Smoking Bans - Page 5

NothingMore. · 11-17-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Ender_

Yeah dont mind me, I hate it when my freedoms get taken away from me.

Oh and to answer your question breathing, freedom.

Good answer, If a bit generalistic.

A.K.A. Evaluate, I think you'll a little trouble, freedom is like Jihad, It's taken and twisted into many forms. I think you'll find all freedoms granted to you in the bill of rights remain largley intact.

Geisha · 11-17-2003, 06:32 PM

OK. I'm torn. I have to agree with Wyzcrak and others on what actual laws should be in place. Public buildings = no smoking, restaurants/bars = owner's choice. I just don't see it as fair any other way. As a consumer, my boycott should be effective enough in a capitalist country to generate no-smoking restaurants for me to patronize.

Here're my problems with it in practice (to go back to Wolfie's original post):

1) I love Texas Land & Cattle peppercorn/smoked prime rib. It is the most fantabulously yummy prime rib under $100 a plate. I am willing to put up with a smoking section in a restaurant for this prime rib, and I'm sure there are lots of other non-smokers who agree. Result: there are not going to be any Texas Land & Cattles generated without a smoking section. Can anyone name me a steak place that does NOT have smoking, if the law allows it in that town?

2) My cousin gets her first job waiting tables. She must work in the smoking section. There were no city/county/etc jobs available to her (public buildings). Result: to pay for room/board/college she is forced into a potential health risk 4-6 days a week.

That being said, I still think that only public buildings have the right to outlaw smoking (I'll vote against smoking bans but I'll still enjoy the benefits when they're in place). What I don't know is how to make the consumer rule more effective. Maybe if we really felt strongly enough about avoiding smoke, I could give up restaurant steak forever and my cousin could somehow find a job where she didn't have to breath 30 hours of second-hand smoke a week...

... off topic, I'd qualify a 'gaming' (was that TG or gambling?) addiction under psychological addictions with sex. It's not a chemical you are adding to your body that will generate physical withdrawal syptoms even if you're a vegetable with no brain activity. Caffeine, though, I forgot about that one. And, honestly, the interconnection between mind & body is so nebulous that I suppose it's hard to differentiate between psychological and physiological addictions anyway. If those are even the right terms.

... and another aside, if smoking and alcohol are legal, all those nasty drugs should be too (they're just more efficient forms of the same thing). Instead, make the punishments more effective for abusing them... it's utterly ridiculous that an 18-yr-old that has consensual sex with a 15-1/2-yr-old gets a 10-yr-no-parole prison sentence in Georgia, but it takes 3 DUIs to get your license revoked (and there's nothing really stopping you from driving without one if you don't get caught - I mean, I was so brainwashed I was 18 before I really thought about the fact that the car will start regardless). Anyway, make dangerous drugs legal in health-inspected & nurse-monitored rubber rooms or something, so you can gamble with your own health without endangering others.

Holy carp that's a long post. Thanks for sticking with me to the end.

**_Ender_** · 11-17-2003, 07:16 PM

One could argue that restaurants\bars are public places so they would have to follow the no smoking rule...

Kworth · 11-17-2003, 07:38 PM

I don't support smoking, but somehow America is a free country, and everybody should have the freedom to smoke.

Sure there is the problem with the waiter in the restaurants, but that could be managed by letting each worker just work 2 hours in the smoking part and then switch him to the nonsmoking part, or in other ways.

11-17-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Total

I smoked for 10 years and finally quit two years ago after triing many times.... If it where up to me, cigarettes would be illegal....

Agreed...

**Wyzcrak** · 11-17-2003, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Ender_

One could argue that restaurants\bars are public places so they would have to follow the no smoking rule...

So far, some people have been using the term "public" to mean "publicly-owned" buildings.

Wyzcrak

**Wolfie** · 11-17-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Ender_

One could argue that restaurants\bars are public places so they would have to follow the no smoking rule...

So far, some people have been using the term "public" to mean "publicly-owned" buildings.

Wyzcrak

Correct.

However, people tend to forget that a restaurant is a privately owned business. They should be allowed to choose if they are going to allow smoking or not.

Publically owned buildings includes things like the Court House, DMV, etc.

**_Ender_** · 11-17-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Ender_

One could argue that restaurants\bars are public places so they would have to follow the no smoking rule...

So far, some people have been using the term "public" to mean "publicly-owned" buildings.

Wyzcrak

Exactly, which I dont think thats the case with the smoking ban. I think "public" means just that, anywhere where there is people.

**CingularDuality** · 11-18-2003, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geisha

That being said, I still think that only public buildings have the right to outlaw smoking (I'll vote against smoking bans but I'll still enjoy the benefits when they're in place). What I don't know is how to make the consumer rule more effective. Maybe if we really felt strongly enough about avoiding smoke, I could give up restaurant steak forever and my cousin could somehow find a job where she didn't have to breath 30 hours of second-hand smoke a week...

How about instead of an outright ban on smoking, we put simple restrictions on businesses that wish to allow smoking?

In San Diego there was a popular restaurant started by a pro football player. Seau's was semi-upscale and had a walk-in humidor and a cigar room with a bar in it. It was connected to the main bar by a floor to ceiling glass wall and had exceptional ventilation. The ventilation was so good that if a non-smoker could appreciate the smell of cigars, pipes and cigarettes, the actual smoke was not bothersome. Many non-smokers raved about this room and its ventilation system. California later passed a law that banned smoking in any business including private clubs and I don't know what happened to Seau's, but I would imagine business was hurt (moot point now that he plays for Miami, I suppose...).

Now, I have no idea how much a ventilation system like that would cost, but it seems to me that a law requiring a certain amount of ventilation and a completely seperate smoking section is MUCH more reasonable than an outright ban. Anyone disagree?

**Wyzcrak** · 11-18-2003, 10:59 AM

I find no fault with that line of reasoning.

Wyzcrak

11-18-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geisha

That being said, I still think that only public buildings have the right to outlaw smoking (I'll vote against smoking bans but I'll still enjoy the benefits when they're in place). What I don't know is how to make the consumer rule more effective. Maybe if we really felt strongly enough about avoiding smoke, I could give up restaurant steak forever and my cousin could somehow find a job where she didn't have to breath 30 hours of second-hand smoke a week...

How about instead of an outright ban on smoking, we put simple restrictions on businesses that wish to allow smoking?

In San Diego there was a popular restaurant started by a pro football player. Seau's was semi-upscale and had a walk-in humidor and a cigar room with a bar in it. It was connected to the main bar by a floor to ceiling glass wall and had exceptional ventilation. The ventilation was so good that if a non-smoker could appreciate the smell of cigars, pipes and cigarettes, the actual smoke was not bothersome. Many non-smokers raved about this room and its ventilation system. California later passed a law that banned smoking in any business including private clubs and I don't know what happened to Seau's, but I would imagine business was hurt (moot point now that he plays for Miami, I suppose...).

Now, I have no idea how much a ventilation system like that would cost, but it seems to me that a law requiring a certain amount of ventilation and a completely seperate smoking section is MUCH more reasonable than an outright ban. Anyone disagree?

Great logic....I agree 100%

leejo · 11-18-2003, 02:38 PM

Well I have to disagree, and I'm a guy who thinks you should have the right to stick a needle in your arm if you're 18 or 21 and stupid enough to want to do that....

Employees, even of private clubs, have the right to work in a safe environment. If you have a club that allows smoking, then you either require your non-smoking employees to breathe smoke, or you discriminate against non-smokers by only hiring employees who do smoke. You can't (and shouldn't) do either.

As a matter of practicality, in drafting legislation that is broad enough to apply where it should, you're probably going to scoop up a few busineses that most people would agree should be left alone. When you allow for discretion at the enforcement level, you open the door for corruption. All in all, it's too bad but may be the best we can do right now.

jex · 11-18-2003, 03:26 PM

Wow there's a lot of posts - as a newly retired smoker (yes that means I have quit recently) I'm really not too bothered about smoking in pubs/clubs/restuarants. I do expect an area for none smokers though.

Perhaps we should ban cars though - what damage do exhaust fumes do to our lungs? Or perhaps a no driving zone in restaurants and pubs/clubs etc.

**_Ender_** · 11-18-2003, 03:37 PM

Those fumes are caused by people not tuning up their cars on a regular bases. I believe there is already a law against letting your car get like that, but I am not too sure.

leejo · 11-18-2003, 03:42 PM

I fully support no-driving zones in restaurants and pubs, Jex.

11-18-2003, 10:59 AM	#70 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,132	I find no fault with that line of reasoning. 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.

11-18-2003, 03:26 PM	#73 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,275	Wow there's a lot of posts - as a newly retired smoker (yes that means I have quit recently) I'm really not too bothered about smoking in pubs/clubs/restuarants. I do expect an area for none smokers though. Perhaps we should ban cars though - what damage do exhaust fumes do to our lungs? Or perhaps a no driving zone in restaurants and pubs/clubs etc. __________________ Jex

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

11-17-2003, 06:32 PM	#62 (permalink)
Geisha Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 277	OK. I'm torn. I have to agree with Wyzcrak and others on what actual laws should be in place. Public buildings = no smoking, restaurants/bars = owner's choice. I just don't see it as fair any other way. As a consumer, my boycott should be effective enough in a capitalist country to generate no-smoking restaurants for me to patronize. Here're my problems with it in practice (to go back to Wolfie's original post): 1) I love Texas Land & Cattle peppercorn/smoked prime rib. It is the most fantabulously yummy prime rib under $100 a plate. I am willing to put up with a smoking section in a restaurant for this prime rib, and I'm sure there are lots of other non-smokers who agree. Result: there are not going to be any Texas Land & Cattles generated without a smoking section. Can anyone name me a steak place that does NOT have smoking, if the law allows it in that town? 2) My cousin gets her first job waiting tables. She must work in the smoking section. There were no city/county/etc jobs available to her (public buildings). Result: to pay for room/board/college she is forced into a potential health risk 4-6 days a week. That being said, I still think that only public buildings have the right to outlaw smoking (I'll vote against smoking bans but I'll still enjoy the benefits when they're in place). What I don't know is how to make the consumer rule more effective. Maybe if we really felt strongly enough about avoiding smoke, I could give up restaurant steak forever and my cousin could somehow find a job where she didn't have to breath 30 hours of second-hand smoke a week... ... off topic, I'd qualify a 'gaming' (was that TG or gambling?) addiction under psychological addictions with sex. It's not a chemical you are adding to your body that will generate physical withdrawal syptoms even if you're a vegetable with no brain activity. Caffeine, though, I forgot about that one. And, honestly, the interconnection between mind & body is so nebulous that I suppose it's hard to differentiate between psychological and physiological addictions anyway. If those are even the right terms. ... and another aside, if smoking and alcohol are legal, all those nasty drugs should be too (they're just more efficient forms of the same thing). Instead, make the punishments more effective for abusing them... it's utterly ridiculous that an 18-yr-old that has consensual sex with a 15-1/2-yr-old gets a 10-yr-no-parole prison sentence in Georgia, but it takes 3 DUIs to get your license revoked (and there's nothing really stopping you from driving without one if you don't get caught - I mean, I was so brainwashed I was 18 before I really thought about the fact that the car will start regardless). Anyway, make dangerous drugs legal in health-inspected & nurse-monitored rubber rooms or something, so you can gamble with your own health without endangering others. Holy carp that's a long post. Thanks for sticking with me to the end.

11-17-2003, 07:16 PM	#63 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 28 Posts: 2,048	One could argue that restaurants\bars are public places so they would have to follow the no smoking rule...

11-17-2003, 07:38 PM	#64 (permalink)
Kworth Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6	I don't support smoking, but somehow America is a free country, and everybody should have the freedom to smoke. Sure there is the problem with the waiter in the restaurants, but that could be managed by letting each worker just work 2 hours in the smoking part and then switch him to the nonsmoking part, or in other ways.

11-18-2003, 02:38 PM	#72 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,421	Well I have to disagree, and I'm a guy who thinks you should have the right to stick a needle in your arm if you're 18 or 21 and stupid enough to want to do that.... Employees, even of private clubs, have the right to work in a safe environment. If you have a club that allows smoking, then you either require your non-smoking employees to breathe smoke, or you discriminate against non-smokers by only hiring employees who do smoke. You can't (and shouldn't) do either. As a matter of practicality, in drafting legislation that is broad enough to apply where it should, you're probably going to scoop up a few busineses that most people would agree should be left alone. When you allow for discretion at the enforcement level, you open the door for corruption. All in all, it's too bad but may be the best we can do right now.

11-18-2003, 03:37 PM	#74 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 28 Posts: 2,048	Those fumes are caused by people not tuning up their cars on a regular bases. I believe there is already a law against letting your car get like that, but I am not too sure.

11-18-2003, 03:42 PM	#75 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,421	I fully support no-driving zones in restaurants and pubs, Jex.

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links