Smoking Bans - Page 10

**_Ender_** · 11-21-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Ender_

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

So the smokers get to have all the rights. Forgive me if I think that's rather unfair.

But its somehow more fair to tell them they cant smoke in a place that allows smoking?

Clearly understand what is being argued. verbose is not asking for smokers to be denied the ability to smoke in areas where smoking is allowed. verbose is arguing, and so am I, that smoking not be allowed in a place that it will harm people nearby.

Wyzcrak

I was under the impression, from wolfie's posts, that we were arguing about smoking inside a bar that allows it.

If I am mistaken, then please excuse me.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:06 PM

An understandable mistake.

Wyzcrak

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 08:07 PM

That has been my point the entire time, Thank you Ender!

I believe a bar owner should have the option of allowing smoking inside his establish. He is the one that bought the bar, the license, etc etc.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:14 PM

Are you opposed to the regulation of smoking on airplanes? If so, why? If not, why?

Wyzcrak

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:28 PM

Some interesting text I've found online.

Quote:

While James Madison warned of the dangers of majority tyranny, he also argued that majority rule was the essence of democracy. Permitting public indoor smoking allows the minority to rule, harming the majority. And smokers are a distinct minority. Only 25 percent of the nation's adults are smokers; in California, it's 18 percent. Further, 70 percent of smokers say they'd like to kick the habit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

My free-market friend said private businesses have rights and shouldn't be forced to ban smoking. But private property rights aren't inalienable. Private businesses don't have the right to ignore the minimum wage or health and safety regulations. Since the New Deal, the federal government has regulated private businesses in order to serve the public welfare.

Wyzcrak

verbose · 11-21-2003, 08:40 PM

Smoking is the exception to a long list of laws that say it is illegal for an employer to force an employee to work unprotected in a hazardous environment, and illegal to subject non-employees to hazard. Smoking also skirts all the laws that say it is illegal to knowingly harm others.

To those who think smoking should be allowed in bars, restaurants, and other similar places: why should smoking be allowed to be an exception?

*edit* Nice excerpt, Wyzcrak. Says much of what I've been trying to convey, but in fewer words. Once again, living up to my handle

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Wyzcrak

So we can assume that Wyz believes that the government has always done the right thing....

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 09:26 PM

Lets say I buy a bar and I want to cater to people who want to drink, eat some food, chat with their friends, listen to some music, and enjoy a good smoke while doing all this. How is this being hazardous to anyone else? If someone wants a job, I tell them that this is a smoking environment and if they are okay with it, I give them the job. If not, I suggest to them to look somewhere else.

I allow non-smokers into my establishment, but I expect them to respect the rights of my patrons to light up if they choose to. I didn't create the bar for them, my bar was setup to cater to the desires of the smoking crowd.

But yet, you are telling me I can't because I am creating a hazardous place to the public and my employees. I disagree. My employees know that smoking is allowed in my business. If they don't want to be exposed, they should be looking for a job elsewhere.

My patrons know I allow smoking. If they have a problem with that, then they can simply go someplace else.

**_Ender_** · 11-21-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

That has been my point the entire time, Thank you Ender!

I believe a bar owner should have the option of allowing smoking inside his establish. He is the one that bought the bar, the license, etc etc.

No problem dude!

I have been reading this thread since the beginning, and I swear I saw you saying "smoking in a bar that allows it" so I just assumed thats what we were talking about since somebody arguing for smoking in a bar that doesnt allow it would be rather stupid.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Lets say I buy a bar and I want to cater to people who want to drink, eat some food, chat with their friends, listen to some music, and enjoy a good smoke while doing all this. How is this being hazardous to anyone else? If someone wants a job, I tell them that this is a smoking environment and if they are okay with it, I give them the job. If not, I suggest to them to look somewhere else.

I allow non-smokers into my establishment, but I expect them to respect the rights of my patrons to light up if they choose to. I didn't create the bar for them, my bar was setup to cater to the desires of the smoking crowd.

But yet, you are telling me I can't because I am creating a hazardous place to the public and my employees. I disagree. My employees know that smoking is allowed in my business. If they don't want to be exposed, they should be looking for a job elsewhere.

My patrons know I allow smoking. If they have a problem with that, then they can simply go someplace else.

Are you prepared to defend the same policy if you decide you prefer to have your privately-owned bar's central heat and air units emitting carbon monoxide into the dining area? If so, why? If not, why not?

This is the third time I've asked a direct question in that last two pages, only to have them ignored. Add to that the fact that you've explained the same bar scenario like three times in this thread without offering any new angle on it, and this thread is quickly approaching an impasse, which is a damn shame because I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

I've already stated the obvious in the clearest of terms once. Your bar example was part of a bigger issue, which you've hit on several times already in this thread. This discussion is bigger than bars.

Wyzcrak

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Are you prepared to defend the same policy if you decide you prefer to have your privately-owned bar's central heat and air units emitting carbon monoxide into the dining area? If so, why? If not, why not?

Um, that is a completely different issue. It isn't the same as allowing people to smoke. If I have to explain to you why that isn't....

verbose · 11-22-2003, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Are you prepared to defend the same policy if you decide you prefer to have your privately-owned bar's central heat and air units emitting carbon monoxide into the dining area? If so, why? If not, why not?

Um, that is a completely different issue. It isn't the same as allowing people to smoke. If I have to explain to you why that isn't....

How is it different? Assume we're ignorant here. I happen to think that they're similar angles on the same basic issue. Please explain.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Are you prepared to defend the same policy if you decide you prefer to have your privately-owned bar's central heat and air units emitting carbon monoxide into the dining area? If so, why? If not, why not?

Um, that is a completely different issue. It isn't the same as allowing people to smoke. If I have to explain to you why that isn't....

How is it different? Assume we're ignorant here. I happen to think that they're similar angles on the same basic issue. Please explain.

*sigh*

How many people you know go looking for bars that have a faulty carbon monoxide heater in it? Nobody wants to suck down carbon monoxide from a heater. However, there are people out there that do enjoy a good smoke, which my business allows them to do in the comfort of being indoors.

Sucking down carbon monoxide is not a choice people wanted. Smoking is a choice that people make.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Smoking is the exception to a long list of laws that say it is illegal for an employer to force an employee to work unprotected in a hazardous environment, and illegal to subject non-employees to hazard. Smoking also skirts all the laws that say it is illegal to knowingly harm others.

But in my example, I am not forcing the employees to work in that condition. That is their choice to work in a bar that caters to smokers. If they feel strongly about not breathing in smoke from smokers, then why take the job in the first place?

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Remove from this discussion what you've always known as the norm. Consider cigarette smoking as nothing more than a legal act that harms those nearby. It makes perfect sense that the government is NOT out of line by regulating just exactly how those performing the legal act are NOT permitted to go about it.

What about people that smoke in their homes? Why not bans for them? I am sure that non-smokers that go to someone's house that smokes doesn't like that the fact that they are breathing in second hand smoke.

Wouldn't the government be out of line regulating where people smoke on privately owned land? Or do you believe that the government should invade our homes and tell us what we can and can not do in our house?

11-21-2003, 08:06 PM	#137 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,139	An understandable mistake. Wyzcrak __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

11-21-2003, 08:14 PM	#139 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,139	Are you opposed to the regulation of smoking on airplanes? If so, why? If not, why? Wyzcrak __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smoking Ban	Buck Fush	The Sandbox	127	07-24-2006 12:24 PM
Smoking Tarpan	percu	Battlefield 2 - After Action Reports	20	11-21-2005 07:17 PM

11-21-2003, 08:07 PM	#138 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	That has been my point the entire time, Thank you Ender! I believe a bar owner should have the option of allowing smoking inside his establish. He is the one that bought the bar, the license, etc etc.

11-21-2003, 08:40 PM	#141 (permalink)
verbose Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Age: 27 Posts: 409	Smoking is the exception to a long list of laws that say it is illegal for an employer to force an employee to work unprotected in a hazardous environment, and illegal to subject non-employees to hazard. Smoking also skirts all the laws that say it is illegal to knowingly harm others. To those who think smoking should be allowed in bars, restaurants, and other similar places: why should smoking be allowed to be an exception? edit Nice excerpt, Wyzcrak. Says much of what I've been trying to convey, but in fewer words. Once again, living up to my handle

11-21-2003, 09:26 PM	#143 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	Lets say I buy a bar and I want to cater to people who want to drink, eat some food, chat with their friends, listen to some music, and enjoy a good smoke while doing all this. How is this being hazardous to anyone else? If someone wants a job, I tell them that this is a smoking environment and if they are okay with it, I give them the job. If not, I suggest to them to look somewhere else. I allow non-smokers into my establishment, but I expect them to respect the rights of my patrons to light up if they choose to. I didn't create the bar for them, my bar was setup to cater to the desires of the smoking crowd. But yet, you are telling me I can't because I am creating a hazardous place to the public and my employees. I disagree. My employees know that smoking is allowed in my business. If they don't want to be exposed, they should be looking for a job elsewhere. My patrons know I allow smoking. If they have a problem with that, then they can simply go someplace else.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links