So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
tjamz;221679 wrote:
Ok...my reasoning for banning smoking in bars is somewhat selfish, because I could easily make the argument that nobody really goes to a bar to "get healthy"....However, I can see the point from a potential bartenders perspective. Yes, they could go work for a bar that doesn't allow smoking, there are several in town right now, but I'm 99% positive that the most tips are earned at places like The Hub and other places like that...the hot spots if you will. So, then the bartender has to choose, "do I want a good paycheck or good lungs?" Kind of a shitty choice if you ask me.
It's like asking someone "will you work in this lead mine w/ no respirator if we pay you more money to do so?" or "are you willing to work w/o personal protection equipment on this construction site for more cash?" The answer to both might be yes, but I can guarantee OSHA will shut them down in a heartbeat if caught.
I have no problem if anyone on here smokes...your choice, your consequences....but I don't see why bars are given any different freedoms than any other establishment. For example, adult book stores (porn shops/whatever) are smoke free and only allow people age 18 and up inside....but why can't they allow smoking inside?
If two business owners have businesses side by side, why should one have to follow a different set of rules than the one next to them? It's kinda like DaveH's argument of why should I pay $10k in taxes each year when others only have to pay $100 in taxes...we both work hard for our paycheck, why should one get taxed at a higher rate than the other?
Why can't places like that have smoking and one not?...Simple, because people like you (not you, like you) voted against smoking in establishments like that previously. Either that, or it's the business owners' decision. Either way, your arguement is based on pointing to something that (IMO) is wrong (banning smoking in establishments) and using it as an excuse to ban it elseware. That's called using one small negative and bringing it to a larger one. It just builds up and up until it's banned all-together (in this case).
Chuck, for how smart you come off to be a lot of the time, I admit, you sound very uneducated, selfish, and anti-free market right now...Re-read what you wrote and think of what Ron Paul would say, or anybody that has a general understanding of how piling small laws on top of each other works...With this, you just took a step down (polically, i still
you in a totally non-gay way lol) to me. I guess I just don't see how you can be somebody that supports a candidate who stands for all of the things you are now seemingly against, all because it works in your favor. Hypocrit. -
torbs;221665 wrote:
I was primarily trying to frame it with respect to owners' rights, not with respect to the people...To me, whether the people in general want it or not doesn't matter. They shouldn't be able to tell somebody what he/she can or can't do with their own establishment., period.Too late, bars are already regulated as to whether they can serve food or liquor or not, who they can serve it to, etc. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't have those regulations either. Should the kitchen in a bar/grill have to meet the government regulations on cleanliness, etc? After all, isn't it the bar owners right to serve food with salmonella if he chooses? (yes, a little devils advocate there).
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
torbs;221699 wrote:
Why can't places like that have smoking and one not?...Simple, because people like you (not you, like you) voted against smoking in establishments like that previously. Either that, or it's the business owners' decision. Either way, your arguement is based on pointing to something that (IMO) is wrong (banning smoking in establishments) and using it as an excuse to ban it elseware. That's called using one small negative and bringing it to a larger one. It just builds up and up until it's banned all-together (in this case).Chuck, for how smart you come off to be a lot of the time, I admit, you sound very uneducated, selfish, and anti-free market right now...Re-read what you wrote and think of what Ron Paul would say, or anybody that has a general understanding of how piling small laws on top of each other works...With this, you just took a step down (polically, i still
you in a totally non-gay way lol) to me. I guess I just don't see how you can be somebody that supports a candidate who stands for all of the things you are now seemingly against, all because it works in your favor. Hypocrit.This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. I don't think there is a "right" to smoke (didn't see it in the constitution anywhere or bill of rights), but I think there is more of a right to not have your health compromised by the choices of others.
If I walked into a bar with the following chemicals:
Acetaldehyde Acetamide Acrylamide Acrylonitrile 2-Amino-3,4-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MeIQ) 3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido [4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-1) 2-Amino-l-methyl-6-phenyl-1H-imidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhlP) 2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-1) 3-Amino-l-methyl-5H-pyrido {4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-2 2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (MeAaC) 2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (AaC) 4-Aminobiphenyl 2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-2) 0-Anisidine Arsenic Benz[a]anthracene Benzene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[j]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[b]furan Beryllium 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium Catechol (1,2-benzenediol) p-Chloroaniline Chloroform Cobalt p,p'-DDT Dibenz[a,h]acridine Dibenz[a,j]acridine Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene 3,4-Dihydroxycinnamic acid (caffeic acid) Ethylbenzene Ethylene oxide Formaldehyde Furan Glycidol Heptachlor Hydrazine Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene IQ 92-Amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline) Isoprene Lead 5-Methyl-chrysene 2-Naphthylamine Nitrobenzene Nitrogen mustard Nitromethane 2-Nitropropane N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (NDBA) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA) N-Nitrosodiethylamine (DEN) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (DMN) N-Nitrosoethylmethylamine (NEMA, MEN) 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone (NNK) N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) N-Nitrosopiperidine (NPIP, NPP) N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR, NPY) Polonium-210 (Radon 222) Propylene oxide Safrole Styrene Tetrachloroethylene o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline) Trichloroethylene Urethane (carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Vinyl acetate Vinyl chloride 4-Vinylcyclohexene 2,6-Xylidine (2,6-dimethylaniline)
and spilled them onto the floor, I'd be arrested for endangering the lives of the people around me...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
[snip]...but every chemical in there is a KNOWN carcinogen found in cigarettes.A lot of those chemicals are found in foods as well. At least, acrylamide is. Oh no, the humanity! (I actually agree with you, and am a non/neverwill-smoker.)
-
DaveH;221705 wrote:
Too late, bars are already regulated as to whether they can serve food or liquor or not, who they can serve it to, etc. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't have those regulations either. Should the kitchen in a bar/grill have to meet the government regulations on cleanliness, etc? After all, isn't it the bar owners right to serve food with salmonella if he chooses? (yes, a little devils advocate there).Actually, I prefer my food with e. coli. It tastes better.
-
Governemnt: "Don't smoke here/there/almost everywhere but for god's sake don't stop buying cigarettes, we make too much money off of them."
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.
-
3_Series;221711 wrote:
On another note I find it interesting that some of the most harmful drugs for your health are those that are perfectly legal.I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.
-
Parker;221714 wrote:
i think we should ban drinking... but hey why stop there... i say we ban darts in bars...Could you juxtapose the societal costs of alcohol consumption and smoking for me? I think that everyone's right to clean lungs/air overrides a person's right to smoke. There are designated smoking areas outside of almost all buildings now. If you want to smoke, just step outside. It's that simple.
-
tjamz;221720 wrote:
I agree.....I can think of a lot of more fun, less harmful to your system drugs than tobacco...err...umm...so I hear.Examples plz.
-
tjamz;221707 wrote:
This is the one major issue I am against of RP's. Because in MY understanding of the american laws, one persons rights end when another persons gets infringed on. .Seriously?...It's my right to go into a bar that allows smoking or not. It's my right to go out and smoke if I so chose. Placing a ban in a bar infringes on my 'rights' to smoke in a private establishment that I already know has risks aside from smoke....Ok, we need to ban cars because they effect everybody's air. We also need to kill all livestock because they create more greenhouse gases than all human transportation combined (See the UN's document 'Livestock's hidden Shadow). Let's be realistic here, if that was everybody's attitude, we wouldn't ever get anywhere because in all reality, there's no one compromise everybody will be happy with. Therefore, your arguement has no merit.
You still sound like a selfish/immature prick who wants the world to himself, and wants everybody to abide by what you think is right. You are only thinking of people like yourself. You are trying to say that because you believe 'such and such' that that is the best way out there. The best view out there is every individual's. You're trying to spin everything so it works in your favor, and the easily pursuaded may believe you, however, anybody that understands what true capitalism is and how the markets should work, will take what you have to say as a misunderstanding along with your general lack of knowledge of how the system is designed to work...(To reiderate) You're trying to manipulate the system to work for you, not as it was designed for which is to protect rights. I don't care if there's one person in Fargo that smokes. As long as bar owners keep smoking in their bars then that should be their own personal choice. Just as it's your choice to go to a bar or not...
And Mazdagirl...you sound even more selfish because you think that all because you want to drink/go to a party that you have a right to not have smoke around you. What if I like smoking and dislike drinking? Should we ban drinking because drunk people can get violent and hurt others?
Both of you are entitled to your opinions, even though they are totally skewed...
P.S. Woulda written more but I got class
(to be continued...everybody go buy stock in popcorn!) -
Pretty good post.
+2 for differentiating between you're and your
-1 for "minipulate" and "scewed"
Total = +1 = win. -
BTW, this may help ppl : http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/NDCASS/NDCASS_4/NDCASS_4_20080124_en.pdf Polls open until 8pm
-
Hahaha
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login