No Smoking

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Me. Scroll up. I was surprised that nobody had made that point in this thread.

Yes, but it was posted while I was editing my post so I missed it. Also it was made after SP posted to the effect that she said she did have such a right.:smile:

That said most 'rights' are not articulated explicitly yet they are nonetheless deemed to 'exist'. I suppose it depends whether one considers a right exists unless expressly denied or does not exist unless expressly granted.

Practicality, if nothing else would dictate the former. That's why I never mentioned it until now. I was tired of hearing it myself..:biggrin1:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I was using constitution/bill of rights in the general sense, thus the lack of capitals. Different countries use different names for the pieces of paper that tell their citizens what they can expect to do with only nominal harassment. Point being, I don't see smoking in any of these documents.

I know, that's what I said, or meant - "But the point is otherwise valid"

Actually as you will know, in that context no such peices of paper exist here, in any meaningful sense at least.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
If cigarettes are legal doesn't that mean that people do have a right to smoke? They can't put everything people have a right to do in the Bill of Rights the list would go on forever.​

You're confusing rights with things that aren't illegal. Lots of people like to turn their pet complaints into "rights" issues because that makes them seem more important.

To get back on topic: Cars are legal, driving cars is legal, but driving them at 160 kph (where I live) isn't. Cigarettes are legal, smoking them in your home is legal, but smoking them in public places isn't. Same concept. If a time should come when cigarettes are entirely banned, you can make up a similar analogy with any of pot, homebrewed vodka, cars without catalytic converters and RPGs.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I know, that's what I said, or meant - "But the point is otherwise valid"

Actually as you will know, in that context no such peices of paper exist here, in any meaningful sense at least.

Yes, that saves your government from the hassle of inventing excuses to ignore them. :biggrin1: Constitutions are generally ineffective vanity pieces, but they're also generally better than nothing.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not going to argue about the health risks because it is off topic and irrelevant to what point I am trying to make in the first place. If you leave it up to the owner they are going to have to deal with whatever money they lose because of their choice. They are going to be making money off of one group so what's the difference. If all owners decide to make their bars non smoking then that is fine but I think you should be able to make the rules of your bar as long as they don't go against the law. I feel the law should state that it is the owners choice as to whether he wants to let people smoke in his bar or not and th owner must make it aware to his customers by a sign. Bringing your kids into the bar is irrelevant also if you want your kids in a bar for some reason bring them to a non smoking bar. What evidence shows that this will not work? In the last thread on this subject people were saying in Spain they did this and it worked out great. Everyone seemed to like it so I don't understand what the problem is besides the bar losing a little money. At least all the customers are pleased and will be sure to go back to the bar so in the end maybe they will be making just as much if not more money. If you keep things the way they were or make smoking illegal in bars you are just disappointing the other group of people which could make you lose business. Any decision they make could cause them to lose some business.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're confusing rights with things that aren't illegal. Lots of people like to turn their pet complaints into "rights" issues because that makes them seem more important.

To get back on topic: Cars are legal, driving cars is legal, but driving them at 160 kph (where I live) isn't. Cigarettes are legal, smoking them in your home is legal, but smoking them in public places isn't. Same concept. If a time should come when cigarettes are entirely banned, you can make up a similar analogy with any of pot, homebrewed vodka, cars without catalytic converters and RPGs.

So what's the difference between a right and something that is not illegal. They are both things you can do without breaking the law.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
So what's the difference between a right and something that is not illegal. They are both things you can do without breaking the law.​

I answered that above. People like to turn their pet issues into rights issues because that makes them sound more important.

Moving on: If I read you correctly, you are saying that smoking in bars is not a right, since it is illegal! :biggrin1: Where are you going with this? :tongue:
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I answered that above. People like to turn their pet issues into rights issues because that makes them sound more important.

Moving on: If I read you correctly, you are saying that smoking in bars is not a right, since it is illegal! :biggrin1: Where are you going with this? :tongue:

So pet issues is the difference between the two? :confused:
Yes that's right it is not a right if it is illegal. But I don't agree with that law I think it should be up to the owner is all I'm saying. If you would be in a non smoking bar than you wouldn't have the right to smoke on the owners property. Just like if the owner asks you to leave his property you don't have the right to stay.

 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
So pet issues is the difference between the two? :confused:
Yes that's right it is not a right if it is illegal. But I don't agree with that law I think it should be up to the owner is all I'm saying. If you would be in a non smoking bar than you wouldn't have the right to smoke on the owners property. Just like if the owner asks you to leave his property you don't have the right to stay.​

I see what you're saying. But why are you up in arms over this notion that the bar owner should be able to decide? The bar owner doesn't get to decide lots of things, including (where I live, anyway): how long the bar can stay open, the food preparation and hygiene standards, how many people can be in the bar at one time, etc. Why should he or she be allowed to determine whether smoking is allowed, and not these other things?

It seems this is less about "rights" and more about what suits you. Well, lots of people can't do things they like to do in public. I like BDSM, but I can't do it at the local beer parlor. That, my good man, is life.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I see what you're saying. But why are you up in arms over this notion that the bar owner should be able to decide? The bar owner doesn't get to decide lots of things, including (where I live, anyway): how long the bar can stay open, the food preparation and hygiene standards, how many people can be in the bar at one time, etc. Why should he or she be allowed to determine whether smoking is allowed, and not these other things?

It seems this is less about "rights" and more about what suits you. Well, lots of people can't do things they like to do in public. I like BDSM, but I can't do it at the local beer parlor. That, my good man, is life.

Good point but it just seems like an easier decision than the others. It's either smoking or non smoking. Simple decision. I'm sure the owners would want some kind of say in it. If the government can control whether someone can smoke in their bar I guess they can make any rules for the bar that they want to. I believe the owners deserve a bit more freedom than that. I would also think the owners would be able to decide how long their bar stays open.
 

BobLeeSwagger

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
1,455
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Things will come around, the non smokers who wouldn't frequent the places will start showing their faces. Ontario went smoke free, not as bad as Hawaii, but it took awhile for the smoke stench to get out the buildings, but business is business as usual. People made a huge stink about it, and their rights as smokers. And the non smokers made a huge stink about their rights, in the end the non smokers won. I think that with all the information we have on how bad smoking is for us, yes a smoking ban would be a no brainier, but people who are addicted to things rarely see the negative sides as severely as they are.

I think that the laws should go further and get up in people's grills about smoking in vehicles with others (especially children) inside. Maybe it is a huge invasion of privacy... but it could save that child's life in the long run, and stop them from getting the harmful diseases that they cannot prevent for themselves.

I think smoking and tobacco production (in the perfect world) wouldn't exist, that way no one could be effected by it. When someone lights up a smoke it's not just them that are effected... it puts the people around them in more danger than they have put themselves into.

For the very first time, I completely agree with everything Think_Kink said. I'm about as libertarian as a person can get, but when it comes to forcing people to breathe someone else's poisonous air, I draw the line. I would go so far as to consider it child abuse to smoke around children.
 

dwzig

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
43
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
226
Location
NYC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It is fantastic not to encounter smoking in NYC restaurants. It has pissed me off for years, I have to smell peoples cigarettes but can't smoke a joint in public.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It is fantastic not to encounter smoking in NYC restaurants. It has pissed me off for years, I have to smell peoples cigarettes but can't smoke a joint in public.

It woul be nice if you could smoke some herb in public.:439: In reality weed shouldn't be illegal either. Most of the time when a cop has caught me and my friends smoking weed outside he will tell us next time smoke it inside where we can't see you and that they don't care if we do it in our own homes. They mainly want to arrest you for selling it.
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,639
Media
0
Likes
246
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Well, there's a surprise. I've not come across many non smokers, even those that oppose it who feel the ban is 'ridiculous' and 'obnoxious'.

I have to ask, how is valuing profit above the health of one's customers and employees any less obnoxious? Suggest to him that he makes it a private bar/restaurant so the ban probably won't apply. Then, see what effect that has on his profits.

Too many smokers simply don't 'get' just how obnoxious it is to spend time in a smelly, smoke filled, potentially health-hazardous environment, to come home with hair and clothes smelling like an old ashtray because a few feel a ban is an affront to their their right to impose such an environment on them?:rolleyes:

If people choose to do so that's fine, but right not to should be respected. Given a free choice; to eat, drink and socialise in a polluted environment or in an 'unpolluted one', which would you choose.

It really is a no brainer.

The owner of the bar is a smoker as well. If the ban went into effect, he wouldn't even be able to smoke in his own bar. If the owner smokes, and the employees smoke (or don't mind the smoke), and the patrons smoke, then why should the OWNER be concerned about the health and well being of his employees and patrons? I go into a bar, knowing that I'm a smoker, and there will be other smokers in there. I know it's bad for my health. I do it anyway.

If by "polluted environment", you mean a "smokers environment", then I would pick the smokers environment because I'm a smoker. I wouldn't want to go to a non smoking establishment with my friends and have to leave the table every so often to go outside and smoke.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
The owner of the bar is a smoker as well. If the ban went into effect, he wouldn't even be able to smoke in his own bar. If the owner smokes, and the employees smoke (or don't mind the smoke), and the patrons smoke, then why should the OWNER be concerned about the health and well being of his employees and patrons? I go into a bar, knowing that I'm a smoker, and there will be other smokers in there. I know it's bad for my health. I do it anyway.

That's his choice, he assumes and accepts that risk for himself, as do his employees if they smoke. This issue is whether he has the right to assume that risk for those who chosoe not to smoke. You conveniently sidestepped that element I notice.

You and I can spin this however we want, but in the end smokers are defending a habit that is at best a risk only to their health -that's their choice but in opposing a ban in public places without proper, fully dedicated facilities they are seeking to defend a right to risk that of others. That is normally something society deems unacceptable. One can dress it up however one likes but in the end that's what it comes down to.

If by "polluted environment", you mean a "smokers environment", then I would pick the smokers environment because I'm a smoker.

Actually, I wasn't seeking to distinguish - a polluted environment is after all a polluted environment, the question was asked on that basis, given a choice between entering the two which would one normally choose.

I wouldn't want to go to a non smoking establishment with my friends and have to leave the table every so often to go outside and smoke.

You'd rather blow smelly, toxic fumes in their faces....nice. Before you kick off, yes they may well consent to such disrespect, more fool them.

In the end it's moot; attitudes have changed and more and more bans are in effect or soon will be. The irony of all this is that it could, for the most part so easily have been avoided.
 

wingnut84

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
265
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
SATX
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I used to be against these bans on libertarian grounds (reasons that ganja4me has elucidated well). Then I realized how much I really hated smoke-filled bars/restaurants, half-suffocating whilst you're in there and walking out smelling like ass. So now I'm neutral (slightly leaning pro-ban).

Does this make me selfish? Maybe. But most smokers are pretty selfish too. And I'm in the majority, so 8===D--------

:)