  Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6541 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Is there a god given right to have an alternative? Life, Liberty, and a bar that suits your air quality standards? This is something that should be life to the free market. As smoking becomes less and less popular, business owners will choose to go non-smoking. The government should stay out of it. And nobody has a "right" to a smoke free bar, or any bar for that matter. Bars exist because people open them to make money, not because people have the right to go to one. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 2071 Registered: 05-2005 |
awesome, i hope it gets to the governor, y'all should quit that crap anyways  <--smoked for 8 years | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 441 Registered: 11-2007 |
So if I open a daycare or seniors facility to make money I and my staff have the right to smoke all day? | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2217 Registered: 12-2003 |
Who will enforce the law, if it is selectively enforced as it will be since the City of Detroit has too much to handle the LLC is understaffed it will be unenforcable. Not to mention the fact that the studies about the business always forget to point to out the places that rent ashtrays or have tip jars to cover the fines. If this were really about health they would make it illegal altogether but they are too addicted to the tax money generated. quote: Dan, this is not entirely correct. It is a joke and a waste of time. I do not see them looking to ban perfume, lotion and cologne from these places who can have a harmful effect on the asthmatic who are behind this in the first place. How will the ban effect the auto plants were smoking is still allowed as the UAW feels it is a workplace right. You can't the UAW negotiate this in contract and then attempt to ban it from other workplaces. (Message edited by _sj_ on May 08, 2008) | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6542 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Think about the question a little longer. Is a bar a state certified health care provider or child care provider? | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 486 Registered: 03-2005 |
Most of the rest of the country has already beat us to it, and survived. We'll be OK. One thing, smokers: Your arguments against this are starting to sound like a whole lotta Kwame. Please, please, please give it a rest with the "nanny state" and "what about fast food?" and "what about auto emissions?" and "drinking is unhealthy too!" and all that crap. You know damn well that's apples-and-oranges. And enough with the "secondhand smoke is harmless!" line. You know that's not true either. Lastly, telling someone to "just work somewhere else" or "just don't go to the bar" is ludicrous. Just say what you're really thinking: You like smoking while you drink, and you don't like being told you have to go outside for a few minutes and lose your spot at the bar. We get it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4310 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Not really. Tell me what the other leading cause of heart disease is, and you'll win a prize*. *Awarding of prize not guaranteed. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6543 Registered: 10-2003 |
There's plenty of non-smokers who feel the same way about government intervening in matters like this. It's not just smokers trying to protect their ability to smoke. Read above, there are several such posters. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 487 Registered: 03-2005 |
Not really. Tell me what the other leading cause of heart disease is, and you'll win a prize*. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's something that the person voluntarily puts into their body? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6545 Registered: 10-2003 |
If you choose to walk into a bar full of smoke, are you doing so involuntarily? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4311 Registered: 10-2003 |
Here's my take: Smokers are something like 25% of the population. The percentage of people who are obese and overweight is far higher than 25%. If you're going to label smoking as unhealthy, you should really be going after the fatasses first. For what it's worth, I know plenty of smokers who run marathons. Something tells me it's far unhealthier to shove pints and chicken wings into your face for hours on end while sitting on your ass, never mind driving home. | ||
Zephyrmec Member Username: Zephyrmec Post Number: 53 Registered: 01-2008 |
More of the nannystate bullshit. If a tavern owner wants a smoke free joint, he can hang a sign and make it so, if his business suffers he should be allowed to permit smoking or not. If you don't like bars that allow smoking, drink elsewhere. I'm not a smoker but the isolation of the 20-25% of the population that does smoke into small "smoking areas" makes the stench and filth horrible. Before the "pleasure police" started in on the smokers, it wasn't a big thing, a few people smoked, as long as there was decent ventilation being around smokers didn't bother me at all. Now, with smoking prohibited in so many places, smokers congregate in the few areas they can still smoke and it becomes overpowering. When you could still smoke on airplanes I always requested a smoking seat even though I didn't smoke, I figured that if enough non-smokers were taking up the smoking seats, there would be fewer people smoking on the plane. The same with the smoking/no smoking areas in restaurants, if the smoking area was full of non-smokers, then there would be less smoke in the whole place. It just seems to me that this society is getting crazy with the making of laws for every situation and every little thing that might offend someone. A few weeks ago I was called for jury duty, on the back of the summons there was a note "The County Courthouse is a fragrance-free zone" I'm sure glad that nobody was irritated by someone else's cologne, of course the fat bastard sitting in front of me likely hadn't showered in a week, lived on beans and eggs, and stunk like a spoiled bucket of buttholes. Of course, nobody was bothered by his deodorant or cologne! What we need for much of the population is a big huge dose of "mind your own business" and a kick in the ass to drive it home. Using the police powers of the state to ensure that not one single person is offended and we all march in lock-step just like the government and political ruling class tells us is no different than Stalinism. The "it's for your own good" or "it's for the good of the children" and other such justification is just a distraction, to keep you from realizing how little liberty we really have now. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 488 Registered: 03-2005 |
There's plenty of non-smokers who feel the same way about government intervening in matters like this. The argument against government intervention is the one I definitely do agree with. But, if there was a workable compromise that would protect the rights of the majority (remember, smokers are the minority) other than "don't go to the bar" we'd have it in place already, and there would be no legislation to debate. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4313 Registered: 10-2003 |
The problem is, once smoking bans are passed, the nonsmokers start bitching about how smoky it is on the sidewalk, patio, rooftop, al fresco dining area, etc. WHERE do you draw the line? The laws in this nation were never drafted to ensure the desires of the majority--which is inherently inevitable in a democracy--but to protect the rights of the minority. I'll see you militant nonsmokers Saturday morning at 7 for a brisk 10 miler. We'll see how vocal you are then. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2087 Registered: 09-2007 |
Sheesh, we have some uptight cigarette puffers on here, don't we? Seriously, there should be a darwin award that involves smoking. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6548 Registered: 10-2003 |
In that case, I support a full statewide ban on cell phones while driving, including the use of headsets. I've seen people drive, and I don't feel save as is. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 489 Registered: 03-2005 |
If you choose to walk into a bar full of smoke, are you doing so involuntarily? So, let me get this straight, your argument is: You CAN go to the bar to see your favorite band, but be forewarned that you won't be able to breathe in there, because it's much more important that the smokers be allowed to stink up the room than for you to be able to enjoy the band without dying of an asthma attack. After all, the entire purpose of a bar is to make you cough and make your eyes sting. It's not about music, pool or socializing. Or this: It's unfair to ask a smoker to step outside for five minutes. It's much more fair to tell the majority of the population to stay home. Sorry, not buying it. Oh, and the poster yammering about fatasses: Different issue entirely; they don't make you fat by sitting next to you. Next. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2088 Registered: 09-2007 |
"In that case, I support a full statewide ban on cell phones while driving, including the use of headsets. I've seen people drive, and I don't feel save as is." Headsets are SO early 2000s. It's all about the Bluetooth now. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6549 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Apparently you missed my argument. My argument is, none of what you just said is a "right". You are choosing to enter a private business. So what is "more important" is whatever the business owner DECIDES is more important. If he decides it's more important smokers be allowed to smoke in HIS establishment, that's his choice. If the band CHOOSES to play in a place that allows smoking, that's THEIR choice. And if you CHOOSE to go into a smoke filled bar, that's YOUR choice. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2089 Registered: 09-2007 |
Sheesh, people take so much offense now a days (now it's fat people). 40 years ago, we would just laugh and go on by our business. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 490 Registered: 03-2005 |
The problem is, once smoking bans are passed, the nonsmokers start bitching about how smoky it is on the sidewalk, patio, rooftop, al fresco dining area, etc. WHERE do you draw the line? Um... at the door? Tell me how it's going to get smoky on a rooftop? There's no ceiling and walls to hold the smoke in. That's the whole point. It's a ban on indoor smoking. The laws in this nation were never drafted to ensure the desires of the majority--which is inherently inevitable in a democracy--but to protect the rights of the minority. Exactly. We have a winner! You have the right to smoke as much as you want, outside. And nobody's taking that away. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6550 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: So smokers can smoke in a PUBLIC space, but we can't let them smoke in a PRIVATELY OWNED establishment. Got it, makes sense. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 491 Registered: 03-2005 |
Apparently you missed my argument. My argument is, none of what you just said is a "right". You are choosing to enter a private business. So what is "more important" is whatever the business owner DECIDES is more important. If he decides it's more important smokers be allowed to smoke in HIS establishment, that's his choice. If the band CHOOSES to play in a place that allows smoking, that's THEIR choice. And if you CHOOSE to go into a smoke filled bar, that's YOUR choice. OK, for the sake of argument: If a restaurant owner CHOOSES not to remove exposed asbestos, flaking lead paint, black mold and rats from his building, because it's a private establishment that you CHOOSE to go into, that's OK too? No reason for the government to get involved? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6551 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I would CHOOSE to NOT go in that establishment. Just as I'm suggesting for you! His decisions would cost him 100% of any potential business, and the free market would have succeeded once again. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 492 Registered: 03-2005 |
Of course. No need for the Health Department, Environmental Protection Agency, FDA, any of those nanny-state big-government bureaucrats. Let the free market and free choice sort it all out. Dude, I hope you're not serious. I'd hate to live in your world. | ||
Django Member Username: Django Post Number: 308 Registered: 10-2003 |
I just want to smoke a Pall Mall and drink a can at the Miami for the rest of my short ass life. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6552 Registered: 10-2003 |
No, I'm not completely serious. But the things you listed are things nobody wants around. It is a little different. I see no reason why the government should make it ILLEGAL to have a smoking establishment, for people who want to go there and partake of that LEGAL activity. At least give out licenses like they do for alchohol. | ||
Melody Member Username: Melody Post Number: 197 Registered: 11-2007 |
my two cents | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6553 Registered: 10-2003 |
Good article Melody. I liked this part: quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4316 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^This is what I don't like--there were several nonsmoking bars in DC before the ban, and they did a good business. Nobody bothered them, and no one pressured other bars to go smoke-free. Ironically, there's a place I go that allows smoking on its rooftop. They have a tent over the top (with side flaps) and heaters so they can keep the smoking-allowed rooftop open during the winter. The roof deck is invariably packed, even while the indoor floor below is completely empty. Where's FDR and John Wayne when you need some asses kicked? |
