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

[MRT144]

the selfishness is in defending certain areas as smoking while many want to change that.

but as ive said being selfish doesnt matter because thats the aim of government and economics

[rah]

So we seem to be argueing for the same outcome, with the only difference is quantity. I don't care if there are a lot. (i have repeatedly said that) I just want a few.

I don't even smoke in my own home out of consideration for my family, so it would be nice to be able to go somewhere indoors when it's below zero or raining outside and be able to smoke.

Maybe I misjudged you

[MRT144]

I am going to suggest some awesome ideas that benefit non smokers

smoking rooms (establishments) that cant serve alcohol
smoking licenses like alcohol licenses
outright regulation of smoking to outdoors
smoking bar profit sharing where a certain % of the profits with non smoking bars

[rah]

what does serving alcohol have to do with smoking?

smoking licenses, no problem with that.

regulate smoking to outdoors with the exception of private property and licensed facilities, no problem with that.

The bar profit sharing might be hard to work out, but I'd have no problems with that. (there are many ways to hide profits)

[MRT144]

its create a distinct seperation between bars and smoking clubs which then can be a measure of ensuring people cna smoke indoors, in establishments that may happen to be right next to bars.

I want a new form of place for smokers to congregate that sells smokes and caters to the smokers habit. smoking clubs next to booze bars is a great idea to actually encourage business growth, right?

[rah]

I don't see a difference between a strickly smoking club and one where I can buy a beer or a sandwich. It shouldn't make a difference. What the beer or the sandwich might have a health risk being next to smokers.

What i'm not allowed to drink if I'm smoking. That's insane. Why do they have to be seperated. What, is it a punishment. So, i'm sitting in a bar drinking and I need a smoke. I have to go outside to get to the smoking club. Kind of defeats the purpose I'd say.

[MRT144]

well i think there should be a break between the habit of smoking and drinking, even though the mere suggestion is so offputing to smokers that i bet mrs tubes will come out of the woodwork swearing and incoherent like a deranged cat lady.

if the need to defend the right of smokers is so great, vast sweeping smoking halls should be set up for that.

[rah]

Originally posted by MRT144
well i think there should be a break between the habit of smoking and drinking,.

So now we're not argueing smoker's rights but just your personal opinion. I'm not going to bother arguing that point since it has nothing to do with smoker's rights. Needless to say I disagree.

[MRT144]

well the seperation would make it easier to then protect a smokers rights with the solution i provided

[rah]

WHY does that have to be a seperation? It's not about drinking, it's about smoking. Once you agree that there can be a smoker's only area indoors, what else is done should be is moot if it's legal. I have no problem with special licensing.

[MRT144]

It is about drinking too because smokers and non smokers drink the same beer at the same places. if you remove that element you can provide facilities for smokers that allow them to conduct that habit.

if smoking and drinking arent related why are you against smoking clubs that dont serve alcohol?

[rah]

Alcohol, food, water, magazines, internet connection, I see as all the same thing.
If I'm going to drive to one of the few smoking places a few miles, I'd like to be able to do something besides just smoking to make it worth the trip. Besides they has to be some incentive for them to open a club. You think people will pay a cover charge just to stand in an empty room and smoke. That's silly. So if any of these is allowed, making any restriction is an imposing of someones morals, and of course when morals are concerned we know where rational thought falls.

Personally I don't go to bars much any more since they banned smoking. Only on business when it can't be avoided.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by rah
You think people will pay a cover charge just to stand in an empty room and smoke. That's silly.

People pay a ridiculous amount just to inhale cancer. THAT is silly.

[MRT144]

but there would be a bar next door, perhaps owned and operated by the same person. the discintion that has to be made is this;

no shared venitlation, no possible way of smoke drifting over via open air, etc etc. hermetically seal the smoke boxes and keep them sperate.

the main problem with passing laws that enforce that is the objection that it creates uneccesary burden on the owner to provide these areas.

or the laws are so poorly crafted that the speration can be a single glass partition smoke can drift over, such as washington, where the law stated that if you had a choice between half smoking, and non smoking, but without any real enforcable way of making them half smoking. so everyone opted to make them half smoking.

in the end an outright ban is easiest and has the biggest impact.

[DRoseDARs]

I'm not going to read through *cough* 553 *cough* posts to catch up, but if y'all are talking about bars catering solely to smokers, then they can petition the government for a special exemption. It's a nice idea, one that I could support, but the first non-smoker that files a complaint in a state Supreme Court will likely get that exemption invalidated.