Tee hee. Smoking "ban"

I didnt realize that bars were for smoking ciggarettes, I thought the point of bars was to be able to buy a drink with other people.

 

thanks moron, i did read the thread. my point is smokers shouldnt be complaining about a ban. it was their choice to start smoking, so they should have to live with their choice. They can complain about a ban all they want but its not goin to make it go away.

 

Depends on the bar.(until the fascists have their way. Ever hear of a cigar bar? Smoking and drinking have long gone together. Please tell me you are just acting dumb.

 

Why are you even reading this thread? It isn't to discuss the smoking ban apparently. Why don't you stop complaining about people complaining, lol?

 

Hayes, its hard for me to argue with you because of how much i love your username, but you're wrong. Literature is the word used to reference raw scientific journal articles - the research literature, not layperson "literature" like from jehovas witnesses pass out in front of walgreens.

Saying ETS research is science by agenda propoganda is, of course, the propoganda. ETS research is key not just in understanding the impacts of smoking, but how lungs work under duress, the etiology of a wide range of diseases and disorders. Calling that science a sham requires a remarkable suspension of disbelief of how the NIH works, how scientific research works, and how the peer review process works. And how lungs work, by thew way. There's not some activist scientist somewhere with a hard on for banning smoking controlling this. this is a community of scientists demonstrating the impact of secondhand smoke again and again and again and again. Why would Phillip Morris cave thew way they have if they did not know they had no case? Even they know they have no case against the science, its why they are moving their focus to places like china, africa, russia, wherever. The debate is over. They've lost and they know it. The scientific jury is not out on ETS being a substantive health risk. The jury handed in its verdict and went home.

But if you're convinced ETS research is a sham, by all means post some info.

And look, I am not saying the banning smoking issue in every bar int the world thing is cut and dry. It's not, i understand that. Someone earlier in the thread argued the point convincingly andd nicely, probably batman. But arguing the ban by saying a) I have a right to do whatever I want wherever I want or b) ETS literature is a sham is inconsistent with other angles of american health policy and just incorrect. If you want to argue it, fine, we can talk. But not with scientifically unsound arguments and not with pseudo-individualist tobacco industy parrotting smokers rights posturing. Its not reasonable.

 

Well Im sorry, I was under the impression that everyone here knew that a cigar bar was for smoking. So when I said bar, thats why I left out CIGAR, because I wasnt talking about a cigar bar. Im referring to bars that serve only drinks, where most people go to to drink, not specifically smoking.

Are you saying that because smoking and drinking have "long gone together" that non smokers should have to put up with the smokers because they want to go to a bar to get a drink.... remember, Im not talkin about cigar bars captain.

 

For the last time. Smokers just want a small percentage of bars to enjoy a drink and a smoke. You don't have to put with anything, unlike us reading your posts.

 

Thanks!

Hardly.

Hello? It's called wordplay.

It doesn't require anything other than an understanding that 'science' can be influenced by agenda in the real world. The consensus has, in its time, contended the world was flat, pot caused 'reefer madness,' etc etc.

You're the one asserting that something is fact, so feel free to elaborate and we can go from there.

I'm glad you don't agree with a ban. I don't either. I'd rather have my 7% of the bars and you can have your 93%. You guys would be hanging out with us anyway since the cool bars would be the ones allowing smoking.

I gave solid examples of where your assertion about health policy was actually incorrect. You ignored them. I don't mind having a conversation on the topic with you but don't hide behind an asserted consensus and then refuse to come out and play.

 

I didnt realize you had to put up with my posts, is someone forcing you to read them or something? Just like some of the smokers in this same thread say, if you dont wanna put up with the smoke, then leave. So if you dont want to put up with my posts, I think you know what to do.

i guess someone should change the title then, "smoking ban" is a little misleading.

 

it would be one thing if smoker's had just recently started going to bars but this is obviously not the case. it is non-smokers who are the little b****es. i have gotten used to the ban but if they repealed it, well, that would be even better. bars are for sin, get used to it.

 

I am a former smoker - and this ban in NYC helped me quit. Not being able to light up with a beer was helpful. Also the increased prices. So I can say I support the ban.

Second hand smoke is poisonous, and the fact is, studies in new york show that the smoking ban didn't impact bar business - as all of a sudden, people who didn't go to bars because of smoke now were going out more. Smokers will find accomodation, and smoking on a patio or outside in the open air is a big difference from an enclosed area with smoke accumulates.

 

Explain to me the motiviations and systems of reward for scientists to fake data.

There was no data behind refer madness or flat world theories. Those, of course, were people who ignored or had no access to Scientific Method 101 - proofs, test/retest, validity and inter-rater reliability etc. Sort of like those who think all the ETS literature is agenda based.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Your move.

 

I agree with you 100%

 

I'm looking forward to the gov regulation sun exposure. We should start by ticketing underage beach goers, or parents who let their kids go free without appropriate sunscreen. Skin cancer is an epidemic. The health care costs are staggering. The lifetime risk of developing invasive malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer is 1 in 55. Lifeguards should not be exposed to the sun. It is not their choice to be a lifeguard. Deep inside most of them don't even like the beach or swimming pools. But don't worry, a new police force will be formed and you will be saved.

 

Smoking bans are not to protect smokers, it's to protect nonsmokers.

 

So why worry about bartenders who smoke?

 

This statement should be defined as a marriage proposal between Batman Jones and thadeus.

And, to the folks who want safety rails mandated for skydivers: I don't dig the attempt to reframe this as a 'public safety' defense. Politicians draft these anti-smoking agendas for political reasons, and people either agree or disagree with them for personal reasons. Dig up all the literature on secondhand smoke you'd like, because this is really about your preferences. I'll feel free to dig up all the free market garbage I like (but I won't because I think the 'free market' is bull**** in 99% of arguments it's used in), because this is really about my preferences. You don't like cigarettes, you don't want to be in smoky bars. That's your real argument. I like smoking and drinking in bars. That's my argument. The times have changed and now your argument is winning. That sucks for me, but I'll live with smoking outside where I need to - but I think I should have the option to smoke in a bar the same way you have the option to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

To throw away all the 'public safety' debate: drinking alcohol is bad for you, and the number of people driving home from the bar are far more deadly to your life than spending one weekend night in a bar where I'm smoking a cigarette. We have laws against drunk driving, but obviously they're not stopping it - so why not just ban bars? No one's in favor of that, because they like bars. But public perception has turned against smokers, and the nationwide anti-smoking campaign has assured that fewer people smoke.

Like most things, this is a numbers game. More anti-smokers = more votes for anti-smoking legislation. I'd argue that we should also look out for the minority, the protection of the rights of the minority, but I'd only be saying that because I like to smoke while I'm sitting at the bar.

But why shouldn't I have the option of going to a bar where I can smoke? If you don't like it, you'll have plenty of nice bars that don't allow smoking. Here's your real answer (before you dig out all the 'public safety' junk): You want to be able to go to a different bar, anywhere, whenever you want without people making your clothes smell smokey. You would even invade my hypothetical little dive bar that still allows smoking, because, although you've never been there, you might be there someday, and you don't think you should have to put up with people smoking in there, and public opinion is on your side now.

Everything else is rhetoric. We're clinging to the rules of utilitiarian talking points - the 'greatest good for the greatest number' - but that's not what this is about. This is about personal preference, for everyone involved. I like smoking, you don't. More people are on your side. You win, and the world is nice and sterile and comfy for you again.

And that's a shame.

 

Or we could legalize pissing in the water supply, drunk driving, date rape, child labor and firing guns into crowds.

The point is, we draw lines. It's not all a matter or principle. Sometimes, we have to draw lines. often, that is not easy. I understand this is not easyt.

What I am trying to point out, Meowgi - I feel like reasonable discussion is muted by the whole "YOU ARE TRYING TO CONTROL MY LIFE" act. or Hayes assertion that the data are ambiguous. I'm not trying to control anyone. But the science and the rights of non smokers to access music venues or restaurants or bars is not insignificant. And I find it hard to negotiate with you on this.

 

you are so bonobo