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

[MRT144]

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.

this was a solution i proposed.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
There are places where you can do so.

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

Actually... that's what I do

But that doesn't change the fact that a smoking bar would NOT infringe on your rights at all and not be a health hazard to anyone that wishes to avoid it. Yet not having one is infringing on my rights.

[MRT144]

ming, this is like segregation in that there is the false idea that non smoking establishments exsist, in sufficent number to allow me to exercise that right.

[Tuberski]

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

How do you figure, you said yourself the majority of bar patron are non-smokers, why would any of the non-smokers go to smoking bars?

Besides, to complain about smoking.

Non-smoking bars will attract more customers- non smokers and smokers that are willing to go outside.

ACK!

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by MRT144




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.

When did I say its allright that clerks are killed!


Dont mess up all the issues

You asked if the fact that killing clerks is illegal decrease the number of times it happens.

this is like asking if making it legal to kill clerks would increase the number of times it happens.

the answer is obviously yes.

[Tuberski]

Ming's idea is already done in Utah, sorta.

In a standard bar, you can only get beer.

To get mixed drinks, you have to go to a private club. There are only so many private clubs allowed, based on the population of the area.

Use the same idea for smoking bars.

ACK!

[Jon Miller]

Note what I said. Smokers are addicts, they are unreasonably in favor of going to a place with smoking.

US nonSmokers are more reasonable..

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
How do you figure, you said yourself the majority of bar patron are non-smokers, why would any of the non-smokers go to smoking bars?

Besides, to complain about smoking.

Non-smoking bars will attract more customers- non smokers and smokers that are willing to go outside.

ACK!

This doesn't follow, for a very simple reason:

Smokers are more concerned about their short-term fix than non-smokers are generally concerned about their long-term health from second hand smoke.

People are somewhat used to being around smokey bars already. Obviously, they keep going to smokey bars even if they don't smoke. That's the status quo.

Of course, this isn't healthy. It's also annoying, but not to the extent that a significant amount of people would go out of their way to find non-smoking bars.

Thus, we have what we have today. Minority of people smoke and harm the health of the majority of people because they're too selfish to go outside so as to not pollute the recycled indoor air with toxins.

The only workable solution is a wholesale ban, otherwise you've got the status quo -- which clearly doesn't work.

Whine and cry all you want. Facts are on the side of the law here:
1) Smoking causes cancer, even for those who don't smoke but are in smokey areas
2) Minority of people smoke, tainting the air with toxins for the majority of people
3) There is no real economic impact against bars if all bars go no-smoking in a region
4) No one is taking away the "right" to smoke, simply regulating it (as it already is regulated, mind you -- it's just expanding the scope)

I understand why you want a dedicated smoking bar. I think that as long as the quotas for such a thing are small, that's definitely doable.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme




When did I say its allright that clerks are killed!


Dont mess up all the issues

You asked if the fact that killing clerks is illegal decrease the number of times it happens.

this is like asking if making it legal to kill clerks would increase the number of times it happens.

the answer is obviously yes.

you dont know when youre being baited, and you dont know when its a good time to ask a question.

[Tuberski]

So, no smoking bars, because non-smokers are to stupid to go to the non-smoking bar across the street?

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
So, no smoking bars, because non-smokers are to stupid to go to the non-smoking bar across the street?

ACK!

No, because there is no non-smoking bar across the street and there won't be until there's real economic incentive to. And there's not.

[MRT144]

the non smoking bar doesnt exsist in sufficent number to allow a choice

[MRT144]

and part of the reason there hasnt been is because the status quo of smoking in bars has been there so long non smokers simply put up with it.

and being the first to break the mold isnt somethgn that is profitable especially in a margins volume business like bars and restaurants

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher

No, because there is no non-smoking bar across the street and there won't be until there's real economic incentive to. And there's not.

Umm, using Ming's idea there would be.

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Umm, using Ming's idea there would be.

ACK!

Then maybe he should propose it and let people vote on it.

Doesn't defeat the purpose of this legislation. The point is it was a health risk by the minority harming the majority and was put to an end. Your convenience be damned.