Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2004, 12:34 PM   #151
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
I ran a bar for over a year. I think I know what I am talking about. You can refuse anyone based on any reason. Even the police and city attorney agreed. It is a private business that is not open to everyone.
I would love to see anyone open up a bar and say "I refuse to serve blacks" and not get his ass sued to hell and back a fuckzillion times over. Likewise with "I refuse to serve women", or "I refuse to serve Jews"; categorical exclusion is illegal.

How is telling what the law concerning alcohol and fire arms the same as saying it is illegal to do anything except buy and drink alcohol?
This is what prompted my response:
It is against the law to carry a gun into a bar. Why? because it serves alcohol as it's main source of revenue.
What was your point with this? You then followed up with:
Unlike say a restraunt.
What is the fundamental difference here?

You brought up shooting people in bar. I was pointing out why that would be illegal on several points. One can bring in a loaded cigeratte. See above for differance between bar and restaurant.
I brought it up in context on an analogy, nothing more. Nowhere did I state or imply that smoking in a bar is the same as discharging a firearm in a bar. It is analogous but not the same, as you so cleverly pointed out

The reason is that they are both health risks, and the encouragement of smoking in a bar makes about the same amount of sense.

Why shouldn't they? They make a choice to go out and drink. The people who run the bar should not have to make special rules for them. If a majority of the people in the bar are smoking why should they have to stop because a non-smoker walked in. Why should'nt the person who owns the bar have the right to decide whether or not people should be allowed to smoke?
It has to do with environment. You cannot have a "majority rules" mentality, because majorities will vary. If there are a bunch of smokers in a bar, should a non-smoker be forced to go elsewhere if he doesn't want to put up with it? The solution is to discourage smoking so that doesn't happen.

Before you bring up the inverse, let me get that out in the open. By my logic, you could argue that if there are a bunch of non-smokers, a smoker should be allowed to lgiht up. No. Why? Because it is offensive to the non-smokers. Is non-smoking offensive to a smoker? I've not heard one person who has said "Man, you either need to light up a cigarette or get the hell away from me. Non-smoking is so disgusting." Nor would I expect any sane person to believe this. The reverse is quite true; non-smokers (the less polite ones) frequently do say "Man, you need to either put that out or get the hell away from me. Smoking is so disgusting."

Thus, the actions of one smoker can inconvenience many non-smokers, while the actions of a non-smoker cannot inconvenience anyone at all, smoker or not. We're not even talking about this:

If a majority of the people in the bar are smoking why should they have to stop because a non-smoker walked in.
But rather the reality of the two habits (or lack thereof). Smoking can bother other people by nature; non-smoking can't.

Here is an analogy: A bear shit in the woods. Then wiped his ass with a bunny. Do you grasp the logic? What does that have to do with smoking in a bar? Nothing. And niether did yours.
Proving that not only do you lack understanding of logic, but you don't even know what an analogy is or what it accomplishes.
You as a non-smoker make a choice to go to a place where people smoke. Correct? If you know there are going to be people smoking there, and you hate the way it smells and are afraid of the health hazards. Then why do you go? Are you forced to go? Do you not have free will to say no? Or are you a sadist?
Should I have to find another bar, one that may or may not be accesible to me (distance, whatever), because of someone's habit? A smoker doesn't need to find another bar if he's prohibited from smoking. He can just step outside now and then, and probably have company for the duration. A non-smoker does need to find another bar if he objects to smoking inside. Should he have to? No. It's an inherently unbalanced system.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:51 PM   #152
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Should I have to find another bar, one that may or may not be accesible to me (distance, whatever), because of someone's habit?
Should smokers not be allowed to smoke in a bar of 100-200 people becuase a few of those people dont smoke?
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 12:56 PM   #153
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
How does alcohol have anything to do with the [il]legality of firearms?
Same reason you aren't allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
My whole point with the gun analogy is that, though it is a bit farfetched, many non-smokers view it as a similar activity with a difference merely in degrees of severity.
That "mere" difference is huge. Blowing smoke in your face *might* kill you...if it's done frequently over a long period of time. Shooting a bullet in your face is almost guaranteed to kill you, and quick.
They should not have to find a different bar in order to have a drink without someone puffing vile smoke in their face.
Hey, I shouldn't have to put up with those women who marinate in their perfume, but what am I going to do about it? Make them sit in the "ridiculous amount of perfume" section? And if you don't think that shit can kill you, you haven't met a lot of middle-aged southern women
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 01:11 PM   #154
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Originally Posted by AresProphet
I would love to see anyone open up a bar and say "I refuse to serve blacks" and not get his ass sued to hell and back a fuckzillion times over. Likewise with "I refuse to serve women", or "I refuse to serve Jews"; categorical exclusion is illegal.
Are you kidding?!?! I refused service to the little ravers who were high on X all the time. Was not the kind of bar I wanted. Catergorical exclusion is not illegal. You can say it but that doesn't mean it is true. One can exclude someone from a private bar for any reason.

The ravers would try to come in. They would be stopped. They then called the police. Who in turn told them that as a private bar I could legally bar them from entering.


Originally Posted by AresProphet
I brought it up in context on an analogy, nothing more. Nowhere did I state or imply that smoking in a bar is the same as discharging a firearm in a bar. It is analogous but not the same, as you so cleverly pointed out
Thanx for calling my response clever. Once again if you are going to use analogy to illustrate a point. Use one that is not off based.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
The reason is that they are both health risks, and the encouragement of smoking in a bar makes about the same amount of sense.
Noone is encouraged to smoke in a bar. They are just allowed to.



Originally Posted by AresProphet
It has to do with environment. You cannot have a "majority rules" mentality, because majorities will vary. If there are a bunch of smokers in a bar, should a non-smoker be forced to go elsewhere if he doesn't want to put up with it? The solution is to discourage smoking so that doesn't happen.
He is not forced to do anything. If he/she wants to stay or leave it is her choice. Just as it was his/her choice to go to a place where he/she knew there would be people smoking.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
Before you bring up the inverse, let me get that out in the open. By my logic, you could argue that if there are a bunch of non-smokers, a smoker should be allowed to lgiht up. No. Why? Because it is offensive to the non-smokers.
If one is at a bar where smoking is not allowed and tries to light up then they should be stopped. It should be up to the owner to decide whether or not to allow smoking is his/her place. Shouldn't it? Why do you get to decide what patrons to allow in the bar?

Originally Posted by AresProphet
Is non-smoking offensive to a smoker? I've not heard one person who has said "Man, you either need to light up a cigarette or get the hell away from me. Non-smoking is so disgusting." Nor would I expect any sane person to believe this. The reverse is quite true; non-smokers (the less polite ones) frequently do say "Man, you need to either put that out or get the hell away from me. Smoking is so disgusting."
And to that non-smoker I usally tell them to go fuck their mother. And blow a big puff is cigar smoke their way.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
Thus, the actions of one smoker can inconvenience many non-smokers, while the actions of a non-smoker cannot inconvenience anyone at all, smoker or not.
If you are inconvenienced by smoking, don't go to a place where smoking is allowed. I am inconvienced by downtown traffic and avoid it at all cost.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
But rather the reality of the two habits (or lack thereof). Smoking can bother other people by nature; non-smoking can't.
WAH?!?!


Originally Posted by AresProphet
Should I have to find another bar, one that may or may not be accesible to me (distance, whatever), because of someone's habit?
Yes, you should. Or you should buy your own bar and make it smoke free. Put up your own money. Instead of trying to dictate to another how to run their business.


Originally Posted by AresProphet
A smoker doesn't need to find another bar if he's prohibited from smoking. He can just step outside now and then, and probably have company for the duration. A non-smoker does need to find another bar if he objects to smoking inside. Should he have to? No. It's an inherently unbalanced system.
Yes, he should. He/she is making the choice. Life is an unbalanced system. Not everyone starts off as millionaires. Is that fair?


Why you think it is fair that someone who invests their time money and effort into a business should have to change it because you are inconvenienced is beyond me. Talk about a God complex.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 03:12 PM   #155
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Here's the article Max...they may reconsider the ban on this facility because of the size of the facility, the $750,000 ventilation system and the fact that kids under 18 aren't allowed in there.
I heard today they may be lifting the ban on other bar type facilities where there main revenue is from alcohol and not food and places not considered a family facility.
That works for me. I can accept and understand not smoking in family restaurants, theatres, sports facilities but come on, we're talking a bar here.

Like my husband said "going to a bar / dance club and not being able to smoke would be like going to a titty bar and having to drink a coke.

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/G...A78848D415.asp
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 06:20 PM   #156
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by chukzombi
Should smokers not be allowed to smoke in a bar of 100-200 people becuase a few of those people dont smoke?
"A few". You are suggesting here that non-smokers are the minority. Incorrect.

Some people literally can not be around smokers, because of asthma. My brother gets it pretty bad in smoke-filled rooms. Anyone at all is allowed to light up around him, and he is forced to leave because otherwise he can't breathe. Is his right to breathe less important than your right to smoke?

While we're at it, there are ex-smokers who purposefully avoid smokers because a single whiff of it will get their cravings going again, often years after they kick the habit. Should they suffer so you can smoke your cigarette?

Not to mention all those people with respiratory problems. How dare they request an environment in which they can comfortably breathe!

Smokers are the minority, and if you claim otherwise I will have trouble taking you seriously. Therefore, the optimum solution will be weighted so that the smokers have to give up more than the non-smokers. You're a greedy selfish bastard if you think your right to smoke comes before an asthmatics' right to breathe.

Originally Posted by Wildane
Same reason you aren't allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
I don't know of any laws prohibiting the use of firearms while drunk. Dig them up if you want, I just haven't heard of any.

Originally Posted by Wildane
That "mere" difference is huge. Blowing smoke in your face *might* kill you...if it's done frequently over a long period of time. Shooting a bullet in your face is almost guaranteed to kill you, and quick.
You know what I meant.

Originally Posted by Wildane
Hey, I shouldn't have to put up with those women who marinate in their perfume, but what am I going to do about it? Make them sit in the "ridiculous amount of perfume" section? And if you don't think that shit can kill you, you haven't met a lot of middle-aged southern women
Yes, I hate that shit too, but no, it won't kill you. Few perfumes contain known carcinogens. You don't get it actively blown in your face. Not only this, but it's a "passive habit", so to speak. A woman puts it on and that's it. Anyone who has a problem with it, she can't really do anything to help except apologize. Smokers can, however, put out their cigarettes.

Originally Posted by Flub
Are you kidding?!?! I refused service to the little ravers who were high on X all the time. Was not the kind of bar I wanted. Catergorical exclusion is not illegal. You can say it but that doesn't mean it is true. One can exclude someone from a private bar for any reason.

The ravers would try to come in. They would be stopped. They then called the police. Who in turn told them that as a private bar I could legally bar them from entering.
My point is that you cannot say "[this type of person] is not served here". I said that in reference to this:

Originally Posted by Flub
You are incorrect. A bar/pub is a private place. As a matter of fact owners of a bar/pub have the right to refuse admission to anyone at anytime. There are certain codes a bar/pub must use but they do not have anything to deal with who may enter. Only exeption being age.
By your own reasoning, it should be legal to refuse service to blacks because they are black, right? If you refuse service to non-smokers because they don't smoke, it's the same thing. Categorical exclusion is illegal, and I'll look up the pertinent laws in the morning. Again, I know that the laws relate to race, gender, ethnicity and whatnot, but I don't see why they cannot apply to other things, unless specifically stated...

By the same token, bars can't refuse smokers service because they smoke, but they can refuse to allow them to smoke in there. If you refused to allow non-smokers to doing their non-smoking in your bar... it just doesn't work in the reverse, see? You'd have to be sucking on cigarettes continuously in order to prove you really weren't a non-smoker.

Originally Posted by Flub
Thanx for calling my response clever. Once again if you are going to use analogy to illustrate a point. Use one that is not off based.
My illustration is quite valid. Just because it is a little more black-and-white than the smoking issue doesn't mean it can't apply; analogies are not identical to the systems they represent, but merely similar. If you like, replace mentions of "shooting in the face" with "punching in the face", maybe that'll tone it down enough for you to understand.

I'm not literally comparing smoking to shooting a person in the face, a mistake you obviously made. Rather, it is the setup involved, using a much more... vivid picture. I would think that you would easily get the point I am making, even if you disagree (you probably do).

Originally Posted by Flub
Noone is encouraged to smoke in a bar. They are just allowed to.
Allowance = encouragement. It's an addictive habit; anything that does not actively restrict the habit effectively says "it's ok to smoke". Given that there will be an inherent desire to smoke whenever possible (the nature of the nicotine addiction), remaining neutral on smoking bans pretty much just tells people that smoking isn't bad for you.

It's the psychology behind it. No, the bar owners are not giving out free cigarettes, or giving discounts on beer with a cigar, or something like that, but by backing off and leaving it alone, you are nurturing it.

Originally Posted by Flub
If one is at a bar where smoking is not allowed and tries to light up then they should be stopped. It should be up to the owner to decide whether or not to allow smoking is his/her place. Shouldn't it? Why do you get to decide what patrons to allow in the bar?
For the sake of argument: majority rules. Unless you can prove to me that more people in the population smoke than don't, smoking should be illegal. Nice and simple. Have fun with this paragraph; I sure could, but it's a valid argument that needs refuting.

Originally Posted by Flub
And to that non-smoker I usally tell them to go fuck their mother. And blow a big puff is cigar smoke their way.
My paragraph was not meant to show how non-smokers can be rude (I know they can be; I'm civil about it most of the time). Instead, I was showing that.... oh fuck it, I'll outline my main point at the end. I'm spending more time repeating myself because you don't seem to understand....

Originally Posted by Flub
If you are inconvenienced by smoking, don't go to a place where smoking is allowed. I am inconvienced by downtown traffic and avoid it at all cost.
The problem is that smoking is allowed everywhere. This includes bus stations, sidewalks, streets, tunnels, outside buildings... you get my point. I was waiting for the bus Wednesday and a guy lit up next to me. I was able to step away and take a seat but really, I can't simply "avoid smokers" because smokers are allowed to be everywhere. That's why the push for the ban. Smoke as much as you want in privacy, but don't bring it out in public. Most of the population doesn't want that shit in their lungs.

Originally Posted by Flub
Yes, he should. He/she is making the choice. Life is an unbalanced system. Not everyone starts off as millionaires. Is that fair?
Making the choice for what? Breathing clean air?

The imbalance is as follows, and I will try to summarize that which I've been trying to beat you over the head with:

1.a)Non-smokers do not cause inconvenience by not smoking.
1.b)Smokers cause inconvencience by smoking.

2)You have the right to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Conclusion: smokers do not have the right to smoke when it infringes upon another persons right to breathe.

I'm dead tired, will post back here in the morning.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2004, 07:04 PM   #157
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
750,000! Damn i don't think many bars are going to have that

Hey Flub, can the government force you to remove your asbestos installation? After all it is your place, and you should be able to keep it if you want. Even if it is slowly killing everyone who goes in.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 12:05 AM   #158
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Originally Posted by AresProphet
My point is that you cannot say "[this type of person] is not served here".
And I am not talking about refusing anyone to enter the bar. I am talking about stopping from performing a legal act in a private establishment. A point you do not seem to grasp.


Originally Posted by AresProphet
By your own reasoning, it should be legal to refuse service to blacks because they are black, right? If you refuse service to non-smokers because they don't smoke, it's the same thing. Categorical exclusion is illegal, and I'll look up the pertinent laws in the morning. Again, I know that the laws relate to race, gender, ethnicity and whatnot, but I don't see why they cannot apply to other things, unless specifically stated...
Once again, we are not talking about refusing service. We are talking about allowing a person who owns a business to cater to people who smoke.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
By the same token, bars can't refuse smokers service because they smoke, but they can refuse to allow them to smoke in there. If you refused to allow non-smokers to doing their non-smoking in your bar... it just doesn't work in the reverse, see? You'd have to be sucking on cigarettes continuously in order to prove you really weren't a non-smoker.
See above

Originally Posted by AresProphet
My illustration is quite valid. Just because it is a little more black-and-white than the smoking issue doesn't mean it can't apply; analogies are not identical to the systems they represent, but merely similar. If you like, replace mentions of "shooting in the face" with "punching in the face", maybe that'll tone it down enough for you to understand.
You illustration is not valid. Only someone with a warped sense of reasoning would think so. After all I have yet to hear the phrase, 'Look out!! He has a cigarette!!'

Originally Posted by AresProphet
I'm not literally comparing smoking to shooting a person in the face, a mistake you obviously made. Rather, it is the setup involved, using a much more... vivid picture. I would think that you would easily get the point I am making, even if you disagree (you probably do).
The setup/analogy is not in the same ball park as smoking in a bar. Not my fault you have the analogy skills of Timmy!!!


Originally Posted by AresProphet
Allowance = encouragement. It's an addictive habit; anything that does not actively restrict the habit effectively says "it's ok to smoke". Given that there will be an inherent desire to smoke whenever possible (the nature of the nicotine addiction), remaining neutral on smoking bans pretty much just tells people that smoking isn't bad for you.
Drinking is an addictive habit. I guess the bar owner is saying 'it's ok to drink'. Do you want to ban drinking? It is ok to smoke. It is a choice. If someone wants to smoke I am not going to stop them. They made a choice to do so. They know the risks involved.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
It's the psychology behind it. No, the bar owners are not giving out free cigarettes, or giving discounts on beer with a cigar, or something like that, but by backing off and leaving it alone, you are nurturing it.
They also nurture drinking. But since you like to drink I guess it's ok they do that.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
For the sake of argument: majority rules. Unless you can prove to me that more people in the population smoke than don't, smoking should be illegal. Nice and simple. Have fun with this paragraph; I sure could, but it's a valid argument that needs refuting.
I am not talking about majority. I am talking about business owner's rights. A business owner has the right to allow people to smoke. After all, and you have yet to answer this simple question, why do you, as someone who has no financial stake in the business, get to decide whether or not people in my bar can smoke?

Originally Posted by AresProphet
My paragraph was not meant to show how non-smokers can be rude (I know they can be; I'm civil about it most of the time). Instead, I was showing that.... oh fuck it, I'll outline my main point at the end. I'm spending more time repeating myself because you don't seem to understand....
I understand, you want to dictate to others what they can do instead of letting the business owner do so.


Originally Posted by AresProphet
The problem is that smoking is allowed everywhere. This includes bus stations, sidewalks, streets, tunnels, outside buildings... you get my point. I was waiting for the bus Wednesday and a guy lit up next to me. I was able to step away and take a seat but really, I can't simply "avoid smokers" because smokers are allowed to be everywhere. That's why the push for the ban. Smoke as much as you want in privacy, but don't bring it out in public. Most of the population doesn't want that shit in their lungs.
Smoking is not allowed everywhere. You can't smoke in most buildings. You can't smoke in most public transportation vehicles. Even some cab companies have adapted a no smoking policy. To say you can't avoid smokers is stretching the truth. A bar is a private area.

Originally Posted by AresProphet
The imbalance is as follows, and I will try to summarize that which I've been trying to beat you over the head with:

1.a)Non-smokers do not cause inconvenience by not smoking.
1.b)Smokers cause inconvencience by smoking.

2)You have the right to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Conclusion: smokers do not have the right to smoke when it infringes upon another persons right to breathe.

I'm dead tired, will post back here in the morning.
1.a) Except when they want to pass laws that dictate to that bar owners must conform to the way they live.
1.b) If a bar allows people to smoke. You know the bar allows people to smoke. You goto the bar, how are you inconvenienced?

2) Me smoking in a bar does not effect anyone who chooses to be around people who smoke. Don't want to be effected, don't go to a bar where smoking is allowed.

Conclusion: non-smokers do not have the right to bitch about smoking when they choose to go to a place where they know people will be smoking.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 12:07 AM   #159
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Originally Posted by Maximus Faticus
Hey Flub, can the government force you to remove your asbestos installation? After all it is your place, and you should be able to keep it if you want. Even if it is slowly killing everyone who goes in.
If there is a sign out front that says this building has asbestos which causes cancer. No, I don't think they should have to remove it. After all people who make the choice to go into the building know the dangers of doing so.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 02:47 AM   #160
Gerick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 359
I live in the austin area, at the moment it is considered the live music capital, and one of the citys that didnt have smoking bans in clubs.

Austin city counsle now wants to enforce smoke free mondays for the next few months to see if there is a drop in money made by the business owners and to check for a drop in people coming in ON MONDAYS, i live here and i know for a fact that alot of clubs are not even open on mondays because of the poor amount of people willing to come in, the "day out" for most is thursday-sunday, basically what the city counsle is trying to do is push smokers out of an area that people come to KNOWING that there will be beer, live music(and cursing ) and smoke, and since its a fucking bar, you dont bitch, these whiny pussys are purposly fucking up the numbers so they can push their agenda, fuck up the clubs, and kill austin nightlife down to a level where it is no longer number one in live music. this is bullshit

i am sick of laws being made to protect people from themselves, what ever happend to going somewhere else if you dont like the owners rules? smoke is to bars what tits is to a strip club, you expect it and if you dont like it dont come, your not welcome.

fucking coddling laws really make me want to vomit, next thing you know we will have bumber cars

edit edit edit, holy hell i made alot of typo's !
Gerick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 03:11 AM   #161
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
A smoker doesn't need to find another bar if he's prohibited from smoking. He can just step outside now and then, and probably have company for the duration. A non-smoker does need to find another bar if he objects to smoking inside. Should he have to? No. It's an inherently unbalanced system.
/shrug Have the non-smoker hang out outside. Seems fair
While we're at it, there are ex-smokers who purposefully avoid smokers because a single whiff of it will get their cravings going again, often years after they kick the habit. Should they suffer so you can smoke your cigarette?
Yes. Should beer companies stop advertising so alcoholics won't be tempted to drink? Should we just ban religion so we don't make any atheists uncomfortable? Again, I say it is not the smoker's fault for the temptation of the non-smoker. Should the smoker suffer nicotine withdrawals to please the ex-smoker?
Not to mention all those people with respiratory problems. How dare they request an environment in which they can comfortably breathe!
I know it's been said before, but HOW ABOUT NOT GOING TO A PLACE FILLED WITH SMOKERS?!?!?! This is not a hard concept. If you're terrified of flying, ride the fucking train. If you're afraid of heights, don't hang out on the fucking roof. It's like the old joke of the man who goes to the doctor and says, "Hey doc, it hurts when I do this..what do I do?" Doctor says, "Don't do that."
Smokers are the minority, and if you claim otherwise I will have trouble taking you seriously. Therefore, the optimum solution will be weighted so that the smokers have to give up more than the non-smokers. You're a greedy selfish bastard if you think your right to smoke comes before an asthmatics' right to breathe.
Yeah, and all you black folks, stop taking my seat at the front of the bus! I'm white, I'm in the majority! I am more important than you! Give me a fucking break.
You know what I meant.
Yes, I know what you meant, I was just showing you how ridiculous that analogy was.
Yes, I hate that shit too, but no, it won't kill you. Few perfumes contain known carcinogens. You don't get it actively blown in your face. Not only this, but it's a "passive habit", so to speak. A woman puts it on and that's it. Anyone who has a problem with it, she can't really do anything to help except apologize. Smokers can, however, put out their cigarettes.
And you know, most of the time, if asked nicely, a smoker WILL put out their cigarette to accomodate your asthmatic friend, or at least move somewhere else. You can either ask nicely, or sit there and build up your resentment, due to your own inaction.
I'm not literally comparing smoking to shooting a person in the face, a mistake you obviously made. Rather, it is the setup involved, using a much more... vivid picture. I would think that you would easily get the point I am making, even if you disagree (you probably do).
The original analogy had to do with shooting people in a bar. Doesn't have to be in the face, it is still illegal. You can't compare the two, because you are allowed to do one, but prohibited by law from doing the other. Cigarette smoke doesn't bother everybody, but I'm willing to be speeding bullets do.
For the sake of argument: majority rules.
That mean if you have several friends at your house and they all agree that you should let them smoke, then they can light up? Hey, majority rules, right? Wrong. In my house, it's my way or the highway, same if I owned a bar. Don't like the way I run my place? Then don't let the doorknob hit you where the good Lord split you.
Unless you can prove to me that more people in the population smoke than don't, smoking should be illegal.
Cool! Let's make drinking illegal! And people that drive SUVs, that should be against the law, too! They're putting more pollutents into the air than smokers, get rid of 'em! Seriously, you'd have a better case against SUV owners. They pollute the air, they guzzle fuel at an astonishing rate, and their size make them more hazardous to operate. Why don't you go tell all those soccer moms that their SUV should be illegal. There are always station wagons!
The problem is that smoking is allowed everywhere.
Now THAT is funny. Obviously coming from someone who's never smoked.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Wildane; 04-03-2004 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Messed up a quote
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 03:31 AM   #162
Gerick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 359
smokers are the minority because you make it such a fucking pain in the ass to take a few puffs
Gerick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 03:37 AM   #163
Gerick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 359
hahahaha

"Unless you can prove to me that more people in the population smoke than don't, smoking should be illegal."

i missed that gem, thanks for show it to me.

lets ban being gay, being rich, every small religion.

majority rule sucks because the maority are dumbassses who cant be bothered to read into anything and get the facts, im not a smoker myself, but when i was growing up i had asthmatic problems, and my mom and dad smoked but guess what? my face isnt droopy, it isnt yellow, and here is the kicker, i had a bad case of asthmatic problems( as far as medical science rated them, based on how far they were spread in the lungs and tubes. ) and i require LESS medication and hospital visits than most others in the same tier as me.

i dont need YOU to pick up a sword for ME, if im bugged by it let ME deal with it.
asthmatic related problems doesnt mean "problem with asserting your needs to smokers" twit

hell im in texas and we got every damn flower, ragweed and god knows what else and THEY bugged me more than a little smoke did.
Gerick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 07:05 AM   #164
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
I live in the austin area, at the moment it is considered the live music capital, and one of the citys that didnt have smoking bans in clubs.
Damn I miss living in Austin, so much stuff to do their.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 08:38 AM   #165
gojirra monk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 304
Default To people that want to ban smoking:

Personally, I blame the public education system and the news media.

A good portion of the Constitution of the United States is defense against Democracy. Why?

The concept of enduring rights is abhorrent to a Democracy. In a Democracy, your rights are granted by the whim of the mob, and they will vanish when the mob is swayed.

The truths found self-evident in 1776, about rights that can't be taken away ever, have no place in a Democracy.


If you have been following the analogies being tossed around here, you may liken a bar that allows smoking to a bar that allows fistfights (we'll discard the shooting bar for now). Clearly no bar allows fistfights, and they can't put a sign up on the door that says "If you come in here, you will get your ass kicked" to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Hmm. Unless the bar is a gym, and the fistfighting section is a boxing ring. Turns out that it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to beat the shit out of each other after all.

Where then do you get off trying to tell consenting adults that they can't go breathe smoke if they want to?


You may tell yourself that you have the best of intentions. You may honestly believe that you are trying to help people.

But really, you are just an unhappy little piece of shit that wants to control other people.
gojirra monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 03:49 PM   #166
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Actually we're all just pissing in the wind here lol. The Government is going to impose on our freedoms continually until the voters in America get tired of it. I'm talking both parties here, Democrat and Republican.

Smokers sit back and take it, Gays sit back and take it, we all just sit back and take it because we feel you can't beat the Government.

What I don't understand is why some bans go to the people to vote on and others are just a ban.

For instance, we wake up one morning and there's a smoking ban. A seatbelt law. You name it and there's a new law for it.
On the other hand (in Georgia for example) amending the constitution to ban gay marriages passed and will be on the ballot for people to vote for or against in November.
How do they determine what constitutes the governments vote and what constitutes the peoples vote?
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2004, 07:23 PM   #167
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by gojirra
If you have been following the analogies being tossed around here, you may liken a bar that allows smoking to a bar that allows fistfights (we'll discard the shooting bar for now). Clearly no bar allows fistfights, and they can't put a sign up on the door that says "If you come in here, you will get your ass kicked" to absolve themselves of responsibility.
Actually, this one is much better. I had thought of it but had a vague reason at the time for not using it... sleep deprivation does that to you.

Actually, this sentence by Kerryn gave me the inspiration:

Are you allowed to shoot people in your bar because you put up the money?
Was just an attempt at continuity, since nobody addressed his version of it.

Originally Posted by gojirra
Hmm. Unless the bar is a gym, and the fistfighting section is a boxing ring. Turns out that it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to beat the shit out of each other after all.

Where then do you get off trying to tell consenting adults that they can't go breathe smoke if they want to?
The difference is containment. Does the act of two adults kicking each other shitless (boxing is relatively safe anyway, hence the padded gloves) do anything to those around them? No. If it gets out of hand, but then it dissolves into a mob fight, which gets broken up by cops.

Most restaurants have a 'smoking section', which is fine by me. However, you get people saying that such smoking sections would be unreasonable in a bar. Why? Flub argued something like this earlier:

Originally Posted by Flub
It is against the law to carry a gun into a bar. Why? because it serves alcohol as it's main source of revenue. Unlike say a restraunt. Shooting someone and smoking are not the same thing. You analogy is flawed.
This is one of the most idiocy-filled statements I have ever read. Even if you discount the brilliant enlightenment that murder and smoking are in fact not identical acts, it contains logic that is utterly nonsensical. I want Flub to address this:

How does alcohol as the main source of revenue have anything whatsoever to do with tobacco use in the bar? Perhaps with your penchant for clarifying even the most obscure distinctions between capital murder and tobacco smoke, you can explain to me what the relationship here is.

To everyone who says "Go to another bar!"; why? If there is a smoking bar, and the crowd in there happens to be at the time completely non-smokers, does a smoker who enters have the right to force everyone out if he lights up?

I have repeated this so many times I would think you get the point: it is not the person, it is the act. As such, you cannot apply logic about smoking to the ideal of non-smoking. This is the core of my argument. Smokers can be told to not smoke, but can non-smokers be told to not not smoke? This is my response to:

Originally Posted by Wildane
/shrug Have the non-smoker hang out outside. Seems fair
I'm not asking that everyone who smokes cigarettes has to remain outside. Only when they do the act. Can you tell a non-smoker to only do his not-smoking outside? Non-smoking is not the inverse of smoking, in that it isn't something you do occasionally. Even smokers do it. However, I would ask that they do it elsewhere. My guess is that in a bar, during any given duration, there is more not smoking that goes on than smoking. See the distinction?

Originally Posted by Gerick
"Unless you can prove to me that more people in the population smoke than don't, smoking should be illegal."

i missed that gem, thanks for show it to me.

lets ban being gay, being rich, every small religion.
They're working on the gay, the small religion one is effectively being enforced, and the rich one... there's a continuum, so you'd have to mark an absolute, which isn't feasible

That said, I don't agree with the sentiment. However, it can and does happen. Many on this boards would see gay marraige banned, and they have no ammunition whatsoever against my argument given. It is specifically directed to those in here, who, strangely, seem to be the ones vehemently against non-smoking.
Originally Posted by Gerick
i dont need YOU to pick up a sword for ME, if im bugged by it let ME deal with it.
asthmatic related problems doesnt mean "problem with asserting your needs to smokers" twit

hell im in texas and we got every damn flower, ragweed and god knows what else and THEY bugged me more than a little smoke did.
You're denying the right of asthmatics to go to bars. How is that any different? In fact, it's worse: asthmatics can't help who they are, and have that condition all the time. We're not asking smokers to stop completely, just stop when they are around people who object to their act on a reasonable basis.

Plus, many discomforts related to natural allergens can be mitigated with allergy medications. My brother takes them, and can do whatever he wants... except breathe cigarette smoke. He still chokes on that crap like it's mustard gas, and there isn't a damn thing medicine can do about it.

Originally Posted by gojirra
Where then do you get off trying to tell consenting adults that they can't go breathe smoke if they want to?
What about those who don't want to breathe smoke? Just not smoking doesn't cut it; they have to avoid smokers entirely.

I would have no problem with people smoking if it didn't affect others who would rather avoid the smoke. You'll note that I mention this plenty: smoking in privacy is fine, as is smoking among those who don't mind it. In bars, however, there are those who do not want to breathe smoke. They just want to relax and have a beer.

Originally Posted by Wildane
Should beer companies stop advertising so alcoholics won't be tempted to drink? Should we just ban religion so we don't make any atheists uncomfortable? Again, I say it is not the smoker's fault for the temptation of the non-smoker. Should the smoker suffer nicotine withdrawals to please the ex-smoker?
I'm all for restrictions against beer advertising the way cigarette advertising has been regulated. You don't see tobacco ads on TV, but you see 4 or 5 beer ads in every commercial break during a sports game. Plus, alcohol does not contain as many known carcinogens as tobacco (pretty sure none at all; excess can lead to problems but so does excess sunlight, etc.), and is not inherently addictive. Argue about that all you want, the fact is nicotine gives you the effect by replacing your neurotransmitters, much the same way an anti-depressant does. Guess what? Anti-depressants are addictive. This I know from experience. It's a difference between a mental addiction and a physical addiction.

I would see religion banned and not shed a single tear, but then who would I point out as idiots? I'd have to move to something I can generalize less about, which would be hard

Originally Posted by Wildane
I know it's been said before, but HOW ABOUT NOT GOING TO A PLACE FILLED WITH SMOKERS?!?!?! This is not a hard concept. If you're terrified of flying, ride the fucking train. If you're afraid of heights, don't hang out on the fucking roof. It's like the old joke of the man who goes to the doctor and says, "Hey doc, it hurts when I do this..what do I do?" Doctor says, "Don't do that."
This fails miserably. Bars do not exist to serve cigarettes, they exist to serve alcohol. Argue about that one too, but the presence of tobacco in bars is coincidental and nothing more. If you banned smoking from bars you'd see a very very small drop in bar-goers, if there was no alternative. Granted, if a specific 'smokers only' bar opened up, it would see more business, but the net losses would equal the net gains. Is there a single person you know who either smokes exclusively in bars and nowhere else, or goes to bars specifically to smoke without drinking? No. They are not tobacco-houses, they are booze-houses.

Originally Posted by Wildane
Yes, I know what you meant, I was just showing you how ridiculous that analogy was.
Except that anyone with a brain would realize what I meant and not misconstrue it as your straw-man argument portrayed it.

Originally Posted by Flub
If there is a sign out front that says this building has asbestos which causes cancer. No, I don't think they should have to remove it. After all people who make the choice to go into the building know the dangers of doing so.
How many people would go into this place? Nobody with common sense. You'd lose business. There doesn't exist a specific set of the population which likes to be around asbestos.

And yes, you have to remove it. I'm actually pretty sure even home owners are violating federal laws if they don't.

Originally Posted by Flub
And I am not talking about refusing anyone to enter the bar. I am talking about stopping from performing a legal act in a private establishment. A point you do not seem to grasp.
Legal act? Is it not legal to sit and a bar and expect to not be accosted by cigarette smoke? You are trying to refuse people this.

Originally Posted by Flub
Drinking is an addictive habit. I guess the bar owner is saying 'it's ok to drink'. Do you want to ban drinking? It is ok to smoke. It is a choice. If someone wants to smoke I am not going to stop them. They made a choice to do so. They know the risks involved.
Originally Posted by Flub
They also nurture drinking. But since you like to drink I guess it's ok they do that.
Again, I repeat, bars do not exist for the purpose of smoking, but they do exist for the purpose for drinking. It does not change their purpose to illegalize smoking in them.

Also, I don't go to bars. One of the myriad reasons is that they tend to be smoke-filled, but it's not the only one, nor necessarily the biggest one. It would be enough to keep me at home, anyway, even if it were the sole cause of my distaste for bars.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2004, 12:23 AM   #168
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
To everyone who says "Go to another bar!"; why? If there is a smoking bar, and the crowd in there happens to be at the time completely non-smokers, does a smoker who enters have the right to force everyone out if he lights up?
Only if that smoker happens to own the bar. And, on that same note, the non-smokers don't have any right to complain about the cigarette smoke; they're in a smoking bar, after all.
Bars do not exist to serve cigarettes, they exist to serve alcohol. Argue about that one too, but the presence of tobacco in bars is coincidental and nothing more.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. The point is that you KNOW you will be subjected to cigarette smoke if you go out to a bar, the same way you'll be exposed to yelling at a basketball game. It's inevitable, Neo. In my opinion, if being around cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health, but you go to bars anyway, you're a goddamn moron. You KNOW that it goes on there, unless you've never been to a bar in your life, but you still knowingly put YOURSELF in harm's way. That's like running into the mosh pit and then crying that you got your ass kicked. Well, what did you think was going to happen?
Except that anyone with a brain would realize what I meant and not misconstrue it as your straw-man argument portrayed it.
Yeah, ok, sport! Simply put, you're comparing apples and oranges. Your intentions are irrelevant, the analogy sucks.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2004, 05:35 AM   #169
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
In my opinion, if being around cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health, but you go to bars anyway, you're a goddamn moron.
I would also like to add; if you don't know cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health you're a goddamn moron.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2004, 06:18 AM   #170
gojirra monk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 304
This is not about smoking.

This is about freedom and free markets, the smoking is incidental.

Where I live, smoking is not banned in bars, yet there are some bars that don't allow smoking. They seem to be doing well by catering to the section of the market that wants to drink in places that don't allow smoking.

There are other bars that allow smoking. Again, they seem to be doing well by catering to the section of the market that wants to drink in places that allow smoking.

By golly, the free market has found the solution.

If someone wants to drink, they have a choice. Do I want to go to a bar that isn't filled with smoke, or one that is?

Why should you or anyone be able to make that choice for them? They are all consenting adults. They know the risks.
gojirra monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2004, 11:11 AM   #171
Gerick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 359
i agree, if the store is a known smoking joint, let adults be adults and stop telling people what is good for them, or their bar i think its bullshit that they told the Ihop down the road to install these 3 thousand dollar filters if they want a smoking section( and wall it off and have a door as the way in ) and then telling them no smoking at all, shouldnt they refund that money they caused them to waste?(even tho it isnt a bar, that is bullshit)

ares you know if you go into a blues bar, or a pool hall, or a bluegrass concert there will probibly be smoke, stop being a pussy, its part of the mood and part of the atmosphere.
Gerick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2004, 08:40 PM   #172
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,066
To be honest I don't know how important smoking is to the rest of us but I only continue smoking because it is there, available and the urge to smoke is maintained thru that. Couldn't give a damn if tobacco was taken off the shelves and outlawed. It is not that important to me.

What does irritate me is the amount of pro/con personal space issues ya get with all the 2nd hand smoke being a health thing. People, ya gotta live with the rest of the world, it's how the wheel is turned right now that sets the table we all lunch from. Figuratively speaking.

If its okay for somebody to smoke, where they is presently smoking, under environmental health ya got no space for griping about your own health, until environmental health says different keep it under yer lid and sharpen yer axe. Stop whining, teh aural effect is deletrious of yer opinions and furnishes good judgement with antipathy.

Got you all stumped now...
__________________
Originally Posted by Drysdale
"Fair enough. I don't agree with anyone all the time."
Originally Posted by Davek
"*blink* *blink* *blink*
*bliiiink* *bliiiink* *bliiiink*
*blink* *blink* *blink*
[fixt]

Mistyglen 68 Half Elf StormWarden (retired)
ex-Mystic Blue, ex-Sundered Heart, ex-Heart of Fenris
Redback's stuff
Redback 72 WoodElf Ranger (Lucid Devotion)
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2004, 04:00 AM   #173
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by Gerick
ares you know if you go into a blues bar, or a pool hall, or a bluegrass concert there will probibly be smoke, stop being a pussy, its part of the mood and part of the atmosphere.
I agree that there probably will be smoke, but I disagree that it's part of the atmosphere. I'm not sure how many people enjoy inhalaling smoke, without actually choosing to. No, my presence in a bar does not indicate a choice to inhale smoke, it indicates a choice to drink alcohol.

Originally Posted by Misty
Got you all stumped now...
Par for the course, Misty. Par for the course.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2004, 04:45 AM   #174
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
I would also like to add; if you don't know cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health you're a goddamn moron.
HAHAHA! You know what I meant! I was referring to the immediate health risk of the person choking on cigarette smoke, n00b!
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2004, 04:47 AM   #175
Ulujain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 1,930
Misty, what's a packet of smokes worth now over there? When I left Sydney in 1998, it was close to $6 a packet. Mind you there's 30 in a packet, at least in Peter Jackson's.
__________________
S.I.G.N.A.T.U.R.E.
Ulujain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:14 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.