Smoking Bans - Page 9

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Guess how many non-smoking bars there are in my town of 200,000+. One. Exactly one. If I want to have a few at the pub, but I'm concerned about the impacts of second-hand smoke, I have a single place to choose from.

So? There should not be a law that says you have the right to go to a business and demand that smokers not be allowed to light up inside. It should be the bar owner's preference.

Quote:

Bar owners, despite their personal views on smoking, allow it because otherwise they'll turn away business.

So it is better to shut down a business that in reality is doing nothing to you personally rather than allow those who enjoy to smoke go to a bar that allows smoking?

Quote:

Trained bartenders are forced to work in smoking environments. They have no choice, because there are so few bars that ban smoking. Same with waiters and waitresses. The number of completely non-smoking restaurants are few, and I doubt it'd go over well applying for a waiting job, but stating "I'll only work here if I don't have to serve the smoking section." Manager chooses candidate B, who doesn't care about the smoke, so the health-conscious worker gets shorted.

But it isn't like it is not known that bars have a lot of smokers that go there. So these employees can find work elsewhere or ....here is a concept.... find a different occupation perhaps?

Quote:

Employees and non-smokers are getting shafted on all counts. All the problems can be cured by a minor inconvenience to the smokers: take it outside, away from the main doors. If you want to suck up the carcinogens, go ahead, but don't force it on everyone else who just wants to visit the same establishment.

It should be up to the owners of the establishments if smoking is allowed in the bar, not to the employees or the courts or city councils or non-smokers.

As for the minor convenience comment, the same could be said about non-smokers. If you don't want to inhale smoke, don't go to places that allow it.....Want something to drink? Why not go to the liquor store and buy it there and drink it home?

Quote:

The places that have already banned smoking in public, enclosed spaces don't seem to be doing too bad, and I don't hear the smokers there crying bloody murder...

yet bars in locations that are not allowed to have smokers smoke inside are losing business.....

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I don't understand how anyone can argue that logic.

Wyzcrak

But it was your choice to go to a place to eat dinner that allows smoking.............

Again, you can either A) Eat dinner in a bar that allows smoking or B) find someplace else to eat dinner at.

Daxx · 11-21-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

I don't understand how anyone can argue that logic.

Ever tried arguing with a crack addict?

**_Ender_** · 11-21-2003, 07:03 PM

I think wolfie should run for office. I'd vote for him.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 07:09 PM

With regards to Bentley's comment, I'm rather proud of Wolfie for respectfully arguing his beliefs. I have argued with a crack addict before, and it's nothing like the discussion I'm having here... that's for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

But it was your choice to go to a place to eat dinner that allows smoking.............

It's my choice to drive down the roads that allow exhaust pipes, but those are regulated. Regulated to protect the public health. Not outlawed, but regulated.

It's my choice to listen to the radio station that controls the volume at which they transmit, but that is regulated. Regulated to protect the public health. Not outlawed, but regulated.

It's my choice to look into the oncoming headlights. But those are regulated. Regulated to protect the public health. Not outlawed, but regulated.

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.

Wyzcrak

verbose · 11-21-2003, 07:17 PM

Bartenders start up a new occupation, potentially tossing away years of experience and doing what they love, or subject themselves to second-hand smoke.
Waiters and waitresses find a new line of work, risking unemployment (not like waiting gives you experience that counts in other lines of work, and those who are waiting are rather near the bottom rung as it is), or take in the smoke.
Customers find a new place to eat or drink, choosing from rather few non-smoking establishments, or risk the smoke.
Owners of restaurants and bars can't risk banning smoking. Their hand is forced by the market. They _don't_ have a choice right now, which is why there are so few non-smoking establishments.

So the smokers get to have all the rights. Forgive me if I think that's rather unfair. Stepping outside for your cancer stick is far less of an inconvenience then telling all non-smokers to just not come around anymore. Buy booze and drink it at home?! I sure hope you're kidding.

Go back and replace all instances of "smoking" with "playing with mercury", and think about it again. It is not logical to let a behavior that is so harmful to innocent bystanders to be legal in a public space.

**_Ender_** · 11-21-2003, 07:21 PM

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?

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 07:57 PM

Well this is a pretty divided issue.

The anti-smoking crowd does not want smoking in bars.

The smoking crowd wants smoking in bars.

Since neither side can agree, why not leave it up to the owners decision on to whether or not they would allow smoking in their establishment?

Daxx · 11-21-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

With regards to Bentley's comment, I'm rather proud of Wolfie for respectfully arguing his beliefs. I have argued with a crack addict before, and it's nothing like the discussion I'm having here... that's for sure.

Not my intent. What I meant was trying to argue with someone who is addicted to something will sometimes seem pointless, or just keep going in roundabout circles. I'm not saying Wolfie is comparable to a crack addict :P Just a satire on the last 100+ posts

As for the smoking/non-smoking issue:

I don't smoke. I won't ever smoke. But for the most part, people smoking(ciggaretts) around me dosn't bother me that badly. I don't enjoy it, but I don't hate it either. As long as I can get a breath of fresh air every now and then, I'm good.

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Go back and replace all instances of "smoking" with "playing with mercury", and think about it again. It is not logical to let a behavior that is so harmful to innocent bystanders to be legal in a public space.

Ah ha!

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business. :P

**Wolfie** · 11-21-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley

Quote:

I don't understand how anyone can argue that logic.

Ever tried arguing with a crack addict?

Eh? I am a non-smoker.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:01 PM

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

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Go back and replace all instances of "smoking" with "playing with mercury", and think about it again. It is not logical to let a behavior that is so harmful to innocent bystanders to be legal in a public space.

Ah ha!

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business. :P

If that was a joke, take from me a hearty yuk yuk yuk.

But if you're serious, you're abusing the symantecs of the language. We left that aspect of the debate pages ago, and you know it. That bar is a private establishment designed to serve the public at large.

Wyzcrak

Daxx · 11-21-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley

Quote:

I don't understand how anyone can argue that logic.

Ever tried arguing with a crack addict?

Eh? I am a non-smoker.

See my post twice above yours.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-21-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Since neither side can agree, why not leave it up to the owners decision on to whether or not they would allow smoking in their establishment?

Do you agree with verbose's point that consumers, employees, and owners do not have another choice other than to tolerate smoking?

Wyzcrak

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, 07:03 PM	#124 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 29 Posts: 2,048	I think wolfie should run for office. I'd vote for him.

11-21-2003, 07:17 PM	#126 (permalink)
verbose Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Age: 27 Posts: 409	Bartenders start up a new occupation, potentially tossing away years of experience and doing what they love, or subject themselves to second-hand smoke. Waiters and waitresses find a new line of work, risking unemployment (not like waiting gives you experience that counts in other lines of work, and those who are waiting are rather near the bottom rung as it is), or take in the smoke. Customers find a new place to eat or drink, choosing from rather few non-smoking establishments, or risk the smoke. Owners of restaurants and bars can't risk banning smoking. Their hand is forced by the market. They _don't_ have a choice right now, which is why there are so few non-smoking establishments. So the smokers get to have all the rights. Forgive me if I think that's rather unfair. Stepping outside for your cancer stick is far less of an inconvenience then telling all non-smokers to just not come around anymore. Buy booze and drink it at home?! I sure hope you're kidding. Go back and replace all instances of "smoking" with "playing with mercury", and think about it again. It is not logical to let a behavior that is so harmful to innocent bystanders to be legal in a public space.

11-21-2003, 07:57 PM	#128 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	Well this is a pretty divided issue. The anti-smoking crowd does not want smoking in bars. The smoking crowd wants smoking in bars. Since neither side can agree, why not leave it up to the owners decision on to whether or not they would allow smoking in their establishment?

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links