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

[rah]

No in my opinion it's the non-smokers are selfish. They want it all. They say we're a minority and punish us for being a minority. Blacks are a minority and they don't suggest the same for them. (ok some do)
I have no problem with general smoking bans, and make every effort to be considerate of non-smokers. But why can't I have 1 bar in 10 or 1 resturant in 10 that allows smoking. You can have 90% of it, but NOOOOOO you want all 100. That's selfish.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
No in my opinion it's the non-smokers are selfish. They want it all.

Fresh air and long lives.

Smokers are the ones polluting everyone's air in confined spaces for their addiction, refusing to step outside.

The reason the ban is wholesale across all bars is because if you permit some bars to permit smoking, it creates economic incentive for them to do so (adds convenience for smokers = additional customers), thereby punishing the bars who go smoke free. It would clearly be ineffective, which is exactly what you want.

No, it's not selfish to ask the minority of people who want to pollute the indoor air for the majority of people to step outside to light up. It's selfish of those people to refuse to do so.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by rah
No in my opinion it's the non-smokers are selfish. They want it all. They say we're a minority and punish us for being a minority. Blacks are a minority and they don't suggest the same for them. (ok some do)

Well if we only told the blacks to stop smoking then we would be racist...

I have no problem with general smoking bans, and make every effort to be considerate of non-smokers. But why can't I have 1 bar in 10 or 1 resturant in 10 that allows smoking. You can have 90% of it, but NOOOOOO you want all 100. That's selfish.

I gave the reason why it has to be 100%. Otherwise think of the bureaucracy of trying to choose who should be the 'lucky' 10% of bars and restaurants that would be packed to the rafters...

Actually I am in favour of smoking only restaurants - it would be an interesting experiment to see how they would do, I have a feeling even the average smoker would object to having to eat in a cloud of smoke...

Again, if the smoking lobby hadn't been so against any form of smoking laws - I doubt the laws would be as bad as they are. They sort of brought it on themselves...

[rah]

What harm is there in a an all smoker club except to themselves. Your arguement doesn't address this.
The economic incentive is crap considering you all claim that there isn't one using proof after the fact in cities that banned it. Are you going to claim that if 90% of resturants were non-smoking that they'd go broke because of the 10% that were. You're delusional. You can't have it both ways.

If there's a smoking club how are non-smokers affected?
How? Answer that.

America was built on protecting the rights of the minorities.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
What harm is there in a an all smoker club except to themselves. Your arguement doesn't address this.

Because it's irrelevant. Clearly an all-smoking club would only affect smokers.

The economic incentive is crap considering you all claim that there isn't one using proof after the fact in cities that banned it. Are you going to claim that if 90% of resturants were non-smoking that they'd go broke because of the 10% that were. You're delusional. You can't have it both ways.

Huh?

I don't think you understand. If, in a jurisdiction, you don't do a wholesale 100% ban you've got cases where it's "optional" to go smoke free. That is, the status quo. That is, if a bar decides he has too many patrons ( ) it can decide to ban smoking in their bar. This is not economically viable for businesses, as it creates a competitive disadvantage if they prohibit smoking while the bar across the street permits it. Thus, nothing happens -- the vast majority of people don't smoke, but don't have much choice because all bars are smoking due to the business owner's wanting more customers.

Do you understand that? A level playing field is needed to NOT punish business owners who refuse to permit people to smoke indoors.

No one is banning smoking, they're just asking you to be truly considerate and do it outside where the air is fresh and not going to be recycled into the lungs of everyone around you.

If there's a smoking club how are non-smokers affected?
How? Answer that.

Again, this is irrelevant. Bars that permit smoking can, by definition, attract more customers. There is thus an economic incentive to do so.

America was built on protecting the rights of the minorities.

So people should be able to do heroin in bars too?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
So people should be able to do heroin in bars too?

Should red states be allowed to outlaw gay bars? It would just be a simple case of majority rules

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by MRT144
do said laws actually decrease the murders of clerks?

You dont even think about your posts do you.
The answer is yes they do.
Think about it say , hum 3 seconds.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Should red states be allowed to outlaw gay bars? It would just be a simple case of majority rules

Last time I checked bars where gay sex is permitted are outlawed in all states?

They ask you to take it elsewhere.

No one is banning smokers from entering bars, Ming. Or bars where smokers can drink. Just asking them if they're going to smoke, do it elsewhere.

[MOBIUS]

Last I heard, a gay person not lighting up next to a straight person doesn't pollute that straight person's air with carcinogens...

[Ming]

As far as allowing a limited number of smoking establishments... the government could auction off the licenses, and make a ton of money. They already do this in other areas, like media licenses. Or they can bid them out like defense contracts

While you might claim it would be unfair to those that didn't win... it's really now different than other RFP's or license deals the government already has in place.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
No one is banning smokers from entering bars, Ming. Or bars where smokers can drink. Just asking them if they're going to smoke, do it elsewhere.

No one is asking for the rights to smoke where ever they please. We are just asking for a few places where we can do so. And we aren't forcing you to enter such establishments... you can always drink elsewhere

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ming
As far as allowing a limited number of smoking establishments... the government could auction off the licenses, and make a ton of money. They already do this in other areas, like media licenses. Or they can bid them out like defense contracts

While you might claim it would be unfair to those that didn't win... it's really now different than other RFP's or license deals the government already has in place.

Personally I could live with that idea...

I'd hate to see my shares in BAT go down in value...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
No one is asking for the rights to smoke where ever they please. We are just asking for a few places where we can do so. And we aren't forcing you to enter such establishments... you can always drink elsewhere

There are places where you can do so.

Invite the buddies over for a drink. Smoke to your hearts content.

Your same argument can be used to support whorehouses, gay sex bathouses, etc btw.

[BlackCat]

http://smintair.com/ but the prices are a bit high and not that many destinations.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


You dont even think about your posts do you.
The answer is yes they do.
Think about it say , hum 3 seconds.

then why are clerks 5 times more likely to be murdered if the law exsists? and why isnt there a targeted law that adds extra penalties?

sure it may reduce harm to everyone, and sometimes clerks but a whole hell of a lot of clerks get murdered and i dont know why you think thats alright.