(Video)Smoking ban in bars/taverns passes in my county. Gotta love the response of the ppl [Archive]

Workguy23

06-07-2011, 08:06 AM

http://www.thestarpress.com/videonetwork/979999551001/Smoking-ban-approved-06-07-11-

Long time member/reader, though I don't post often...Just thought I'd like to share with you guys a local issue for us here in (Delaware County)Muncie, Indiana. We've had the "normal" smoking ban for a while now, but bars were exempt. The persistent a-holes that have to find something to do to make themselves feel important and protect us from ourselves have finally managed to get a full smoking ban. The plasticky-fake statements from those who support this garbage is gag-worthy, but there is a silver-lining of hope. Many of the opponents sound just like Ron Paul when it comes to freedom and liberties, one of them is even a local bar owner that's right down the street from me who ran as a Democrat in the last election for Mayor.

Freedom is popular, and the message sells itself. If we can transcend these labels of Democrat/Republican and realize that we all really want the same thing. Christians to be free to worship, and recognition of the Atheists' right not to. A person who chooses to enjoy a cigarette(or a joint, for that matter) and those who choose to use the two feet God(or Nature) gave them and go elsewhere. But that smoker should also respectful enough to ensure he is not violating another person "space" in instances where one cannot just get up and leave. It's a bit of a delicate balance, that can have gray areas sometimes, but left to their own devices, people can sort it out amongst themselves person to person. Legislating morality gets rid of common sense...next thing you know they'll be checking babies' diapers for explosives...:rolleyes:

belian78

06-07-2011, 08:34 AM

Obviously if you want to smoke in a bar, you want to give babies lung cancer.

/s

TheBlackPeterSchiff

06-07-2011, 08:34 AM

belian78

06-07-2011, 08:51 AM

Yeah, they try to pass that shit here in Louisiana every year, and it fails.

They are trying to ban smoking in bars and casinos for "worker safety"

The funny thing is, there are plenty of bars that don't allow smoking here, and they get a strong consumer base because of it. Let business choose how the hell they want to run their businesses, and workers are aware of the environment before they start working there.

Yup, 'worker safety' is how it was sold here in IL, and that's how the exemption for casinos is being fought currently.

If you ask any of the anti-smoking crusaders here in IL, people are forced to work certain places, they have no say. So the only recourse is to ban smoking everywhere. And if you make a case for property rights and freedom of association, you're just an evil prick that wants all workers and babies to die of cancer.

Kelly.

06-07-2011, 08:53 AM

Freedom is popular, and the message sells itself. If we can transcend these labels of Democrat/Republican and realize that we all really want the same thing. Christians to be free to worship, and recognition of the Atheists' right not to. A person who chooses to enjoy a cigarette(or a joint, for that matter) and those who choose to use the two feet God(or Nature) gave them and go elsewhere. But that smoker should also respectful enough to ensure he is not violating another person "space" in instances where one cannot just get up and leave. It's a bit of a delicate balance, that can have gray areas sometimes, but left to their own devices, people can sort it out amongst themselves person to person. Legislating morality gets rid of common sense.

very well said. i wish more people thought like you.

UtahApocalypse

06-07-2011, 08:58 AM

http://www.thestarpress.com/videonetwork/979999551001/Smoking-ban-approved-06-07-11-
Freedom is popular, and the message sells itself. If we can transcend these labels of Democrat/Republican and realize that we all really want the same thing. Christians to be free to worship, and recognition of the Atheists' right not to. A person who chooses to enjoy a cigarette(or a joint, for that matter) and those who choose to use the two feet God(or Nature) gave them and go elsewhere. But that smoker should also respectful enough to ensure he is not violating another person "space" in instances where one cannot just get up and leave. It's a bit of a delicate balance, that can have gray areas sometimes, but left to their own devices, people can sort it out amongst themselves person to person. Legislating morality gets rid of common sense...next thing you know they'll be checking babies' diapers for explosives...:rolleyes:

Bravo and +Rep

Yup, 'worker safety' is how it was sold here in IL, and that's how the exemption for casinos is being fought currently.

If you ask any of the anti-smoking crusaders here in IL, people are forced to work certain places, they have no say. So the only recourse is to ban smoking everywhere. And if you make a case for property rights and freedom of association, you're just an evil prick that wants all workers and babies to die of cancer.

Who is being forced to work? You don't like the job or environment you quit.

"God my workplace is hell. It is hot, no air conditioning. The air is black and hardly breathable"

"Maybe we should legislate against those conditions"

"Yeah that will convince the mine operator at the coal mine I work at to fix things"

Some jobs have inherent health risks. If you don't like it you don't work there

Bern

06-07-2011, 09:07 AM

ds21089

06-07-2011, 09:08 AM

Bravo and +Rep

Who is being forced to work? You don't like the job or environment you quit.

"God my workplace is hell. It is hot, no air conditioning. The air is black and hardly breathable"

"Maybe we should legislate against those conditions"

"Yeah that will convince the mine operator at the coal mine I work at to fix things"

Some jobs have inherent health risks. If you don't like it you don't work there

I disagree. It's not like you HAVE to smoke in a bar in order for it to function such as the health risks compared to the coal mines. I'm not usually a fan of regulation, but I do feel smoking should be completely banned from bars and any public place for the sake of liberty. You have every right to harm yourself, but when you harm others, you are at fault. Secondhand smoke is harmful to others, therefor should be illegal to do so in a crowded place. If you want to kill yourself with cancer, go for it by doing so in your house or an enclose area, or anywhere else where the people there knowingly choose to be around you while smoking.

UtahApocalypse

06-07-2011, 09:12 AM

I disagree. It's not like you HAVE to smoke in a bar in order for it to function such as the health risks compared to the coal mines. I'm not usually a fan of regulation, but I do feel smoking should be completely banned from bars and any public place for the sake of liberty. You have every right to harm yourself, but when you harm others, you are at fault. Secondhand smoke is harmful to others, therefor should be illegal to do so in a crowded place. If you want to kill yourself with cancer, go for it by doing so in your house or an enclose area, or anywhere else where the people there knowingly choose to be around you while smoking.

As a NON-Smoker I disagree. Nobody is forcing me to go to a bar, or into a place that allows smoking. I do agree with smoking bans in PUBLIC places but not in Private establishments.

pcosmar

06-07-2011, 09:16 AM

I have a few questions:

Is second hand smoke capable of damaging or injuring another person?
There is no real science to support this. There is a lot of Junk science and emotional appeals from prohibitionists.

If so, what remedy or redress does an individual have against someone damaging them with second hand smoke?

My questions are not intended to bolster support for a State mandated ban. I'm curious as to how free people who find second hand smoke equal to assault should find redress for their damages.
They would (or should) have to prove by actual facts that damage was in fact done and caused directly by second hand smoke and not by any other environmental factors.

It needs to be more than emotional, or perceived offense.

belian78

06-07-2011, 09:18 AM

Who is being forced to work? You don't like the job or environment you quit.

Some jobs have inherent health risks. If you don't like it you don't work there

You misunderstand me, I completely agree with you here. I was stating that is how the anti-smoking crusaders here in IL think.

sailingaway

06-07-2011, 09:19 AM

Thanks for posting!

ds21089

06-07-2011, 09:24 AM

As a NON-Smoker I disagree. Nobody is forcing me to go to a bar, or into a place that allows smoking. I do agree with smoking bans in PUBLIC places but not in Private establishments.

So in your world, if I were to go to a new area and into a bar (which rarely ever states outside of the bar whether smoking is allowed or not), I pay an entrance fee, then I go inside and sit down for a drink. Shortly after ordering a drink, several people light up cigarettes. So now, you think I should just leave the area, paying the bill of a drink I will not finish anymore, wasting my admission fee, then search for another bar. I should then continue this process until I find a bar which doesn't allow smoking, putting me at a crazy inconvenience all for what? Because I dont want to inhale smoke while I have a beer and watch a game? I'm sorry but it puts everyone else at a huge inconvenience all because they cant go an hour or two without smoking? I just cant agree with this one. I understand property rights, but if a company said I was allowed to bring a dangerous toxin and just release it into the air, which would harm almost everyone there, does that make it ok? That's basically what's happening..

You have a right to express yourself and do whatever you choose to do so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Cigarettes hurt other people, therefor it's the same thing as assault. Is assault a crime? Does the constitution protect the rights of people whom choose to poison others?

Now if there is ever a day that it is scientifically proven (by real scientists and not the bullshit "studies" we always hear about in the news) that cigarette smoke in no way, shape, or form harms anybody at all, then I can agree with your views.

harikaried

06-07-2011, 09:33 AM

I pay an entrance fee, then I go inside and sit down for a drink. Shortly after ordering a drink, several people light up cigarettes. So now, you think I should just leave the area, paying the bill of a drink I will not finish anymore, wasting my admission fee, then search for another bar.You would learn to ask first and not pay the entrance fee to begin with. And if you find that going bar to bar looking for a smoke-free one is inconvenient, you have to trade that off with buying your alcohol elsewhere in a liquor store, etc. Money goes to those stores instead of the bars. It's the bar manager's tradeoff if they want to lose that customer base.

Diurdi

06-07-2011, 09:38 AM

Yup, 'worker safety' is how it was sold here in IL, and that's how the exemption for casinos is being fought currently.

If you ask any of the anti-smoking crusaders here in IL, people are forced to work certain places, they have no say. So the only recourse is to ban smoking everywhere. And if you make a case for property rights and freedom of association, you're just an evil prick that wants all workers and babies to die of cancer.
Some jobs are simply inherently "unsafe" like working in a mine or being a cop. If you can't accept the risks that the job brings about then the job is not for you.

But somehow people don't understand. They wan't to ban everything they don't accept, and then they turn around and whine when something they like to do gets banned.

ds21089

06-07-2011, 09:41 AM

You would learn to ask first and not pay the entrance fee to begin with. And if you find that going bar to bar looking for a smoke-free one is inconvenient, you have to trade that off with buying your alcohol elsewhere in a liquor store, etc. Money goes to those stores instead of the bars. It's the bar manager's tradeoff if they want to lose that customer base.

Yes, but my point is... Who is allowed to have the right to give anyone permission to harm others? If I'm a bar owner am I allowed to say, "in this bar, we encourage you to punch newcomers in the throat"? I'm not saying that's not a ridiculous policy, but what gives them the right to do that? I'm all for the rights of private companies and their choosing of policies, but when it conflicts with safety of others, I think it supersedes their authority.

Also, if a care center allowed euphanasia, does that give a patient the right to choose that another patient should be euthanized? That's essentially what you're saying. "Regardless if it harms other people or not, companies are allowed to make any laws they want and if people dont like it, they should go elsewhere". Whereas my view is "Companies are allowed to make any laws they want no matter how many people dont like it, so long as it doesn't harm others, then there is no issues here because the constitution protects their rights." The difference here is the harming of others which you are NOT allowed to do.

belian78

06-07-2011, 09:42 AM

belian78

06-07-2011, 09:47 AM

You would learn to ask first and not pay the entrance fee to begin with. And if you find that going bar to bar looking for a smoke-free one is inconvenient, you have to trade that off with buying your alcohol elsewhere in a liquor store, etc. Money goes to those stores instead of the bars. It's the bar manager's tradeoff if they want to lose that customer base.

Yes, but my point is... Who is allowed to have the right to give anyone permission to harm others? If I'm a bar owner am I allowed to say, "in this bar, we encourage you to punch newcomers in the throat"? I'm not saying that's not a ridiculous policy, but what gives them the right to do that? I'm all for the rights of private companies and their choosing of policies, but when it conflicts with safety of others, I think it supersedes their authority.

What don't you understand about property rights and freedom of association? If there was a sign saying 'we punch newcomers in the throat' and you didn't want to get punched, you wouldn't go in.

If you're a nonsmoker and its that important to you, you will ask before spending any of your hard earned dollars getting in to an establishment. Well, any intelligent person would anyway.

You do not take someone else's rights to their property away just because you don't want to be bothered to find an establishment that caters to your wants.

ds21089

06-07-2011, 09:51 AM

What don't you understand about property rights and freedom of association? If there was a sign saying 'we punch newcomers in the throat' and you didn't want to get punched, you wouldn't go in.

If you're a nonsmoker and its that important to you, you will ask before spending any if your hard earned dollars getting in to an establishment. Well, any intelligent person would anyway.

What sign? Who's to say there would be one? It could be a policy amongst the tight group of people in there, but I guess that's allowed, right?

No rights are being taken away. If they want to make a policy that people can be nude, go for it. If they want to make a policy that people can have food fights, go for it. If they want to make a policy that you cant exceed x amount of alcoholic drinks, go for it. If they want to create a policy that allows people to do physical harm to others, that should be bypassed by any property right.

It's the same reason a company can't have a policy of beating people with bats. It's assault. Obviously cigarettes aren't direct physical assault, but they have an equally negative effect on the body anyway. Can I walk up to somebody in a bar and pour acid down their throat even if the owner said I was allowed to?

You keep going back to "property rights property rights" but not even taking into effect that you are only allowed to have all of these rights if you also make sure you never do harm to others. That is a crime.

Workguy23

06-07-2011, 09:56 AM

Take two establishments and sit them along a road across the street from one another. One bar allows smoking, the other does not. Time would eventually show that both are viable options OR one would be more popular than the other, and the less prosperous one would go out of business. The choice of the business owner would be the deciding factor, not some regulations and laws.

MANY bar owners believe their business suffers greatly by smoking bans, considering many people enjoy having a cigarette with a beer. If a non-smoking alternative establishment was popular then you would see more of them, obviously they aren't...at least in my county. I can't speak for elsewhere.

But honestly, all the talk about toxins, poisons, etc...I like to take this view on that.
"EXCUSE ME SIR! I am TRYING to sit here and get DRUNK, go into the bathroom and do some lines of coke off the back of the toilet, DRIVE home and have unprotected sex with this equally trashed woman I just met...AND YOU ARE BLOWING THAT SMOKE IN MY DIRECTION! I'm blaming you, if I die of cancer!"

fisharmor

06-07-2011, 09:58 AM

The thing I don't understand is this: I was in a bar last month, drinking a Guinness, and smoking. And every time I exhaled, the smoke magically rose up to the ceiling into the FUCKING EXHAUST FAN that the owners had installed because it was specifically a smoking bar, and they figured they didn't want everything to immediately turn yellow and smell like shit.
A nonsmoker could have been sitting right next to me and not have been bothered.
Yet bans are the only solutions anyone can see.

Some jobs are simply inherently "unsafe" like working in a mine or being a cop.

Can't let falsehoods go unanswered.... there is no inherent danger in being a cop. I don't even go for that second-hand smoke nonsense, and I'll state for the record that working in a smoky bar is more dangerous than being a cop.

mczerone

06-07-2011, 09:58 AM

I disagree. It's not like you HAVE to smoke in a bar in order for it to function such as the health risks compared to the coal mines. I'm not usually a fan of regulation, but I do feel smoking should be completely banned from bars and any public place for the sake of liberty. You have every right to harm yourself, but when you harm others, you are at fault. Secondhand smoke is harmful to others, therefor should be illegal to do so in a crowded place. If you want to kill yourself with cancer, go for it by doing so in your house or an enclose area, or anywhere else where the people there knowingly choose to be around you while smoking.

= "I want to tell others what to do with their lives and property, so I can get what I want."

If you will allow us inferiors to smoke in our own homes, why can't we also serve drinks to guests and allow them to smoke? Is that not all a "bar" is, just someone's personal property, where they should be allowed to set the rules?

Workguy23

06-07-2011, 09:59 AM

Really all I am saying is that most of the people who want this ban(especially in this particular video) LIKELY don't even go to the bars that are affected the most by this.

belian78

06-07-2011, 10:00 AM

LOL you say no ones rights are being taken away, but then you say your safety should supersede the bar owners rights when entering their establishment. I'm officially done with this conversation.

ds21089

06-07-2011, 10:09 AM

LOL you say no ones rights are being taken away, but then you say your safety should supersede the bar owners rights when entering their establishment. I'm officially done with this conversation.

Oh yeah you're right. I forgot the constitution allowed us to harm other people, so long as policy says we're allowed.

aGameOfThrones

06-07-2011, 10:10 AM

Some jobs are simply inherently "unsafe" like working in a mine or being a cop. If you can't accept the risks that the job brings about then the job is not for you.
.

How dare you but miner and cop in the same sentence? Shame on you! :p

ds21089

06-07-2011, 10:11 AM

The thing I don't understand is this: I was in a bar last month, drinking a Guinness, and smoking. And every time I exhaled, the smoke magically rose up to the ceiling into the FUCKING EXHAUST FAN that the owners had installed because it was specifically a smoking bar, and they figured they didn't want everything to immediately turn yellow and smell like shit.
A nonsmoker could have been sitting right next to me and not have been bothered.
Yet bans are the only solutions anyone can see.

If we have technology which it scientifically proven to be 100% effective in making sure nobody else will inhale it, then by all means, that'd be the better option. However when all of our scientists are used for warfare purposes or manufacturing drugs to make people more sick, it's hard to come up with such technologies.

Diurdi

06-07-2011, 10:14 AM

Can't let falsehoods go unanswered.... there is no inherent danger in being a cop. I don't even go for that second-hand smoke nonsense, and I'll state for the record that working in a smoky bar is more dangerous than being a cop.Being a cop is more dangerous than your average job. Pretty stupid to start arguing about that imo, especially when my point was that most jobs have risks and inconveniences, if you can't accept them then you should apply for another job.

Cops whining about safety and thus getting armoured tanks and automatic rifles falls exactly into the same category as these "worker safety"-laws. If you can't accept the risk then don't apply.

aGameOfThrones

06-07-2011, 10:18 AM

Being a cop is more dangerous than your average job.

No it's not.

ds21089

06-07-2011, 10:21 AM

Being a cop is more dangerous to innocent civilians than your average job

Fix'd

NYgs23

06-07-2011, 10:26 AM

What sign? Who's to say there would be one? It could be a policy amongst the tight group of people in there, but I guess that's allowed, right?

No rights are being taken away. If they want to make a policy that people can be nude, go for it. If they want to make a policy that people can have food fights, go for it. If they want to make a policy that you cant exceed x amount of alcoholic drinks, go for it. If they want to create a policy that allows people to do physical harm to others, that should be bypassed by any property right.

It's the same reason a company can't have a policy of beating people with bats. It's assault. Obviously cigarettes aren't direct physical assault, but they have an equally negative effect on the body anyway. Can I walk up to somebody in a bar and pour acid down their throat even if the owner said I was allowed to?

You keep going back to "property rights property rights" but not even taking into effect that you are only allowed to have all of these rights if you also make sure you never do harm to others. That is a crime.

Um, if you deliberately patronize an establishment in full knowledge that everyone is nude or that they beat people with bats, you are consenting to those conditions. It's a matter of reasonable expectation. If a guy is selling "suicide poison pills" and you deliberately buy one, knowing that it's a suicide poison pill and take it and die, that's on you.

Were this not the case, there would be no property rights at all. Everyone's preferences are different, so "harm" is not objective. Some people consider it "harmful" to their morality to patronize a strip club. So ban all strip clubs? Others may say loud music is harmful to their psychological well-being. Ban all clubs playing loud music?

Again, you consent to breathe in tobacco smoke when you enter a private place knowing or having reasonable expectation that it will be filled with tobacco smoke, just as much as if you had lit the cigarette and breathed it in yourself.

Diurdi

06-07-2011, 10:29 AM

No it's not. I'm not really sure how it's where you live but atleast where I live cops are exposed to much more danger than your average accountant. Sure their jobs here is mostly helping drunk people home or shooing off kids who are destroying property but occassionally they encounter violent people where their health is at risk.

In the US I guess they mostly harass people but that doesn't change the fact that their job has some inherent dangers that you just have to accept.

dannno

06-07-2011, 10:33 AM

I have a few questions:

Is second hand smoke capable of damaging or injuring another person?

No. It's all tyrannical bullshit.

If so, what remedy or redress does an individual have against someone damaging them with second hand smoke?

Ask them to leave their property, or move your own ass.

My questions are not intended to bolster support for a State mandated ban. I'm curious as to how free people who find second hand smoke equal to assault should find redress for their damages.

There are no damages done from second hand smoke. It may trigger asthmatic or allergic reactions in certain individuals, who should avoid second hand smoke when possible, but it does not GIVE people asthma or allergies, they already have it.

The fact is humans have been sitting around campfires for tens of thousands of years, we breathe in dust and particles all day long (just look at a window when there is a crack of sunlight coming in), our lungs are DESIGNED to handle a pretty good amount of smoke and clean themselves.

Jim Casey

06-07-2011, 10:35 AM

I have a few questions:

Is second hand smoke capable of damaging or injuring another person?

If so, what remedy or redress does an individual have against someone damaging them with second hand smoke?

My questions are not intended to bolster support for a State mandated ban. I'm curious as to how free people who find second hand smoke equal to assault should find redress for their damages.
Some people feel assaulted or stalked if you come within a certain distance of them. The medical term is agoraphobic. The anti-tobacco lobby operates on fear of other people hurting you with their sweet rhythmic breathing in and out of billowy clouds of fragrant mist.

I disagree. It's not like you HAVE to smoke in a bar in order for it to function such as the health risks compared to the coal mines. I'm not usually a fan of regulation, but I do feel smoking should be completely banned from bars and any public place for the sake of liberty. You have every right to harm yourself, but when you harm others, you are at fault. Secondhand smoke is harmful to others, therefor should be illegal to do so in a crowded place. If you want to kill yourself with cancer, go for it by doing so in your house or an enclose area, or anywhere else where the people there knowingly choose to be around you while smoking.
Smoking is the cure for cancer. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. What really causes cancer is all the radiation in the air floating around the globe thanks to above ground nuclear testing.

As a NON-Smoker I disagree. Nobody is forcing me to go to a bar, or into a place that allows smoking. I do agree with smoking bans in PUBLIC places but not in Private establishments.
The worst thing about smokers are the bums who keep begging me for a fix without offering me any kind of compensation in return. Resource accounting must take into account reciprocation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVE5nDGaQiU

dannno

06-07-2011, 10:39 AM

So in your world, if I were to go to a new area and into a bar (which rarely ever states outside of the bar whether smoking is allowed or not), I pay an entrance fee, then I go inside and sit down for a drink. Shortly after ordering a drink, several people light up cigarettes. So now, you think I should just leave the area, paying the bill of a drink I will not finish anymore, wasting my admission fee, then search for another bar. I should then continue this process until I find a bar which doesn't allow smoking, putting me at a crazy inconvenience all for what? Because I dont want to inhale smoke while I have a beer and watch a game?

Uhh, why don't you ASK the bar if they allow smoking before entering??

You have a right to express yourself and do whatever you choose to do so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Cigarettes hurt other people, therefor it's the same thing as assault. Is assault a crime? Does the constitution protect the rights of people whom choose to poison others?

Now if there is ever a day that it is scientifically proven (by real scientists and not the bullshit "studies" we always hear about in the news) that cigarette smoke in no way, shape, or form harms anybody at all, then I can agree with your views.

Ok, the "bullshit" studies you are talking about are the ones that "prove" that second hand smoke causes damage, which it does NOT.

I grew up with asthma and allergies. My parents did everything they could to protect me from the evils of second hand smoke... and sometimes it pissed me off because I would want to go hang out at my friend's house, whose parents smoke, and sometimes I couldn't. Yet they had no problem sending me on camping trips where my lungs would be filled with... second hand smoke from the campfire..

aGameOfThrones

06-07-2011, 10:41 AM

I'm not really sure how it's where you live but atleast where I live cops are exposed to much more danger than your average accountant. Sure their jobs here is mostly helping drunk people home or shooing off kids who are destroying property but occassionally they encounter violent people where their health is at risk.

In the US I guess they mostly harass people but that doesn't change the fact that their job has some inherent dangers that you just have to accept.

That it has danger, it does. That it's statistically less dangerous than the top ten, it is.

IBleedNavyAndOrange

06-07-2011, 10:41 AM

I have a few questions:

Is second hand smoke capable of damaging or injuring another person?

If so, what remedy or redress does an individual have against someone damaging them with second hand smoke?

My questions are not intended to bolster support for a State mandated ban. I'm curious as to how free people who find second hand smoke equal to assault should find redress for their damages.

Yes. Secondhand cigarette smoke does do damage to others.

My girlfriend lived in a "no smoking" apartment building. There were signs posted and still people smoked inside. Her solution after 2 unsuccessful attempts to have the people enforce their rules was simply to move out. She paid only for the time she was in the apartment and broke her lease.

She requested her security deposit back in lieu of medical expenses associated with steroid inhalers.

She has asthma.

I smoked for 11 years and haven't had a cigarette in almost 4 years. For anyone to say secondhand smoke doesn't affect others doesn't pass the logic test. I will object to someone poisoning my water the same way I'll object to someone poisoning my air. I don't need any bs government tests or studies to tell me that inhaling smoky air is more harmful than clean air. Its a self evident truth.

Im certainly not advocating for state interference in any way. Let me vote for the businesses I want to support with my feet and my money. If a restaurant wants to earn my business, enforce a no smoking policy. I certainly don't need chairman Madigan to keep me safe.

ChaosControl

06-07-2011, 10:44 AM

I support bans in common-owned areas like parks, sidewalks, streets, public buildings, etc since it can harm non users and it isn't private property*.

But private land owners* should be able to decide if they wish to allow it or not. Granted I'm not going to go anywhere that does allow it since I think smoking is disgusting and want to be no where near it, but they have every right to allow it on their land if they wish.

*Obviously private property is a myth given taxation and zoning and other regulations exist, but I'll use the term anyway.

Jim Casey

06-07-2011, 10:44 AM

That it has danger, it does. That it's statistically less dangerous than the top ten, it is.
Did you hear my top 50? Listen 2 minutes in.

oyarde

06-07-2011, 10:45 AM

Bottom line , I own it , I decide . period .

Schifference

06-07-2011, 10:49 AM

I am all for freedom and liberty. However expecting that people will just naturally do the right thing is a bit naive. I own a two family home that I completely renovated. Everything is brand new. I live on the second floor and rent the first. Recently my tenant moved out. The apartment is a non smoking apartment and for the most part I think they did not smoke inside the apartment. However, they did smoke on the porch. The tenants were always polite, quiet, respectful, and paid the rent on time. The porch was brand new with seamless expensive ultralight composite decking and vinyl railings. They had exclusive use of the porch. Long story short. Cigarette burns on the railings and decking, damage to dining room floor from their chairs, missing aerator for the kitchen faucet, dirty stove, dirty fridge, dirty house and porch, and some other things. I deducted only $250 from their deposit and they felt they were raped. The point is that all people are not capable to know what is reasonable or what is the right thing to do. I am confident that if I was renting from him and caused the damage he did, $250 would not be nearly enough to cover the damage. The point is that I do not think government laws or regulations are the answer to any of our problems but thinking that people will understand what is the right thing to do is a bit far fetched.

aGameOfThrones

06-07-2011, 10:50 AM

Did you hear my top 50? Listen 2 minutes in.

I can't see videos posted from my iPad, so no.

CaptUSA

06-07-2011, 10:52 AM

missing aerator for the kitchen faucet.
Me knows what THAT means...

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 11:30 AM

But that smoker should also respectful enough to ensure he is not violating another person "space" in instances where one cannot just get up and leave. It's a bit of a delicate balance, that can have gray areas sometimes, but left to their own devices, people can sort it out amongst themselves person to person.

If there's any rule to human nature, it's that most people do not consider other people when doing things that might effect others. And of that group, some will be polite when it is pointed out, and others will want to fight (verbally or physically).

nobody's_hero

06-07-2011, 11:30 AM

This is way more complicated than it has to be.

"Government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed."

So, if the government wants to ban me from smoking, or from allowing people to smoke in a bar I might own, they have to get my consent. :)

These bans always seem like the sort of things that politicians enact without ever once asking their constituents how they feel about them. Feel good legislation.

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 11:31 AM

Me knows what THAT means...

What's the answer?!

pcosmar

06-07-2011, 11:41 AM

I miss Key West.

http://www.gustotastings.com/images/iStock_000006172785XSmall.jpg

A nice Hand rolled (http://www.conch-cigars.com/aboutus.html), A Dark and Stormy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_%27N%27_Stormy) and good music at the Schooner Wharf (http://www.schoonerwharf.com/).

/sigh

belian78

06-07-2011, 11:45 AM

What's the answer?!

Needed a screen for their bowl, of course. LOL. Done that many of times.

fisharmor

06-07-2011, 11:51 AM

If we have technology which it scientifically proven to be 100% effective in making sure nobody else will inhale it, then by all means, that'd be the better option. However when all of our scientists are used for warfare purposes or manufacturing drugs to make people more sick, it's hard to come up with such technologies.

Oh, ok, got it. That filter thing my Aunt had on the living room table in my Grandma's house in the late 80's that made it so you couldn't even tell she was smoking... that's off the table until it's scientifically proven to be 100% effective in making sure nobody inhales anything they don't want.
Here comes the clue bus, and it's belching big black plumes of smoke into the atmosphere every time it starts out at a traffic light.
You're either advocating a double standard, or you're in favor of banning diesel trucks too.

Being a cop is more dangerous than your average job. Pretty stupid to start arguing about that imo, especially when my point was that most jobs have risks and inconveniences, if you can't accept them then you should apply for another job.

Cops whining about safety and thus getting armoured tanks and automatic rifles falls exactly into the same category as these "worker safety"-laws. If you can't accept the risk then don't apply.

You should stick around for a while, and in particular, you should read every thread started by a guy going by "Anti Federalist".
You might also want to hit http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
I predict it will take fewer than two months of having your sensibilities regularly gang-raped by our thin blue line before you come around.

I am all for freedom and liberty. However expecting that people will just naturally do the right thing is a bit naive.

You certainly don't sound "all" for freedom and liberty.
None of us is claiming that people will naturally do the right thing.
Some of us accept as a point of theological doctrine that people are naturally rotten creatures which are generally incapable of doing the right thing.
What people who are "all" for freedom and liberty realize is that despite the fact that people are rotten, it is more rotten to use the state to force them not to be rotten.
Besides the moral conundrum of how it can be right to be rotten to people in an effort to get them not to be rotten, there's the evidence, stacked up over millenia, that people order themselves without state intervention just fine.
The idea that the state can ever be better than voluntary groups at keeping people doing the right thing is a fairy story.

Needed a screen for their bowl, of course. LOL. Done that many of times.
Uh.... it's just so much easier to make a disposable out of aluminum foil....

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 12:01 PM

Needed a screen for their bowl, of course. LOL. Done that many of times.

Wow, never heard of that...

Uh.... it's just so much easier to make a disposable out of aluminum foil....

Have heard of that...which would make using the faucet screen unnecessary.

belian78

06-07-2011, 12:02 PM

Easier yes, but less enjoyable. But then again, glass trumps all in that regard. :D

dannno

06-07-2011, 12:12 PM

Have heard of that...which would make using the faucet screen unnecessary.

I once had a pipe that someone gave me and a faucet aerator fit perfectly into it and was necessary for proper functioning and to keep from clogging the pipe itself.

Apparently it was a pipe that is also commonly used for crack (with screen also), but it worked pretty well for herb.

It was black with a metal bowl.

Golding

06-07-2011, 12:19 PM

Secondhand smoke does have some health issues tied to it, but you have to look at the patient population actually being affected. Links to lung cancer are largely heuristic at best, and I have had trouble finding any study that actually assesses a true link. Direct inhalation certainly has an effect, but there's seemingly no certainty when it comes to secondhand smoke. Those that convincingly are harmed by secondhand smoke include pregnant women and children. Secondhand smoke can produce birth defects when exposed in utero (1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21397902), 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21382949), 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21254356), 4 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20707625)) and asthma/allergic airway in adolescents (5 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564879))

In many populations (particularly the poor), these antismoking laws don't actually reduce smoking overall. Some studies (6 ("http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21531965)) show that they simply drive smoking to the home, which is where children and pregnant women are (more likely than a bar) exposed to secondhand smoke.

In a way, isn't that the tragedy? The argument to implement these laws is based on the health of others, but the reality is that the law actually modifies behavior in such a way that it does more harm to many families. I suspect that a free market solution of simply seeking out non-smoking pubs would be far more effective.

Carehn

06-07-2011, 12:26 PM

Schifference

06-07-2011, 12:43 PM

driller80545

06-07-2011, 12:47 PM

Even if the jury is out on the ill health effects of second hand smoke, I personally find the odor offensive and it causes me to gag. So regardless of whether I can or will contract cancer, asthma, or COPD from being around smoke, I prefer that the air I breathe to be smoke free. I was driving down the street one day this past winter and saw a person in their car at a light with their window down with their cigarette held outside the window. I thought to myself that it is pretty funny that the smoker was concerned with the effect the smoke had on the car and or their clothes but obviously not concerned with the smoke in their lungs. If you want to smoke fine by me it is when the odor or smoke invades my space that I take offense.

And add to that the more real threat of the two inch exhaust pipes puking carcinogens while you both are sitting at the stop light.

dannno

06-07-2011, 12:50 PM

Even if the jury is out on the ill health effects of second hand smoke, I personally find the odor offensive and it causes me to gag. So regardless of whether I can or will contract cancer, asthma, or COPD from being around smoke, I prefer that the air I breathe to be smoke free. I was driving down the street one day this past winter and saw a person in their car at a light with their window down with their cigarette held outside the window. I thought to myself that it is pretty funny that the smoker was concerned with the effect the smoke had on the car and or their clothes but obviously not concerned with the smoke in their lungs. If you want to smoke fine by me it is when the odor or smoke invades my space that I take offense.

Many people find perfumes, cologne, body odor and other odors offensive. You aren't going to go through life without being offended, but you do have the liberty to walk or drive away.

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 12:50 PM

2nd hand smoke cant harm you. People have to smoke for years and years. Usually about 40 before anything happens. 2nd hand is a lie/

That is debatable.

But the health effect should not even be an issue. Does it sometimes effect others in other ways? Yes.

What principles do we live by?

The golden rule? That would say you wouldn't intentionally inflict it on others.

"It's my right as long as it doesn't effect others"? So if it effects others, it is a violation of that rule.

NAP? Violation or not?

Forget about government, humans have written and unwritten codes of conduct. Yes, they vary greatly between different cultures, but they are always there.

dannno

06-07-2011, 12:51 PM

Even if the jury is out on the ill health effects of second hand smoke, I personally find the odor offensive and it causes me to gag. So regardless of whether I can or will contract cancer, asthma, or COPD from being around smoke, I prefer that the air I breathe to be smoke free. I was driving down the street one day this past winter and saw a person in their car at a light with their window down with their cigarette held outside the window. I thought to myself that it is pretty funny that the smoker was concerned with the effect the smoke had on the car and or their clothes but obviously not concerned with the smoke in their lungs. If you want to smoke fine by me it is when the odor or smoke invades my space that I take offense.

This is an excellent point. If somebody doesn't want to expose themselves to second hand smoke, they shouldn't apply to work at a bar that allows smoking. We need to give smokers MORE options for places to smoke rather than less, so that they can congregate in specific areas that others can avoid. There absolutely should be places where smokers can smoke, and I see no problem with smoking OUTDOORS in public places.

ds21089

06-07-2011, 12:52 PM

that is debatable.

But the health effect should not even be an issue. Does it sometimes effect others in other ways? Yes.

What principles do we live by?

The golden rule? That would say you wouldn't intentionally inflict it on others.

"it's my right as long as it doesn't effect others"? So if it effects others, it is a violation of that rule.

Nap? Violation or not?

Forget about government, humans have written and unwritten codes of conduct. Yes, they vary greatly between different cultures, but they are always there.

qft

pcosmar

06-07-2011, 12:56 PM

That is debatable.

No, It is not debatable.
It is either a measurable, definable, scientifically proven fact or it is not.

It is not an issue of debate. it is an issue of scientific facts.

And there are none.

Anti Federalist

06-07-2011, 01:16 PM

Oh yeah you're right. I forgot the constitution allowed us to harm other people, so long as policy says we're allowed.

Everybody could claim that somebody does something every day that "harms" them.

I could have a blood test done that would show benzene compounds in my blood that could be argued came from the gas fumes from your car.

People need to lighten the fuck up.

A punch in the nose is "assault".

A whiff of smoke from a smoldering shred of leaf is not.

People will get so uptight over this issue, but police gunning war vets down in their home and TSA molesting kids gets a pass.

Fucking Bizarro World.

harikaried

06-07-2011, 01:49 PM

Somewhat relevant story. Just yesterday I was at a Chinese restaurant that serves "stinky tofu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinky_tofu)". It's fermented and has a strong odor that reaches other tables. One customer sat down and commented on the smell then left.

Should there be a law passed that stiny tofu should be banned because some people find it offensive?

Does the store choose to serve it because it likes driving customers away? Does the store choose to serve it because people are willing to pay for that dish?

There's actually 2 main kinds of stinky tofu: deep fried and steamed. This particular restaurant serves the fried one. The steamed one tastes better but has a stronger odor that spreads further, so this place has already chosen an option that satisfies some of both parties.

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 02:05 PM

Brian4Liberty

06-07-2011, 02:08 PM

Somewhat relevant story. Just yesterday I was at a Chinese restaurant that serves "stinky tofu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinky_tofu)". It's fermented and has a strong odor that reaches other tables. One customer sat down and commented on the smell then left.

Should there be a law passed that stiny tofu should be banned because some people find it offensive?

Lol! Just read about stinky Tofu. They don't even serve it in restaurants in Asia due to the bad smell. People don't make it at home due to the smell. It is served by street vendors so that the smell isn't enclosed. Wow, that sounds like some cities smoking policies.