific goal, more money for the owner.

Hell, even throw in a heavier tax burden for the clubs that go both ways.

ACK!

[Flip McWho]

How does the owner get more money when there is no effective difference between the tax break for a non smoking place and the tax break for a smoking place?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Option a being allow smokers and pay a tax, and option B being not allowing smokers and paying the same tax, whilst option c is both places not paying any taxes?



But it's being increasingly recognised as such. Whereas everybody realises that smoking is a lifestyle choice. And this smoking ban in bars and clubs isn't universal, it's a state by state thing.

???

So, it's OK for one state to ignore individual liberties so long as not all do so?

This is a matter of property rights and legal substances. Either rights exist, or they do not. There is no 'some states ban them so it's OK so long as other don't follow suit' bull**** that I am familiar with.

Theres good (and imho convincing) arguments that being gay is inherent to an individual. There are no such arguments for being a smoker.

Property rights.

What part of banning the substance in a public place is not equivalent to banning the substance. Nobody has advocated that. For the record, I think marijuana should be legalised, but I still don't think I have the right, if it is legalised, to light up and puff away on a joint in the middle of a bar, I don't mind walking outside to enjoy something that the bar doesn't specifically cater for.

Key word. Cater for.

And if MJ were legal and the owner of the bar wished to cater to people who smoke it?

You're argument is seriously flawed. This topic isn't black or white, nobody but you and your side wishes to make it so. Nobody wants to remove your choice to smoke, we just wanna make sure your choice is exercised safely. Just like nobody wants to remove the choice of a person to drive, but we do wanna make sure it is exercised responsibly.

This has gone way beyond responsible.

As I have said, many times now, a private club called "Smokers Club" with no employees (the members do the work) cannot have smoking behind locked doors.

This has gone way beyond public welfare and is well into the category of unreasonable busy-bodyness.

Theres a regulation on using the substance, not a ban. You can still use it, just not in a particular place. When the government starts advocating banning smoking totally, I'll be on your side.

Then you're on some form of crack.

I don't want you on 'my side' bud.

If it is addictive and lethal, I want it banned, not the users of it harassed.

Can I make myself any clearer?

Do I have to draw you a map?

[Flip McWho]

So, it's OK for one state to ignore individual liberties so long as not all do so?

Why is your right to smoke in a confined public place a individual liberty. What about my right to not inhale second hand smoke in that same place. I can leave, so can you if you don't like the law change.

Property rights.

Yeah thats the fundamental sticking point of this thread. I don't think a bar or club as an economic entity is private property. I do believe that the capital is.

Key word. Cater for.

Bars don't cater for smokers. It just happens to be something that goes with/compliments what they do cater for and thus they allow it.

a private club

Same issue as with private property mentioned above. It depends on the club. Uncle Jims poker club can smoke all they want.

This has gone way beyond public welfare and is well into the category of unreasonable busy-bodyness.

Fact, second hand smoke contributes to deaths.
Fact, second hand smoke permeates right throughout the confined space it is conducted in.
Therefore, people who do not smoke are having to suffer the consequences of your choice.

If it is addictive and lethal, I want it banned, not the users of it harassed.

And this harassment is being sent outside to smoke, whereas the nonsmokers of course have the choice to not go out.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
How does the owner get more money when there is no effective difference between the tax break for a non smoking place and the tax break for a smoking place?

They both cater to specific groups, non smokers don't go to smoking bars, smokers don't go to non smoking bars.

Bars that allow either, don't get tax breaks.

ACK!

[Flip McWho]

If a MJ shop opened up and sold nothing but marijuana and let me smoke it on that property I'd probably go there.

Though I've already mentioned in this thread that I've got nothing against a tobacco shop opening up and allowing people there to smoke on the property.

A bar does not cater for smokers, as much as you want to believe they do, they don't. How many actually sell smokes?

[Flip McWho]

They both cater to specific groups, non smokers don't go to smoking bars, smokers don't go to non smoking bars.

Bars that allow either, don't get tax breaks.

Right I follow now.

Wheres the incentive to go smoke free? It's forcing them to pick one over the other and both options are equally alright (economically), so why choose one over the other?

[notyoueither]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Flip McWho Same issue as with private property mentioned above. It depends on the club. Uncle Jims poker club can smoke all they want.

One more time...

No they can't, not here according to the zealots bylaws that have passed.

Fact, second hand smoke contributes to deaths.
Fact, second hand smoke permeates right throughout the confined space it is conducted in.
Therefore, people who do not smoke are having to suffer the consequences of your choice.

And people who don't drive are subject to your vehicle emmissions.

So what?

And you're skirting the real issue. Should the substance be legal to begin with?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Right I follow now.

Wheres the incentive to go smoke free? It's forcing them to pick one over the other and both options are equally alright (economically), so why choose one over the other?

if there is a real demand for non smoking establishments, and not simply a need to manage other peoples lives, non smoking establishments would draw a good business.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
And this harassment is being sent outside to smoke, whereas the nonsmokers of course have the choice to not go out.

... and of the next 100,000 people born we can expect 10,000 to take up smoking.

Are we at all interested in what will be good for the next generation?

Is it lethal? Is it addictive?

Stop ****ing around with harassment of existing smokers. Protect the public that is just being born.

If it's lethal, ban it, or **** off and get out of my face.

[MOBIUS]

Just my 0.2 cents, but if the smoking lobby hadn't vociferously resisted changes in the law for so long - perhaps the anti-smoking laws coming into place today wouldn't be so Draconian?

Smokers like NYE are complaining of the unreasonableness of the laws where a 'smoking club' full of only smokers would not now be legal, which I agree seems unreasonable on the face of it.

However so too is expecting to maintain the status quo where non-smokers are inconvenienced by other people's smoke, because that stance is patently unreasonable for a number of reasons - the utmost of which being health grounds.

Sadly for smokers, the logical reason why ALL public establishments are banned from smoking is to create a level playing field for those businesses that feel they will be out of pocket from the ban, in that you cannot allow some smoking places to remain open when the majority are forced to switch.

As for the workplace, if everyone is a smoker inside an office and it does not impinge on any non-smokers, then I feel they should be allowed to smoke if they so wish.

Smokers have to realise that first and foremost this is a health issue and that it is entirely unreasonable to affect the health and wellbeing of another person in a public area.

Away from non-smokers you can smoke your little brains out - in fact feel free as I have shares in BAT purely for the reason that one of the biggest growth sectors in emerging markets are vice 'luxuries' like smoking (just ask China!)...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The issue of this thread happens to be smoking.

Now if you want to discuss gay marriage take it to another thread.

Then don't be such a laughable hypocrite.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've never attacked you there. Why don't you drop the poor gay routine about how gay people are hard done by and get back to the meat and potatoes of the thread?

Once again, Ben, the people who brought up the gay stuff were the pro-smokers...

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Being gay is not universally recognised as being a part of human identity, or of being a human right.

Asher knows this.

Asher is still totally at ease with trampping all over other people who belong to today's marginal society.

That makes him the worst sort of hypocrite, in my book. Ban me if you will, but I'm calling a spade a spade.

You're letting your addiction speak...

Banning smoking in public places is in no way comparable to banning gay marriage. We've been over why, but your addiction won't let you see reason.

[laurentius]

round two...FIGHT!