So Big Al, how much snow would justify an SUV? Also, I have had an SUV since the Jeep Cherokee came out in the late 1980's so its not a relatively new thing. Your peanut butter/bbq smoke comparison is quite humorous.
I hate to be a poor winner, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. You are just stupid enough to say 'well gee there, gomer, if smoking hurts people's lungs then it must be true that second hand smoke does.' Which I'm afraid is not the case. Any more than saying there is no difference between one alcoholic drink a day and three bottles of scotch a day... The science equating car pollution and lung problems is roughly comparable to second hand smoke created problems. You are probably MORE likely to get cancer from eating too much peanut butter than from second hand smoke. And smoking definitely makes you look cool. No amount of snow would justify an SUV. People got around in the 70s without them, correct? And speaking about the time mankind has been around without them, yes they are relatively new. Even speaking about how long they've been around since the car replaced the horse, yes, they are new. And speaking about how long they've been popular, yes they are REALLY new. Stop trying to score style points and get yourself some snow tires, or if you MUST have some fancypants different vehicle, you could always get one of those 4 wheel drive Subaru station wagons ... I wonder why so many Americans are so silly about this? Why is it that in Western Europe and the Med, where smoking is so much more prevalent, and the cigarettes so much nastier, that they population lives longer and is healthier, and has lower rates of lung cancer and heart disease? How can that be if smoking is so bad for you? It can't. You are just being duped by media hype and an aggressive puritan lobby.
That logic doesn't cut it, HS. If the other carcinogens are bad, address them seperately. Secondhand smoke is dangerous and annoying to others. Smokers have no right to impose their habit on others when you have ramifications like that. I imagine that other States will follow California's lead over time, although NY might be the last State to succumb. If they wanted to totally enclose an area of the restaurant or club (like in plexiglass ) and let the smokers smoke there, that'd be fine with me.
Batman, you gotta open your mind to BBQ pits....its not just meat. While I dig all meat, except liver, I grill all sorts of non-meat things on my grill... Goat cheese pizzas Grilled sliced squash/zucchini w/ olive oil Baked potatoes Stuffed potatoes Corn and cayenne in the husk the non-meat part of shish kabob although I admit that mostly I grill tenderized, marinated, and spice-rubbed animal flesh. But I love that stuff. Former smoker. Quit. Nonsmoking bars are great cause you dont smell like ass the next day. But as a former bartender, I gotta admit that smoking and drinking are like salt + pepper. Or Salt + Peppa.
I believe the Jeep Cherokee predates the late 1980s. Of course, the big SUVs such as the Suburban and the Grand Wagoneer/Cherokee Chief, etc. have been around all my life (the Cherokee Chief was introduced in 1963). Not to mention the SUV that International built all those years. Of course, the original Willy's Jeep Wagon was essentially an SUV, and that dates back to the late '40s. We just didn't call these vehicles SUVs until fairly recently. As for the bigger question of smoking in bars, I don't particularly care because I don't go to bars very often (as in never, really). The bars I've been to don't have that many smokers in them, either. Don't know why that is. Just luck of the draw or what. Plenty of drunks, though. I do find it hard to believe that bars could not survive without smokers. Do bars really only cater to the 16% or so of the population that smokes? I never realized the market for drinking and hanging out was so small. Or do all us nonsmokers just go to restaurants (which are often required by law to have smoker/nonsmoker separation) to drink and hang out? I recall hearing the talk about how restaurants would suffer if smoking was curtailed or eliminated. Didn't happen so far. So I think the bulk of bars would be fine, too. But again, I don't care whether smoking is allowed in bars or not.
If it were a unilateral law where every bar does so, then noone's business would be slower. But, if selected bars did this, then yes, I think they lose some business. Or, we just elect to smoke outside. My parents happen to own one of the only non-smoking restaurants in town, and while her restaurant is busy, there have been smokers who've walked out because of the no smoking rule.
Well, being that I don't have to worry about standing next to a car with an exhaust problem in a bar, that's a pretty ridiculous argument...doncha think there gomer? right....and the cars that people got around in the snow with back then aren't nearly as safe as the SUVs that are around now.
Ditto for me. mateo: all those other things you grill have meat on them. Whatever else he said, Hayes is right. Smoking makes you look cool.
Cohen, you are missing the boat my friend. My point is that many things are dangerous if consider dangerous above 0% bad for you. But 0% risk is NOT a viable standard. Salt, barbeques, peanut butter...pretty much anything is bad for you once you reach a certain threshold, and certainly many of these intrude on my life (pesticides in your garden or yard, barbeques, cars). Second hand smoke does not reach the threshold that we use to measure other things against in public health and safety analysis. Therefore it should not be banned on public health and safety justification, since it is no more dangerous. Of course, that all begs the question of why anyone HAS to be around smoke. You simply don't. You can favor a non-smoking establishment. You seek to remove my choice from me, instead of using your own right to choose for yourself. Or you could just go to a non-smoking restaurant. My position is reasonable. Yours is not. My position allows both environments for two different sets of people to choose. Yours does not. You are wrong. I guess I don't think its ridiculous. You don't have to go in a bar that allows smoking. You might actually HAVE to walk down the street with the subsequent air pollution. That's spurious and more than likely false as a safety issue. Almost NONE of the proliferation of SUVs was a result of safety issues. And even if true, that is all the more justification for mass transportation to replace cars altogether.
Batman....WHAT? OK, I may buy your cheese is "meat" argument, which eliminates my pizza and stuffed potato, but: zucchini and olive oil? what meat is that? the flesh of the wild greek olive? corn and cayenne pepper in husk? Is cayenne pepper meat? I dont cook it with butter if that is what you are guessing baked potato? nope, butter is added AFTER you bake it tomato, mushroom, green pepper, and onion on a metal rod? uh... maybe if its a BEEFSTEAK tomato? Anything that lets you blow smoke out of your mouth like a dragon does look cool....but I enjoy tasting things again.
But since smokers are such a small percentage of the population, would losing the smokers really make all that much difference? Or are smokers, despite their small numbers overall, just more likely to be the ones going to bars for some reason? I mean, even if every smoker decided to not go to your place, would it make that much difference? For that matter, could a bar count on more non-smokers showing up? Could at least some of them have been staying away because of the smokers? And in my town, the Chili's (which doesn't allow any smoking) is always significantly busier than the Bennigan's next door (which does have a smoking section). But maybe that's just because I live in Plano, which is full of people who are probably too vain to smoke (honestly, I can't remember ever seeing anyone smoking when I've been in the Bennigans or in other local restaurants that allow smoking. But that's my town, which is hopefully not representative of the public at large).
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=174 Libertarian Party Press Releases E-MAIL THIS STORY PRINTABLE VERSION December 21, 2000 New outdoor smoking ban is just 'social engineering' by extremists WASHINGTON, DC -- A decision by a town in Maryland to ban outdoor smoking shows that anti-cigarette laws are no longer about protecting public health, they are about "social engineering," the Libertarian Party charged today. "This new law proves that anti-smoking extremists don't really care about the potential dangers of second-hand smoke to bystanders -- they simply want to use the power of government to force other people to give up their bad habits," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "This law, and others like it around the country, also show that the damage to liberty and tolerance caused by tobacco prohibitionists has become far greater than any damage to public health caused by cigarettes." Last week, the village of Friendship Heights, Maryland passed what has been called "the nation's strictest tobacco ban" -- prohibiting smoking outdoors on government property like streets, sidewalks, and parks. Violators face a $100 fine. Supporters said the law is a "public health issue," but since the dangers of outdoor second-hand smoke are so infinitesimal and have never been proved by science, that can't be the real reason, said Dasbach. "This law is social engineering, plain and simple," he said. "It represents a small group of tobacco prohibitionists who don't like smoking. So, they are using the coercive power of government to prohibit people from engaging in a habit of which they don't approve." Unfortunately, this Friendship Heights law is just one of a growing series of zany new and proposed anti-smoking regulations around the USA, said Dasbach. Also on the list: * In San Francisco, a proposed law will treat tobacco like New York treats p*rnography: It would prohibit any store from devoting more than 25% of its floorspace to tobacco products. Existing tobacco shops would have to close within two years. * In Superior, Colorado, smoking has been outlawed on the outdoor patios of restaurants, according to the Guest Choice Network. * In West Hollywood, California, a proposed law would let landlords ban smoking in all apartments and allow only non-smokers as guests. * In Coral Springs, Florida, a proposed law would ban smoking in the city's 46 parks. "What do these regulations and proposed laws have in common?" asked Dasbach. "They are no longer attempting to protect the health of non-smokers, but are attempting to harass smokers into giving up the habit." In years past, a case could be made that anti-smoking laws in "public" places such as government buildings were designed to protect non-smokers from the potentially dangerous health consequences of other peoples' cigarette smoke, he said. "But the new series of smoking laws, such as the one in Friendship Heights, are not about health," said Dasbach. "There is no medical evidence whatsoever that exposure to an occasional whiff of smoke from someone smoking outdoors has any measurable health consequences. That's why the debate here is not about health -- but intolerance. "Friendship Heights is using the power of government to try to criminalize smoking, change the social norms, and force people to give up a habit that anti-cigarette extremists don't like. And that is far more dangerous than the possibility that someone will smoke on a public sidewalk."
And which of those things have a residual effect on the person standing next to the person ingesting those products? Nice try
I imagine smoking makes you look cool to girls who smoke. Tell yourself whatever you want to justify your addiction. Btw, I guess second-hand smoke is not dangerous because it's unfiltered? I have no idea how many people are like me, but I like alcohol and hanging out, but dislike breathing smoke. Who knows how many people are out there like me who avoid bars because of the smoke? Personally, I think a bar's popularity is determined by one of three things (assuming location is equal): 1. Cool environment 2. Number of hot chicks 3. Quality of music/band Of course, if I really knew what I was talking about, I'd open a non-smoking bar with hot chicks and cool bands and make a killing, huh?
I drink quite a bit. That explains my girth. Just kidding, I'm not that fat. But, when I do drink, even my non-smoking friends would bum cigarettes. I think the two kind of go hand in hand. Also, smokers, in my opinion, are more apt to drink more because they show a higher propensity towards addictive substances. And, although only 16% of the population smoke, that's still a sizable number of people. I think smokers party more then non-smokers. I think bars are usually 50/50 in terms of smokers vs non-smokers. So, while smokers make up a small # of the population, they do in fact represent a disproportionate amount of people at bars.
For me the solution is easy. I don't smoke, I have allergies that are enhanced by the presence of cig smoke, and to quote my 2 yr. old, "It smells yucky". In the past 2 weeks my father-in-law because of a recent health issue had to quit smoking. That is great for me, now I can go to his house for family gatherings without having to worry about smelling like an ashtray, airing out my belongings, or washing all my clothes before I even step in my house. With that said, I don't really give a rats ass if a bar is smoking or not. I have the choice not to go to a place if I don' t like the atmosphere. Like it was said earlier, I would suspect the number of bar patrons that smoke is higher than those that do not. I am not a frequenter of bars(to each his own) so a bar being smoke free isn't gonna make me more likely to go. Last time I checked Hobby Lobby was smoke free, and you will have a hard time ever catching me in that place. I also question the validity of the "Smoking makes you cool" argument. Especially when you qualify it with the following quote: Richard Greico . I think he was cool for like 2 hours one day back in 1988.
