Or Slovenia yesterday. That's not the point. Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales intersect at -40°.
Probably the best way to describe the sentiments with the proposed law. Two more things: If various cities and communities throughout the states can offer these for "free"... ...why can't the same cities and communities offer these to bars/clubs... ===== Point #2... I wonder when/if there will be a class action lawsuit, such as the famed Flight Attendants, for bartenders or strippers?* * - I claim this lucrative idea as my own and will in turn force a lawsuit on any of you who steal it
At the end of the day .. . I am like DaDakota on the issue WHY NOT LET THE BAR DECIDE??? If you don't like smoking . .. and the bar has smoking .. . DON'T GO THERE Find another one . . .that doesn't allow smoking or Open one that does not allow smoking . .. and catch all the spill over It is like me going to your favorite bar saying I like everything except they play country music then making a law that says bars cannot play country music Rocket River
it is nothing like that. my country music doesn't affect your health. (insert country music joke here) and why on Earth would I alter where I eat and drink based on a minority of the public who need to express their civil right to smoke? I'm not going to take the burden of avoiding my favorite hypothetical restaurant to give the minority that right. I would rather put the burden on the smokers to find a better place to pollute the air. but by all means, if it is up to the owners to decide, absolutely, I wouldn't go into the "smoking bars" or restaurants. but I'm talking about family restaurants like Pappas that have smoking sections at the bars and a seated smoking section. If they think they are separating the smoking from the non-smoking public, they are deluded. why do you think they took out smoking sections on airplanes in the 1980's? it was a public health hazard. this is no different.
Why not complain to Pappas . . . either they change or find somewhere else It should be *their* choice . . . . not a government mandate what it seems to me is a bunch of non-smokers rather than speak up to the owners. . and put their money were their mouth is . . decided to b*tch and moan to politicians. . .rather than the source [bar owners] Rocket River
But the difference is that airplanes are part of the public transportation system. Restaurants are privately owned businesses who have patrons that go there entirely voluntarily. The whole argument doesn't really work for customers - it could work for employees. However, if we're banning smoking in private businesses, should we also then ban smoking in private homes? After all, should we allow children to be forced to suffer from secondhand smoke against their will? It seems to be the same basic principle.
I freaking wish. I get so pissed when I see people smoking around their kids. My best friend growing up constantly had horrible inner ear infections and asthma and allergies that were exacerbated by both her parents heavy smoking.
What about serving alcohol in Bars? Or in public. I mean if you feel like people smoking around you once in a while is detrimental to you in public; then I would also argue that drunk people, through the effect of drunk driving, acting like A-holes, beligerent idiots, becoming violent and a host of other things people due while being drunk should also lead to a ban of alchol in public (not prohibition, just saying people can't drink in public places... kind of like cigaretes). I don't smoke, but the problem I have with this sort of legislation is that the arguments for it are valid, but really isn't enough of a cause for it to be banned in public. The real reason it's being banned is because it's now trendy to be against smokers and cool to not be smoking.
You can drink responsibly without doing any of those things. You cannot, however, smoke without creating secondhand smoke.
You *can*, but plenty of people don't. If the purpose of the ban is for the convenience for those adversely affected as well as safety of others, isn't what actually is happening the relevant thing? For comparison, if there was a way for the smoker to collect all the secondhand smoke, would you be OK with it being legal even if most smokers didn't actually collect it?
they do have those ashtrays with the vacuums in them would folx be ok if they require all restaurants to have them? Rocket River
I used to be a hardcore smoker and quit a few years back (but I still miss it and enjoy the smell - it doesn't bother me, although I WILL NEVER start again). Allowing bars and restaurants to decide will not work. Of course a non-smoking bar/restaurant/concert venue will fail if there is smoking friendly one across the street. That is why Gov. has to regulate, the market can't force it. I feel for you smokers because I used to be in the same boat, but even back then I could understand the reasons and adapted. I've dealt with the non smoking in California, NY and Austin, its not hard.
Would you support a regulation of not being able to purchase more than two drinks on a single tab/by a single person at each establishment? Besides, the main point of my argument that the current ban is more based on public sentiment than any realistic reason.
We've been through this before with umpteen thousand different similies for "what it's like." Like it or not, these public smoking bans are winning...and it's not just a US thing. You'll get thrown out of bars in Dublin, London and Paris for smoking. There are very real health concerns and nuisance issues for people in public places with smoke.
It doesn't matter what feeble analogy you come up with. You can't see the difference between someone smoking, drinking, or gay marriage ban. You'll just have to accept life isn't always fair. Anyone remember back 20-25 years ago before malls banned it? Christmas time was horrible.
These people for the ban are Hypocrits. I do not think banning cigs from restaurants is a bad thing, although I do not agree with the gov. dictating what people can do in thier own business. My problem comes from the people saying ban from bars. This is the most hypocritical fad right now. I want to go out kill my liver off, get cocky and violent with people, Blast my eardrums out, jump in my car and wipe out a few people on my drunken ride home. But I will be damned if I am gonna smell some smoke during my drunken night. No good comes from people going to bars, and for people to act offended at the guy sitting in the corner bothering nobody smoking while the non-smoker and smoker does all of the above is crazy. What about the business with the cats and dogs running around? When does this become a fine? Many people are allergic, What is the differrence? The list can go on and on. Its like a relationship. THe more you ground you give, the more they take.
This analogy doesn't work. If the problem is that people are starting fights or driving drunk, you outlaw those things. You don't need to penalize people who drink responsibly in order to address those concerns. If someone could collect the smoke, but most people didn't, then of course you would legalize smoking wherever as long as the smoke was collected. However, that's not the case; unlike with drinking, it's impossible to smoke without harming those around you. No, because you can have more than two drinks without doing anything to harm anyone else. I don't think it particularly matters what people's motivations are as long as they can come up with a good argument as to why such a policy should be enacted.
I'm pretty sure the two things you mentioned that harm others (violence and drunken vehicular manslaughter) are both illegal. So, I'm not really seeing your point in that regard.
