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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The smokers have some non-smokers on their side, too.

Yeah, crazy inconsistent anti-government pro-Christian types.

[MRT144]

and vice versa

in general though drake, in general

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Obviously not tired enough. Why should businesses be forced to comply with your desires when they will lose money by doing so?

so the public is inherently harming the coke dealer, ahem, buisness man because we deem coke to be bad.

and part of this is the history of coke and tobacco as addictive substances consumed by the general public and the publics acceptance of them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what you are saying is the convenience of a bar 5 minutes away trumps the ills of a smoking bar.

If driving another 40 minutes to go to a bar outweighs having to breathe in second hand smoke, then I don't know why you are complaining. It is your decision to go with your friends to a smoking bar.

Do you not understand how AMAZINGLY weak this argument is?

I think polygamy should be legal, because if you don't like it, don't marry 100 women!

Obviously not tired enough. Why should businesses be forced to comply with your desires when they will lose money by doing so?

Because it's a public health issue, and we've been over the economics -- the reality is they don't lose money by doing so.

Bars are still incredibly packed even after the smoking ban.

[MRT144]

also there was an iniative in washington state i-933 where property owners would be compensated when enviromental regulations reduced their property value or business revenue or have the enviromental regulations waived.

[MRT144]

if the inconvience of having to smoke outside outweighs the desire to go to a bar then dont go to a bar.

again this arguement is totally rooted in personal preference of smoking, and government's role in regulation of business.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The smokers have some non-smokers on their side, too.

But still lost the vote.

JM

[rah]

You wouldn't be inconvienced if 90% were non smoking.
Then you could show some backbone.

For those that say my buddies smoke so we end up at smoking bars, take a stand. Whenever I go to resturants with non smokers, I sit in the non-smoking area. No biggie. Sometimes they plead to go ahead and sit in the smoking area since I try to accomodate them when ever possible. That's friendship.

And all the comparisons to gay sex and cocaine, is ridiculous. They're illegal. Well gay sex in public anyway (in most places)

It comes down to I'm willing to limit myself to 2% to 12% of the establishments yet you want it at 0.

Who is more reasonable and who is selfish? It's pretty obvious.

[Asher]

It comes down to I'm willing to limit myself to 2% to 12% of the establishments yet you want it at 0.

Who is more reasonable and who is selfish? It's pretty obvious.

Since most people here have said if there's a small number of smoking-only bars (a quota of some kind), I've no idea what you're on.

The fact of the matter is the bars weren't going non-smoking on their own despite the fact that more people are not smoking than smoking, and that trend continues. Coupled with the reasons Jon mentioned on why the bars don't go no-smoking on their own, and as well as the public health risks, the reasoning is solid.

The reasoning behind the 100% number was given. I agree that a small number of smoker-only bars should be permitted, but that's a minor issue to a generally conceptually sound law.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by rah
And all the comparisons to gay sex and cocaine, is ridiculous. They're illegal. Well gay sex in public anyway (in most places)

except for the fact that they were made illegal i.e. the strictest for of regulation, by the public at large who is also deciding this for smoking now.

if we have the ability to restrict coke, gay sex, alcohol why not smoking?

thats the comparison.

[rah]

Ok, now that you've agreed that a smoking club could be set up that wouldn't harm any non smokers. You must base your arguement on something else. Typical.

Yes, you can legislate what ever you want, slavery even. Smoking has always been legal and it's additive. If it was easy to quit, I would have done it years ago.

But I go back to my original point. Allowing us 0% of the establisments when All I want is a small percentage make you non smokers look like the selfish ones, not the me. It's a legal activity. So allowing us the opportunity to do it in a setting that harms no one is more a question of morals for you it seems.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
Ok, now that you've agreed that a smoking club could be set up that wouldn't harm any non smokers. You must base your arguement on something else. Typical.

Actually, the basis of the argument hasn't changed -- public health.

If all you have is a bunch of smokers in a room, there's no difference from a public health perspective, is there?

The arguments here are remarkably consistent, except for the side that hates the fact that the status quo changed.

But I go back to my original point. Allowing us 0% of the establisments when All I want is a small percentage make you non smokers look like the selfish ones, not the me.

I'm sorry, but why are we selfish if we don't want the minority filling our lungs with toxins?

It's an incredibly lame argument to link 100% banning smoking in public places to people being selfish. Do you think nonsmokers care if you have a dedicated bar for only smokers? No, we don't. That's not us being selfish, it's just the first iteration of a law that needs fine tuming.

The selfish people are those who smoke inside when there's non-smokers around.

[MRT144]

so we agree, there should be more non smoking establishments than smoking.

[rah]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually, the basis of the argument hasn't changed -- public health.


I'm sorry, but why are we selfish if we don't want the minority filling our lungs with toxins?

It's an incredibly lame argument to link 100% banning smoking in public places to people being selfish. Do you think nonsmokers care if you have a dedicated bar for only smokers? No, we don't. That's not us being selfish, it's just the first iteration of a law that needs fine tuming.

The selfish people are those who smoke inside when there's non-smokers around.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA
IF there are no smokers around, there is no public health issue is there? We're going to smoke regardless.

Obviously you do care if there is a smokers bar since you say we shouldn't have one. If that's not the case, allow us a few measly places where we can get together and smoke inside and not have to go out in the rain or snow.

I don't smoke around non smokers unless they're in an area that has been designated as a smoking area and they've CHOSEN to come into the area. How does that make ME selfish. You don't make any sense.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
IF there are no smokers around, there is no public health issue is there? We're going to smoke regardless.

If there are no smokers around, then no, there isn't a public health issue from their second-hand smoke...

Obviously you do care if there is a smokers bar since you say we shouldn't have one.

The problem is how many there are. I don't care if you have your own place, with the exception of if there can be unlimited places like that which end up negating the whole point of this legislation.

I don't smoke around non smokers unless they're in an area that has been designated as a smoking area and they've CHOSEN to come into the area. How does that make ME selfish. You don't make any sense.

1) "Smoking areas" are seldom truly sealed, the smoke always drifts towards non-smoking areas.
2) I take it from your age it's been several decades since you've been to a club, then...
People can smoke anywhere in clubs. And they do. And it's awful.