Stop the smoking?

[KikkyMonk]

I agree that smoking is not a good idea in public places. But on the other hand I think there should be bars where you CAN smoke. Everyone who goes there and works there knows its a smoking establishment and acts accordingly. This to me is a no brainer.

 

Dave

[Prague]

This is what needs to happen, and is happening in "dry" counties. The bar owners have to succumb to the new Puritans. When you enter the place, you sign a guest list, which is pretty much an invitation by definition. This means it is your choice to enter the property and its environs. Once again, it is private property and the new Puritans have no jurisdiction.

 

Funny how large numbers of people are supposedly "Pro choice" about one issue (we know which one I'm referring to), but EVERYTHING else MUST be compulsory.

 

Isn't it great how people's perspectives have changed since 9/11? Good thing those people weren't smoking in the World Trade Center or on the 737's.

[Cowbell]

There are bars where you can smoke. The new law has a couple bars in North Dallas that allow smoking.

[Edendude]

It would be interesting to set things up in the beginning so that 50% of bars in any given block or district were permitted to allow smoking within, for a period of one year. After one year, these 'smoking permits' would have to be given up to the non-smoking bars which wanted to go 'smoking' the following year.

 

This would be an excellent way to get all bar owners onside with a smoking ban, because after one year of competing with the non-smoking bars, which would have access to a market 'double' the size, all bar owners would eventually WANT to become full-time, non-smoking bars.

 

There are millions of non-smoking people out there whom love live entertainment and music, and whom enjoy the social atmosphere or a club or bar. But they do not patronize such establishment, because of the smoke.

 

Only a truly inept business person would not recognize the value of this much larger market of potential bar and club patrons.

 

It's just simple economics.

 

[Idnarb]

Oh boy...all this legal talk... so...tempted...to..give legeal disseration...must...refrain!

 

-Idnarb is a pirate AND a lawyer

[Prague]

Originally posted by Edendude:

It would be interesting to set things up in the beginning ...

 

Only a truly inept ...

 

Things already were set up. It was called free enterprise, R.I.P. The "truly inept" are the ones who can't participate in enterprise and have become babysitters.

[Edendude]

Yes, and your mind can be a prison, too. You just proved it.

 

 

The only 'free enterprise' you appear to support is that of the cigarette companies whom make slaves of people. Slavery might have been free enterprise at one time, but I think we've moved beyond that. Time to catch up, dude!

 

If you really supported the idea of free enterprise you'd see that allowing bars to tap into larger markets is exactly what free enterprise is all about.

[JDL]

Whats all this talk about?

Smoking is bad(IMO), but people do it anyways, and taking it out of a cover won't do much to stop it, in my opinion.

What loser would start smoking cuz they saw an "upright legend" doing it?

They must either be:

a.demented

b.really young

c.a loser

 

my $.02

BTW, I'm not up on whats going on in the thread now, I just read Cowbell's first thing.

 

JDL

[shex]

what a stupid concept!

like a picture of paul mccartney holding a cigarette is going to make anyone in modern society who has never smoked, say "hey im going to start smoking like paul!"

for anyone who already smokes, or "started because of it", it's too late.

[Prague]

Originally posted by Edendude:

 

"cigarette companies whom make slaves"

 

Given the choice, I think the ancient Hebrews would have chosen Camel straights. Rote analogy.

 

"Time to catch up, dude!"

 

I dismissed peer pressure when I was 14 years old.

 

"If you really supported the idea of free enterprise you'd see that allowing bars to tap into larger markets is exactly what free enterprise is all about."

 

I agree. Allow people to tap their markets. Period.

That was easy.

[Edendude]

Ummm...no...that would just equate to outright stupidity...

 

I think we'd all agree that if you allowed people to market what ever they wanted to, and how ever they wanted to, then "free enterprise" would include the following...

 

Slavery

Child Pornography

Smack & Coke Bars

Child Prostitution

A Human Organ Market

Murder For Hire

Politicians For Sale

 

Barking and ranting about "free enterprise" as a reason to allow the 'sale' of these commodities is just as absurd and ignorant an argument as it is for allowing smoking in bars to continue.

[Prague]

Well, now that you protect me from "them", who will protect me from you? I'm better off fending for myself, but thanks for the help.

[surfmonkey]

Originally posted by paostby:

Well, now that you protect me from "them", who will protect me from you? I'm better off fending for myself, but thanks for the help.

HUH?

 

What's the big deal? The smoking ban doesn't impinge your right to smoke. Most bars and restaurants provide a patio where you can smoke. Or, God forbid you have to go outside for five minutes. Not really much of a sacrifice.

 

Keep up the good work Edendude! You're saving me the trouble of having to post on this thread.

[wraub]

As to the original post- This is akin to the idiots who had the Twin Towers removed from movies shot in NYC. Revisionist A**holes, all of 'em. Let the record stand. Any attempt to alter an image to make it more palatable to a group, any group, is censorship. End of story.

As to the more discussed issue of smoking, per se, I must both agree with some of, and take issue with much of, what has been said here. I have been a smoker, and have quit, so I feel I may add an informed opinion. The free market model does not, in my opinion, exclude the manufacture of inherently dangerous or offensive products. In fact, if it did, a lot of American corporations would go belly up. (Not to mention there would be no cars, skateboards, lawnmowers, guns, firecrackers, petroleum products, or J. Lo movies.)

It is up to the consumer to decide on, and to place a suitable demand for, those products it deems desirable, and the producers of those products to then maintain production of same. If you as a consumer opt out of those goods, but I do not, why should your choice affect mine, except as decided by the production sector? If you opt out, but I do not, why should you be able to decide where I can partake, especially if it is in a place either of us may or may not choose to be?

Additionally, if that place is already understood to offer a certain entertainment type?

When I play at a bar, I consider the smoke the cost of doing business at that place, much as I sucked it up and got rained on when I played gigs outside in rainy season. And, cleaner impulses notwithstanding, isn't the natural system of checks and balances maintained by these people? What with seat belts, batting helmets, no lead paint, and the like, I say any means necessary to thin the herd.

For some people to call others "dickheads" merely because they labor under the delusion that they have the "right" or "freedom" to do as they please to their own bodies, reminds me of our current administration saying "there ought to be limits to freedom" or "Americans had better watch what they say", both recent actual statements from our government.

I am old enough to remember when what you did to yourself was your decision, to be made without policy wonks and focus groups leading the PAC path to blandness.

I liked things better then.

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[DanYmaL X]

I'm sorry, you lost me at the 'J. Lo movies' part. Could you repeat that?

DX

[wraub]

Originally posted by danymal_x:

I'm sorry, you lost me at the 'J. Lo movies' part. Could you repeat that?

DX

1. Smoking is bad for you.

2. Having the right to choose to smoke is good for you, even if smoking is not.

3. Freedoms have many strange bedfellows.

 

That's about it.

 

Hope this clears things up.

[DanYmaL X]

Originally posted by wraub:

Originally posted by danymal_x:

I'm sorry, you lost me at the 'J. Lo movies' part. Could you repeat that?

DX

1. Smoking is bad for you.

2. Having the right to choose to smoke is good for you, even if smoking is not.

3. Freedoms have many strange bedfellows.

 

That's about it.

 

Hope this clears things up.

Yeah, yeah, but what about the J. Lo part?

 

DX

[wraub]

Originally posted by danymal_x:

Originally posted by wraub:

Originally posted by danymal_x:

I'm sorry, you lost me at the 'J. Lo movies' part. Could you repeat that?

DX

1. Smoking is bad for you.

2. Having the right to choose to smoke is good for you, even if smoking is not.

3. Freedoms have many strange bedfellows.

 

That's about it.

 

Hope this clears things up.

Yeah, yeah, but what about the J. Lo part?

 

DX

I hear she's also had many strange bedfellows...

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[Edendude]

What interests me, after reading the drivel spewed by those whom think smoking in bars and restaurants should continue to be allowed, because of their distorted perception of what 'free enterprise' and 'personal freedom' means, is that by the logic of their very own arguments, as expressed within this thread, they believe that I should be able to walk into any bar or restaurant, once I have taken up the habit of chewing tobacco plugs, and spit nice big juicy wads of plug in to the beer glasses and plates of the patrons who are trying to enjoy themselves in such establishments.

 

Funny how the argument doesn't hold up so well now, huh?!

[surfmonkey]

Originally posted by wraub:

The free market model does not, in my opinion, exclude the manufacture of inherently dangerous or offensive products. In fact, if it did, a lot of American corporations would go belly up. (Not to mention there would be no cars, skateboards, lawnmowers, guns, firecrackers, petroleum products, or J. Lo movies.)

It is up to the consumer to decide on, and to place a suitable demand for, those products it deems desirable, and the producers of those products to then maintain production of same. If you as a consumer opt out of those goods, but I do not, why should your choice affect mine, except as decided by the production sector? If you opt out, but I do not, why should you be able to decide where I can partake, especially if it is in a place either of us may or may not choose to be?

Sure there are dangerous and offensive products out there. I'm not arguing for banning smoking completely. Let's take all of your analogies. Cars. It is your personal freedom to own a car. If you wish to drive it you must follow certain rules and laws in consideration and safety of others. That fact that you own a car does not give you the right to drive on the wrong side of the road, or do donuts in my front yard . Guns. You need a permit to own a gun. The fact that you own a gun, does not give you the right to shoot it wherever you please. So, why is it that restrictions can't be placed on smoking? It's common sense to me.

[DanYmaL X]

Yeah baby!

You nailed it on the head with that one, Surfmonkey...

bottom line... smoking is a health hazard... as is drunk driving, drive-by shooting, toxic dumping, etc. etc. etc. and should be treated as such and regulated. If you want to drive drunk, do it on an empty road so you'll only kill yourself... if you want to shoot your AK-47 full-auto, do it in a regulated environment (controlled range)or at least in an empty canyon somewhere where the ricochet's will only hit you... if you want to dump toxic waste, well, don't...

If you are a restaurant owner, and you allow someone to sit next to me and light up, I and my family and friends will get up, walk out, probably not pay for the meal and most certainly never, ever go back. That is a growing attitude in this country, and many others.

 

And thats all I have to say about that.

DX

[Prague]

Originally posted by Edendude:

...after reading the drivel spewed ...

Funny how some people think personal insults and ad hominem attacks are necessary to intellect. When I disagree with someone, hate doesn't come to mind. But hate can be intoxicating. Unless insults are "tough love".

 

When I enter your night club I won't question your rules, or I will leave. If you enter mine, will you reciprocate? Who's being tolerant? Harmony is as good for music as it is for life.

[Edendude]

Drivel is drivel...

 

It has nothing to do with 'hate'.

 

Drivel is usually produced, as it has been here in this thread by several uninformed individuals, when a speaker/poster has a very limited grasp of the issue at hand and thus finds him or herself way out his or her depth. Resulting in side-steping of the obvious logic, in favor of tangental diatribe and rhetoric.

 

Any patron or employee whom enters a bar or restaurant should have the 'right' to work within, or patronize that establishment, without having to endure the health risks and discomfort of cigarette smoke being imposed upon them.

 

Not only is this my opinion and the opinion of the majority of people, based on rationale, fairness, and logic, but it's in my future and your's. So stop whining and get used to it.

[dcr]

[Prague]

Originally posted by Edendude:

Drivel is drivel...

 

I don't participate any further when subjective insults are used. He who insults first loses.

 

Bye, forum.

[Edendude]

[DanYmaL X]

Is this thread still going?

Wow.

Maybe its time to call it quits and move on to the next topic? Everybody's made their points, (sometimes several times over... )

And I'm just adding fuel by posting this, aren't I? Oops.

Oh well.

l8r

DX

[wraub]

Ok. I have been without a computer for a while, but I return to find a longterm poster I had once thought informed, not only making an ill-conceived point (more than once), but bolstering his argument by calling those opposed to it "dickheads". Truly a level of discourse not seen by me since grade school.

I am old enough to remember smoking sections in all restaurants, and at most it was a minor annoyance, an unpleasant aroma wafting towards my table, If necessary, I could move to another table, or the smoker could be moved as well (this actually happened.) It was all part of daily co-existence in society. But that was then.

Now, neo-Nazis march in jack booted solidarity to acheive their own ends, at the expense of those opposed.

If I, as the owner of a business, wish to provide potential clientele with options neither illegal, or damaging to the fabric of society, then I should be allowed to provide it. This would be right in a free society, where if you do not want to come to my Thursday cigarette aided "Must Smoke TV" promotion, then you can opt out. But if others want in, why should they be deprived of their choice? And why should my customers have to go outside to smoke, sometimes when it is freezing or worse outside, if I have 4 walls and a working air filtration system?

Bicycles are known to be dangerous, and yet helmet laws are not mandatory at all ages. Utah is widely considered to be a "dry" state, with no alcohol served publicly, and yet you can join a "private club" for a nominal fee, and drink 'til your liver cries Mary. And since smoking is bad, drugs are bad, except for prescription drugs, which are good and even marketed and prescribed to children, often needlessly.

In a society of mutual existences, it is incumbent on those in that society to co-exist in an enlightened and mutually satisfactory manner, or else it is not so much shared existences as allowed ones.

If you choose not to drink, should all bars be closed? If I eat at an Italian restaurant, and the Indian place next door smells too strongly of curry for me to enjoy my linguine, which restaurant should be closed?

And to equate you doing donuts on my lawn (unsafe driving) or spitting tobacco chunks on me while I eat (assault) with smoking (neither societally unsafe or outwardly threatening) is a tactic typical of the knee jerk elite.

And please remember that second hand smoke is only a threat if you can not walk away.

Drinking is demonstrably more of an outward threat on a social level, as evidenced by the lack of "Mothers Against Smoking Drivers", and yet I assume you would still play in a smoke free bar, so it's apparently not entirely about health or logic. And as there would be, presumably, people in that bar with Nicotine gum or patches, it can't be your opposition to cigarettes per se, except for the pesky smoke. And as this is your opposition to the smoke, you are really forcing the choices of others based on your preferences.

Go across the street and play, work, or drink in that no smoking bar, and others can smoke while they do the same in the other bar down the block, and we all have a choice. And if someone walks into the wrong bar by mistake, they can choose to walk away from you. As I do now.

 

Now, what's the best bass?

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[_Sweet Willie_]

Originally posted by wraub:

Now, what's the best bass?

 

Peace,

 

wraub

Seismic. No question.

[Edendude]

Wraub...

 

I'll reply to your post by simply quoting Surfmonkey, he seems to have an understanding of the issue which completely eludes you...

 

"It is your personal freedom to own a car. If you wish to drive it you must follow certain rules and laws in consideration and safety of others. The fact that you own a car does not give you the right to drive on the wrong side of the road, or do donuts in my front yard. Guns...You need a permit to own a gun. The fact that you own a gun, does not give you the right to shoot it wherever you please. So, why is it that restrictions can't be placed on smoking? It's common sense to me."