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

[Jon Miller]

Most bars seemed uneffected.. and don't have large numbers of smokers outside. A few bars had large number of smokers outside.. but didn't seem to lose any clientle.

I just haven't seen it.

JM

[Drake Tungsten]

Anti-smoking laws

Freedom

[SlowwHand]

I been saying this forever, too. One right is taken, others follow. It gets easier and easier to take the rights. You may not be a smoker, but don't tell me you don't like personal freedoms.

People that applaud this are going to rue the day.
Rather than go to another bar or restaurant, you rejoice in the loss of a liberty.

Terribly short-sighted.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
No on 4, Yes on 5

4 was the one that banished smoking from all public places EXCEPT bars and casinos. 5 banished it from bars that handle food and areas outside the gaming portions of casinos. Sorry, but suck it up Dis. And look on the bright side: It still has to pass again in '08 before becoming law.

4 only banned it from child care facilities and supermarkets. It was the less restrictive one.

You sure it has to pass again? The way the local news made it seem, that it was a done deal. I know it was worded different than in 04, but we did have a similar question (it was worded like #4 was).

All I want to know is if I can go down to my local bar to get my fish n' chips. We know they won't ban smoking because this town is built on smokers (or dead smokers ).

[Drake Tungsten]

I just find it funny that people will cry to the high heavens when the government gains the right to look at your library records, but will either shrug their shoulders or approvingly gush when the government forces reluctant business owners to ban people from engaging in a legal activity on their premises...

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I been saying this forever, too. One right is taken, others follow. It gets easier and easier to take the rights. You may not be a smoker, but don't tell me you don't like personal freedoms.

People that applaud this are going to rue the day.
Rather than go to another bar or restaurant, you rejoice in the loss of a liberty.

Terribly short-sighted.

It's an issue of public health.

What's terribly short-sighted is smoking in the first place. Some of y'all need a kick in the ass to quit.

When you're in public spaces, you're spewing out toxic smoke to everyone around you -- whether they want to or not. This isn't an erosion of a right, it's hardly a precedent.

You're not allowed to drink out on the streets, where's your protest against that?

You're not allowed to go to family restaurants naked, where's your protest against that?

The fact of the matter is we regulate behaviour in public places (that includes privately-owned bars and clubs that have operational licenses from the cities). This ain't new, so stop trying to paint it as something new.

You've got a suicidal habit, don't force your byproducts on other people. Thanks.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Last I checked, making such violent statements was frowned upon here.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Sloww was referring to firearms.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I just find it funny that people will cry to the high heavens when the government gains the right to look at your library records, but will either shrug their shoulders or approvingly gush when the government forces reluctant business owners to ban people from engaging in a legal activity on their premises...

Well, one is a public health issue and one is a privacy issue. What an apt comparison that is.

For what it's worth I'm also against having gay sex in bars, though gay sex is admittedly a legal activity.

[Dis]

of course we regulate behaviour. But what he's saying it's more and more regulation.

Next they will say you can't chew gum, or wear gangsta clothes to restaurants. Or eat food with trans fat in it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dis
of course we regulate behaviour. But what he's saying it's more and more regulation.

Next they will say you can't chew gum, or wear gangsta clothes to restaurants. Or eat food with trans fat in it.

The slippery slope argument is absolute nonsense.

It's the same argument Christian Conservatives use to oppose civil unions for homosexuals. What a way to model your argument.

The very simple fact is, one person smoking in a public place harms the health of dozens of people in the same public place. This is not a simple personal decision of the smoker, it's a decision that impacts the health of employees and patrons as well. That is why voters are putting a stop to it around the world.

[Drake Tungsten]

For what it's worth I'm also against having gay sex in bars, though gay sex is admittedly a legal activity.

If a bar is willing to let you have gay sex on the premise, I don't see why the government should be allowed to stop you.

[SlowwHand]

Oh come on. Get a damned room. Sex of any kind in a bar? Push that envelope.

[MRT144]

Does this apply to only things legal drake? so for instance if a bar allows drugs to be sold by 3rd parties they should be allowed to do so by the government. and what if something once legal is banned?

[Asher]

The reason why the argument against letting businesses alone make this decision is simple:

If business alone choose to ban smoking on the premises, they put themselves at a distinct business disadvantage compared to their competitors. Smokers would not go to the bar, they would go to others.

If all bars ban smoking at the same time, smokers have no choice but to smoke outside and no one bar is hurt. Ancient bars like Lulu's in a small town full of young people may go out of business, but it's not fair to blame this law and then use it as an example across the world at how evil banning smoking in bars is.

If you wanna smoke, go outside. Better yet, grow a pair and stop doing something you know is stupid.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh come on. Get a damned room. Sex of any kind in a bar? Push that envelope.

It's certainly less harmful to the surrounding people than smoking would be.

Why the double standard, Sloww?

At least Drake is consistent.