Smoking ban / Increased cig tax

[pickardracing]

Just heard on the radio that a random survey of 5000 WI residents found 64% in favor of both items.

Being a non-smoker, I'm all for both of them. I can't stand having to only visit 2 or 3 bars due to the others being nasty ass smoke-filled shit holes, or having to smell someone elses smoky bullshit when I go to a restaurant.

What's your stance?

[jbiscuit]

I used to be a smoker but since I quit I get bothered easily now by the smoke...it burns my eyes. I think people should have the right to smoke...its their choice but it wouldn't really bother me if they banned smoking at establishments. California already has this...bars just accomodate them with little patios outside. Not the end of the world. Either way though I don't really care.

[Goat Roper]

This is a big argument back in my hometown right now. Because there are so many gambling facilities around I believe people are just fed up with it there and a majority also approve of a ban.

I look at it this way; My bacon might kill me but not you as well, the same cannot be said for your cigarette smoke, that will take both of us out.

[Want_Notch]

I am a smoker, but really hate smoking indoors. I don't smoke in my house let alone anyone else's even if they do. I have no problem going outside to smoke.
The tax on the other hand pisses me off. Just another Dim-Wit-Jim cash grab.............

[Karps TA]

I think either ban the damn things, or stop stepping on smokers rights. Smokers get treated worse and have less rights in this country then illegal aliens.

<--- Non smoker.

[johnny--2k]

Im in the middle. I am a smoker, and it's my choice, so I dont think it's 100% fair. On the same note though, I dont like too much smoke indoors either.


For the restaurant owners, I say it's a crock of shit and should not go through. I did some research for a class project on NY and the smoking ban in NYC....restaurants and bars were losing over 50% of their business, and that is just not fair either.

My say, I dont think it should pass. It's a greater impact on the overall community and economics.

If I cant smoke in a restaurant or bar anymore, Im not going there. Especially in wisconsin winters.....I'm not gonna WANT to go outside to smoke.

For the employees that complain about second hand smoke, you chose to work there, and before the ban was ever mentioned, you never complained. Now all of a sudden that there is a proposed ban, you complain about second hand smoke? If you dont like it, get a new job. You applied there and chose to work there, so dont complain about it if you dont like it.

[pickardracing]

Well, to be fair, the majority of smokers dont seem to give two shits about non-smokers and THEIR rights.

I believe that I've got a right to enter a public place and not have to breathe a dickload of carcinogens in because some other douchebag is addicted to nicotine.

IMO, the fact of the matter is that my non-smoking isnt affecting anyone's health or well-being.

Threse no reason why smokers can't go outside. Yeah, its cold in the winter, but maybe that would give them a reason to quit altogether.

I honestly have never in my life met a smoker who doesnt want to quit.

[pickardracing]

For the restaurant owners, I say it's a crock of shit and should not go through. I did some research for a class project on NY and the smoking ban in NYC....restaurants and bars were losing over 50% of their business, and that is just not fair either.


This is what I dont understand... You mean that people are so lazy that if they felt that strongly about smoking, they couldnt wait the 30 minutes or whatnot until they leave the restaurant to have a smoke?

Thats pure ignorance and laziness in my book, no offense to you.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

i smoke, am working on quitting, so i hope this goes through. the only thing i don't like about it is that the indians will still be able to sell them tax free, and thus Doyle again is padding their pockets!

[73Dustr]

For the restaurant owners, I say it's a crock of shit and should not go through. I did some research for a class project on NY and the smoking ban in NYC....restaurants and bars were losing over 50% of their business, and that is just not fair either.


My friend in Ohio said they did something like this where he lived. At first, people were pissed, but after a while, business picked up again. People are still going to want to enjoy a nice dinner or socialize at a bar. Yes, people have individual rights, but like some people mentioned, that smoke can impact all of us. Being a non-smoker, I wouldn't mind smoke-free establishments.

As for the tax, that's simple economics. Of course the government would raise taxes on something like tobacco. That's guaranteed increased revenue because it has such an inelastic demand. If the taxes go up slightly, people aren't going to be able to just quit. We all know quitting is a hard thing to do. I give props to those that pull it off.:thumbsup

[UnderPSI]

smokers rights.

That made me laugh. You talk about them like they are a whole different ethnic group. So we have Germans, Irish, and nasty smelling Smokers....

[xxsn0blindxx]

If there was such an overwhelming demand to eliminate smoking in restaurants and bars then you'd be seeing a lot more of them doing it without being told to. If enough people stopped patronizing and working for places that allowed smoking then maybe you'd see more places go non-smoking. However, you don't see this happening because there really isn't that much demand. Furthermore, we do not need big brother stepping in to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. If you have a problem with a place being smokey, don't go there anymore and tell them that you won't go there because you don't like the smoking. Nobody is forcing anybody to be exposed to smoke, if you go to place that allows smoking, then you are willingly exposing yourself to it. Ultimately whether an establishment allows smoking should be up to the owners of the establishment. The simple fact that a law has to be made to ban smoking shows that it really isn't wanted that badly. If the majority of people truly wanted smoking gone from restaurant and bars it would have happened already without a law.

[Knyghtmare]

I am all for the increase/ban. I am a non-smoker. My mom smoked all my life and I hate it. I cant stand smelling it, I cant stand breathing it, I just dont see the point. Sucking in some smoke and blowing it out? Whats so amazing about that? It sure doesnt make you look cool... High? I wouldnt know, Ive never smoked. I have been around second hand smoke all my life all the time and I never felt any "high". It cant be that wonderful if you have to do it every 10 minutes, and you can do it at work. So there cant be that wonderful of a "high".

I know some of you are gonna get mad, but Im not trying to get anyone mad, just look at it from a non-smoker view. In my opinion smokers shouldnt have "rights" in the first place. I mean I dont have the right to go around pouring rat poison in your drinks at the bar... Why should we have to breath in all that garbage? Its not my fault you thought you looked cool, got sucked in by some adorable camel on TV or some badass cowboy, swinging around some laso telling you to do it. You say your addicted? Thats your fault and your problem to deal with. Im not saying you cant smoke, you can do whatever you want, its your life, but consider the lives of others. If your gonna refuse to go to an establishment because they dont alow smoking thats also your choice. I dont think its that hard to not smoke. If you want to smoke then go outside. Non-smokers shouldnt have to work the way they live around something like this. If you want to smoke thats your choice to do it... we dont have a choice if we want to breath or not. If anyone should have any "rights" it should be the right to live a healthy chemical breathing free life. But again, this is just my opinion. I cant stand smoking because I have been around second hand all my life growing up and around friends that do it and while out at a bar. IMHO.

About the big brother thing... unfortunatly they have been stepping in to tell us what we can and cant do forever. (E.G. They tell you you cant smoke pot. They tell you you have to pay taxes, ect.)

[Prince Valiant]

I don't smoke. I HATE being in smoke filled places.

That being said though, I don't think that I have the right to go in and demand a smoke free environment.

If a bar, or a resturaunt wants to allow smoking in part, or in their whole facility, that's their choice...they can either live by it and reap the business of smokers who want to smoke while dining. Or die by it...while people like myself avoid the place.

It really should be thier choice...because the only RIGHT i've got is to choose where I want to go or not. And I am free to make that choice based on whatever criteria I choose.

One way to look at it...Let's say (hypothetically) I was an onverly sensitive christian prude. Bare Breast and dancing offends me! It offends my deep religious sensibilities.

I then therefore DEMAND that all establishment ban ANY kind of nudity or dancing. Because seemingly, it's my RIGHT to not be offended. And it doesn't matter that I can choose not to enter said establisments that caters to those that like to view nudity and dancing. EVERYONE has to bend to my will.

The same argument goes for that argue "ban's are needed for the employee's of bars/resturaunts, etc..."

Listen, one can actually choose not to work in smoke filled environments if they wanted...there really is no shortage of places looking to hire in the resturaunt field. And likewise, If one didn't want to be forced to take of their bra and dance around, no one should choose to be a stripper.

But, really, the heart of the issue is this...there are many who mistakingly believe that they have "RIGHTS" that just aren't there. The right to impose your will on someone just does not exist. Sorry, check the costitution.

Really, I think that people who think they've got that right are stupid, self-centered jerks.

And tyler...rat poison? Sorry...but if you think cigaretes = rat poison than you really need to put down the kool-aid of the "no-smoking" comercials have given you.

[pOrk]

Well, to be fair, the majority of smokers dont seem to give two shits about non-smokers and THEIR rights.

I believe that I've got a right to enter a public place and not have to breathe a dickload of carcinogens in because some other douchebag is addicted to nicotine.

IMO, the fact of the matter is that my non-smoking isnt affecting anyone's health or well-being.

Threse no reason why smokers can't go outside. Yeah, its cold in the winter, but maybe that would give them a reason to quit altogether.

I honestly have never in my life met a smoker who doesnt want to quit.

Damn ******* right brother. I am soo sick of hearing about smokers bitching and moaning that their rights are being violated when smoking bans are popping up all over the city. I have the RIGHT to not smoke, and thats the last thing I want to be inhaling when I go out to eat, the bar, or anywhere. You want to smoke, have some ******* consideration and take your lazy ass outside :headbang

[flyin_blue_egg]

I don't smoke. I HATE being in smoke filled places.

That being said though, I don't think that I have the right to go in and demand a smoke free environment.


i with you on that one....the thing that really pisses me off about other non-smokers is that they feel that they can demand what others can and can't do. Like many of you have already said, if you don't like smoke, then don't go to places that allow smoking( im sure there's plenty of other people out there that will make up for the lost business), or go to a place that has a non-smoking section. Many places have the non-smoking sections and when i sit in them i really don't smell the smoke to much. The thing that pisses me off about some of the jackasses in this country is they think that if they complain and complain about something that they well eventually force congress to enact a law forbidding it.....

[Karps TA]

That made me laugh. You talk about them like they are a whole different ethnic group. So we have Germans, Irish, and nasty smelling Smokers....

Well if a place put up a ban against Germans then people would be all up in arms over it. Or a ban on people who are left handed? Some people in this country consider people who watch porn to be the most disgusting people on the planet. But they aren't banned or over taxed.

Same sh!t.

If non smokers don't like dealing with smoke, then give your money to the businesses that support you. IMO It's no different then religious groups telling tv stations what they can and cannot air. It's not like there's only 1 bar in town.

I've said it before. It's a slippery slope. This "land of the free" has been about taking away freedoms of choice lately. Who knows what this precedence can lead to.

[fireguyrick]

I am on the fence on this. Neither my wife or I smoke, and my wife has Asthma that gets severely exacerbated when in the presence of smokers. Generally we try to avoid those environments at much as possible. But, I understand that smoking is legal, and we are talking about banning people from private property NOT public property.

Truth be told perhaps they should require that all establisments that allow smoking display LARGE signs stating that they are NOT a smoke free environment. This way I will not have to walk into a building to find out one way or the other.

Though, I would like to know why smokers cannot step outside to smoke or wait till they leave. It seems a bit childish. After all, it is my RIGHT to poop, but I cannot do it in the middle of a store or eating establishment (yes that is extreme, but it is similiar in concept).

Rick

[DirtyMax]

I smoke only when I drink and that's it. That being said... I wouldn't mind one but if I had to go outside to burn one if I was out at the bars. Just because I like smoking once in a while doesnt mean I like to go home and have my clothes stink to high hell.

[johnny--2k]

This is what I dont understand... You mean that people are so lazy that if they felt that strongly about smoking, they couldnt wait the 30 minutes or whatnot until they leave the restaurant to have a smoke?

Thats pure ignorance and laziness in my book, no offense to you.



none taken, but this is strictly for the restaurant owners, how is that lazyness? What I am trying to say is they will lose business, because they smokers will just go somewhere else. This was on the news when they passed it in tosa, a few restaurant owners said their business was down 30-50% from the same time last year and they no longer see their regular customers coming in any more.

I feel bad for those people, me personally, I dont care if it passes or not since I dont plan on smoking any more once I finish this semester of school which is kicking the living crap out of me......:flipoff2:

[johnny--2k]

I am on the fence on this. Neither my wife or I smoke, and my wife has Asthma that gets severely exacerbated when in the presence of smokers. Generally we try to avoid those environments at much as possible. But, I understand that smoking is legal, and we are talking about banning people from private property NOT public property.

Truth be told perhaps they should require that all establisments that allow smoking display LARGE signs stating that they are NOT a smoke free environment. This way I will not have to walk into a building to find out one way or the other.

Though, I would like to know why smokers cannot step outside to smoke or wait till they leave. It seems a bit childish. After all, it is my RIGHT to poop, but I cannot do it in the middle of a store or eating establishment (yes that is extreme, but it is similiar in concept).

Rick



THANK YOU!!! This is exactly the point I was trying to get across.

As for stepping outside, it's just an inconvenience for people. Kind of like going into a gas station to use a bathroom, and they make you buy something first. Understandable, but not necessary. If it's 15* out and I go to a bar for a drink with friends, find out the bar has no smoking inside, I'll leave and find another place that does allow smoking inside. I dont want to go out in 15* weather to have a smoke if I dont have to.

If we lived in a warmer climate, I would be a little more care-free about it, but in this weather, hell no.

I dont want the non-smokers to get their panties in a bundle now, but the chances of getting cancer from second hand smoke are actually LESS than the chances of getting cancer from drinking chlorinated water. According to the EPA, cancer from cholrinated water has a risk ratio of 1.5 while second hand smoke has a factor of 1.19. They claim anything with a risk factor ratio of less than 5:20 is not considered a "strong risk"

[Nix]

I dont want the non-smokers to get their panties in a bundle now, but the chances of getting cancer from second hand smoke are actually LESS than the chances of getting cancer from drinking chlorinated water. According to the EPA, cancer from cholrinated water has a risk ratio of 1.5 while second hand smoke has a factor of 1.19. They claim anything with a risk factor ratio of less than 5:20 is not considered a "strong risk"


Very intresting I didn't know that. They say you learn something new evey day.:)

[73Dustr]

Well if a place put up a ban against Germans then people would be all up in arms over it. Or a ban on people who are left handed? Some people in this country consider people who watch porn to be the most disgusting people on the planet. But they aren't banned or over taxed.

Same sh!t.

If non smokers don't like dealing with smoke, then give your money to the businesses that support you. IMO It's no different then religious groups telling tv stations what they can and cannot air. It's not like there's only 1 bar in town.

I've said it before. It's a slippery slope. This "land of the free" has been about taking away freedoms of choice lately. Who knows what this precedence can lead to.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Please explain how a room full of Germans in a restaurant is harming my health? How do people who watch porn at their own house harm me? So it is not the "same sh!t". A person's ethnicity, relgion, or race is by no means harming me while I'm eating dinner. Toxins in cigarette smoke are. It's not like they are talking about banning tobacco like marijuana. People will still have the right to smoke, but they have to go outside. At least outdoors, the smoke has somewhere to go. Just think all the toxins that linger in the air in a room.

[73Dustr]

Very intresting I didn't know that. They say you learn something new evey day.:)

Ditto. But what about other illnesses that could result from smoke inhalation? Perhaps it may not as detrimental to adults' health, but I'm sure it's not good for younger children. I know most restaurants have non-smoking sections, but depending on how busy it is, it can get pretty smokey in the non-smoking sections. I'm sure many of us have experienced this before.

[johnny--2k]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Please explain how a room full of Germans in a restaurant is harming my health? How do people who watch porn at their own house harm me? So it is not the "same sh!t". A person's ethnicity, relgion, or race is by no means harming me while I'm eating dinner. Toxins in cigarette smoke are. It's not like they are talking about banning tobacco like marijuana. People will still have the right to smoke, but they have to go outside. At least outdoors, the smoke has somewhere to go. Just think all the toxins that linger in the air in a room.


think about how many sick people go out to a bar in one night, and you are breathing in all their "toxins".....are you gonna ban everyone who is not in perfect health from going out to drink or eat?

How about people running race fuel? I dont want to be exposed to those harmful toxins, so please, if you run race gas and see me at culvers, dont pull in. Just keep driving down the street until you are out of my sight! Seriously, come on man.....

It's a bunch of crap and all it does is get people riled up for some small bulls#it.

[Karps TA]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Please explain how a room full of Germans in a restaurant is harming my health? How do people who watch porn at their own house harm me? So it is not the "same sh!t". A person's ethnicity, relgion, or race is by no means harming me while I'm eating dinner. Toxins in cigarette smoke are. It's not like they are talking about banning tobacco like marijuana. People will still have the right to smoke, but they have to go outside. At least outdoors, the smoke has somewhere to go. Just think all the toxins that linger in the air in a room.

Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar where people are smoking. Consumers should decide what they want. Not govt inacting laws. I don't like Churchs, or any type of organized religion. But I'm not wanting the govt to ban them. I just choose not to go into them and go on my happy way. If people stopped going to bars and restaurants cause it's a smoke pit, those places will either fix the problem or go out of business. Nobody forces anyone to get a job in a bar or restaurant either.

I don't smoke. I tend to go to bars that are non-smoking. Or if I'm in a bar and it gets to smokey I leave. No big deal.

Smokers pay taxes and are given the same rights as non smokers. Actually smokers pay alot more in taxes. Why should they be discrimated against. The flu is dangerous to peoples health, and can kill people. But theres no signs against people with a cough can't come into a restaurant.

It's just BS IMO.

[73Dustr]

think about how many sick people go out to a bar in one night, and you are breathing in all their "toxins".....are you gonna ban everyone who is not in perfect health from going out to drink or eat?

How about people running race fuel? I dont want to be exposed to those harmful toxins, so please, if you run race gas and see me at culvers, dont pull in. Just keep driving down the street until you are out of my sight! Seriously, come on man.....

It's a bunch of crap and all it does is get people riled up for some small bulls#it.

Yes, people are sick all over the place. I certainly will not deny that. But how many potentially serious, life-long illnesses can you experience from somebody who has the flu or a common cold? Someone can have HIV in a restaurant, but that does not mean you are going to get HIV from being in the restaurant.

As for the racing fuel, I personally have no problem with that. I get a little excited when I smell those fumes. Relating to the discussion, your cars is running outdoors. It's not like all the exhaust fumes are confined in a small area. I have no problem if people smoke outside. That's their right. They are not talking about stripping a smoker's rights completely, just restricting them. It's just like how we can drive our cars, but we have restrictions to protect others around us.

[Karps TA]

They are not talking about stripping a smoker's rights completely, just restricting them.


Those my friend are scarey words.

[73Dustr]

Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar where people are smoking. Consumers should decide what they want. Not govt inacting laws. I don't like Churchs, or any type of organized religion. But I'm not wanting the govt to ban them. I just choose not to go into them and go on my happy way. If people stopped going to bars and restaurants cause it's a smoke pit, those places will either fix the problem or go out of business. Nobody forces anyone to get a job in a bar or restaurant either.


I totally understand what you are saying. Driving down highway 100 though, how many restaurants are "smoke-free". Many of your popular restaurants allow smoking. In my opinion, having to choose a different restaurant to go to in order to avoid smoke is much more of a hassle than a smoker simply stepping outside to have a smoke. I'm sure we could all debate this for a long time, but no matter what happens, somoene will be upset.

As for the government enacting laws, isn't that their respondsibility to do certain things to protect the population as a whole? I don't want to turn this into a huge political debate, but I think certain laws are better for the whole. This being one of them? Who knows.

[73Dustr]

Those my friend are scarey words.

We face restrictions in every part of our life:

-You have the right to have sex, but you can't go doing that in public. Well, you aren't suppose to.
-You can consume a certain amount of alcohol and still legally drive. There again, there is a limit to hinder people driving when trashed.
-Speed limits.
-You have the right to free speech, but you can't go out slandering people.

and so on.....

[Knyghtmare]

And tyler...rat poison? Sorry...but if you think cigaretes = rat poison than you really need to put down the kool-aid of the "no-smoking" comercials have given you.


Aww, come on. I was just using that as an example. Give me a break. :goof
You guys understand the point I was making thought right?


I want to point out that Big Tobacco isnt exactly honest either. Any smoker obviously bit that bait, so its only fair if a non smoker bites what a anti smoking add might say.

[johnny--2k]

Yes, people are sick all over the place. I certainly will not deny that. But how many potentially serious, life-long illnesses can you experience from somebody who has the flu or a common cold? Someone can have HIV in a restaurant, but that does not mean you are going to get HIV from being in the restaurant.

As for the racing fuel, I personally have no problem with that. I get a little excited when I smell those fumes. Relating to the discussion, your cars is running outdoors. It's not like all the exhaust fumes are confined in a small area. I have no problem if people smoke outside. That's their right. They are not talking about stripping a smoker's rights completely, just restricting them. It's just like how we can drive our cars, but we have restrictions to protect others around us.


I was just kidding about the race gas thing...just to get my point across. It's making a big deal out of something that is not as big as it is played out to be by the media and typical American BS and Hype!

[73Dustr]

I was just kidding about the race gas thing...just to get my point across. It's making a big deal out of something that is not as big as it is played out to be by the media and typical American BS and Hype!

I got the point you were making. What isn't played out in the media?

[Holeshot]

I haven't had a cigarette in 9 years now. Most former smokers are the biggest complainers. Me being guilty of myself. I look at it like this. Bars should be a smokers place. Restaurant's need to be smoke free. The only reason I say this is I just can't enjoy a meal with the sent of smoke in the air weather its a cigar cigarette or a pipe. And whats really gross is some one spitting their chew in to whatever container while at a table. Yes I have seen this more than once!!!

As far as the tax aspect goes.. If your gonna smoke yeah you should pay the tax , but that tax money should only be used for health care for all people affacted by cigarette smoke weather its first or second hand.

JMHO

[johnny--2k]

I got the point you were making. What isn't played out in the media?

I'm saying that the media makes the smoking/no-smoking thing into a bigger deal than it really has to be, thats all.

[Silver350]

My opinion is that people should have the right to choose if they smoke or not smoke. I also think Buisnesses have the right to decide for them selves whether or not they want a smoke free extablishment. I dont think it is up to the state to decide that.

As far as the state tax on cigerretts if you want to increase that fine. Maybe you will get some people to quit and the state will save their life but if you are going to do that shouldnt you think about lowering the tax on gasoline.

I am a smoker as well and have signed up for a smoking censation class at work to help give me ideas what I can do to help in stressfull enviorments to keep me from wanting that smoke.

[RanJer]

I'm a smoker, I personally don't care either way. Sometimes it is nice to not have to end a conversation and walk outside, but if its gotta be that way in some places.. whatever. You can always find somewhere else to go IMO.

and just cuz it's somewhat related.. http://www.missionislam.com/health/ani%20smoking.gif

[UnderPSI]

Well if a place put up a ban against Germans then people would be all up in arms over it. Or a ban on people who are left handed? Some people in this country consider people who watch porn to be the most disgusting people on the planet. But they aren't banned or over taxed.

Same sh!t.


No, Sorry. Not the same $hit. Smoking is a CHOICE!

[xxsn0blindxx]

Everybody keeps referring to the smoker's rights, in reality its the business owners rights that are being infringed upon. Any business can say they don't allow smoking, there's nothing to stop them. Patrons don't have a right to smoke, but they may be granted the privilege. There is no need for the government to make the decision for the business owner. I know that my whole group of friends will avoid going to a restaurant in Tosa because Tosa is non-smoking in restaurants. In most cases we actually drive further out of our way to go somewhere else. On the other hand you could say that non-smokers drive out of their way to go to a non-smoking establishment. The difference is that a place that allows smoking always has the option of going non-smoking. Let's face it if a restaurant or bar thought they would make more money by going non-smoking they would have done it already. However, there isn't enough demand to justify the loss of revenue from the smokers who would stop patronizing their establishment. So really the majority of people do NOT want smoking banned. Making a law that takes away the business owners' right to allow smoking in their establishment is simply unfair. If you don't like places that allow smoking, then don't go there and let them know that you won't go there because of it. You don't have a right to a smoke-free environment in a private business, just a like I don't have a right to smoke in a business, it is ultimately up to the owner to decide. However, we all have the right to not patronize an establishment that does not please us. If a business owner is losing business because of smoking, they won't allow it, but if a business owner loses business because of a smoking ban, they're just SOL.

[Karps TA]

As for the government enacting laws, isn't that their respondsibility to do certain things to protect the population as a whole? I don't want to turn this into a huge political debate, but I think certain laws are better for the whole. This being one of them? Who knows.

What's next banning certain foods cause they make people fat? Unhealthy food cause more deaths in this country then smoking and car accidents every year. Where does it stop?

I'm not for giving up any more damn freedoms in this country. You never get them back once they are gone. Someday you may be on the other side of that situation.

Like I said. Then ban cigs. But for the govt to get billions of dollars off it and the people who use the product, then go ahead and discrimnate against them is wrong. We're all car guys. Would you want a $2 tax on gas and then be told you can't drive your car on most of the roads in the city?

Use your wallet to show businesses what you want. Don't let govt get involved. They'll just screw it up anyways and somehow make it cost 3 times as much in the end.

[pickardracing]

The point you guys are missing is that nobody is going to lose business over this if it's a STATEWIDE ban.

Yeah, maybe if one bar in one town did it or whatnot, then maybe it would be a big deal. The thing of is is that as it stands, I can only visit a select few places because I refuse to deal wiht the smoking. If this passed those people would not be asked to leave, rather to just have the common courtesy to step outside. As it stands, the non-smokers are the ones with the short end of the stick. All this would do is level the playing field.

Hundreds of people from my town, Sheboygan, GB, and everywhere else still go to Appleton for the best nightlife in the area, and guess what- CITY WIDE smoking ban. Nobody's going to lose a dollar over it. The law would not say you can't smoke, it just says you have to go outside. Thats a fair compromise in my book.

Anyone that says they wont patronize a place that wont let them smoke inside is a selfish lazy-ass in my book. Who the **** are these people to bong out the restaurant that Im trying to eat my food in?

I'd like to shoot pool league, I'd like to go to more than one or two bars, I'd like to go to certain reastaurants, but I can't because I simply cannot tolerate the goddamn smoke.

They're the ones with the addictions, theyre the ones making the nuisance, why shouldnt they do it in a place that won't bother anyone else.

[fireguyrick]

On a side note, is it wrong that some employers prohibit their works from smoking? For example, there are a great deal of Fire Departments that forbid their firefighters from smoking period. The reason for this is health insurance and disabiliity issues. It is next to impossible to prove if it was smoke inhalation from a fire or from smoking that would cause a lung issue that might result in some form of diability pay from the deparment. Hence, you cannot smoke, and some of the departments that allow it require smokers to sign a waiver to any claims against the department or city for lung related health issues.

Rick

[Undertaker]

Where I work, smokers could smoke basically anywhere outside. They had smoking huts outside by the main doors. Last year, they changed it so there is now only 1 designated smoking hut which is in the back of the parking lot about 50 feet from the building. People complained because they didn't like going outside or eating lunch and smelling smoke. I know a lot of smokers were upset, especially on rainy and cold days, but it was a company decision. People still make the trek out there. But also a few people I know quit because they felt it wasn't worth the time wasted walking all the way out there and freeze your butt off for a smoke. Since some people don't want to walk and are able to smoke in their cars, parking spaces are getting fought over. It's turning into a Mayfair Mall scene.

[88Nightmare]

I think you can go both ways on this one. I don't feel the increase is necessary, because if people want to smoke and kill themselves, why should they have to pay extra to do that? its their choice to smoke. With that being said...

I feel the ban is good. While I DO have a choice of where I want to go and eat, if they allow smoking there, I have the right not to be there. But why should I have to get bumped out because I don't smoke? On the other end, you could say, why should the smoker have to get bumped? Probably because the smoker's habits kills themselves, and myself and other non smokers as well. People have died from cigarette smoke and never smoked a day in their life. If I want to go to my favorite restaurant and eat my favorite meal, why should I have to do that and put up with cigarette smoke that is toxic and deadly? Why don't I just eat my dinner in a fuggin spray booth at an auto body shop? If smoking didn't make my eyes burn and my sinus's clog up (yeah im partially allergic to it) I wouldn't care if people smoked in doors, but I don't feel I should have to suffer at public places just because other people just have to have a cig.

[Yooformula]

If there was such an overwhelming demand to eliminate smoking in restaurants and bars then you'd be seeing a lot more of them doing it without being told to. If enough people stopped patronizing and working for places that allowed smoking then maybe you'd see more places go non-smoking. However, you don't see this happening because there really isn't that much demand. Furthermore, we do not need big brother stepping in to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. If you have a problem with a place being smokey, don't go there anymore and tell them that you won't go there because you don't like the smoking. Nobody is forcing anybody to be exposed to smoke, if you go to place that allows smoking, then you are willingly exposing yourself to it. Ultimately whether an establishment allows smoking should be up to the owners of the establishment. The simple fact that a law has to be made to ban smoking shows that it really isn't wanted that badly. If the majority of people truly wanted smoking gone from restaurant and bars it would have happened already without a law.

That is sooo not true. Most people prefer to not be around smoke including smokers. At least smokers have filters and dont usually inhale the 2nd hand smoke. Restaurants wont do anything without being pushed into it even if its the right thing to do so to say that restaurants would have done it already if the demand was there is not accurate. Majority of drinkers smoke because they have been programmed that way so restaurants are only trying to get that ever lasting dollar. Business will always come back as long as people have to eat. Why should I have to stop going someplace that I enjoy just because of some inconsiderate people. My place went non smoking and not a single person complains. The only people that whine are smokers that are too LAZY to stand outside and very few stop coming. In fact our overalll business has returned and with a different clientel mostly due to the cleaner environment. The reason why more people dont boycott smoking establishments is because of tolerance. They tolerate it for a short time they think until they realize that YOUR deadly addiction really can affect their life. I say no smoking in public places period because some places I HAVE to go to shouldnt put my life or my kids' lives in danger from inhaling YOUR carcinogens. You wanna put your life in jeopardy fine but do it in your car or your house or outside. Its the same reason why I wont get into a car with a drunk driver.

[Cjburn]

The point you guys are missing is that nobody is going to lose business over this if it's a STATEWIDE ban.

Yeah, maybe if one bar in one town did it or whatnot, then maybe it would be a big deal. The thing of is is that as it stands, I can only visit a select few places because I refuse to deal wiht the smoking. If this passed those people would not be asked to leave, rather to just have the common courtesy to step outside. As it stands, the non-smokers are the ones with the short end of the stick. All this would do is level the playing field.

Hundreds of people from my town, Sheboygan, GB, and everywhere else still go to Appleton for the best nightlife in the area, and guess what- CITY WIDE smoking ban. Nobody's going to lose a dollar over it. The law would not say you can't smoke, it just says you have to go outside. Thats a fair compromise in my book.

Anyone that says they wont patronize a place that wont let them smoke inside is a selfish lazy-ass in my book. Who the **** are these people to bong out the restaurant that Im trying to eat my food in?

I'd like to shoot pool league, I'd like to go to more than one or two bars, I'd like to go to certain reastaurants, but I can't because I simply cannot tolerate the goddamn smoke.

They're the ones with the addictions, theyre the ones making the nuisance, why shouldnt they do it in a place that won't bother anyone else.

The point of this argument completely sails right over your head. This is about CHOICE, and FREEDOMS. You, as a patron have no RIGHT to go into a business and demand them to have no smoking. This is a choice that a business owner must make over THEIR PROPERTY, nobody forces anyone to go to a restaurant, it is not something you HAVE to do. The original purpose of the government of the United States of America was to protect personal and property rights. Early simple examples, nobody forces you to house and board soldiers in your house, the British did this with early Colonials (I have forgotten the name of this practice), forced search and seizures by the government, freedom of behaviors such as religion, speech. These are very easy, fundamental principals of our government. Simple topics, simplified for you to understand since this point has completely run over the top of your head. You would understand that it is NOT an original goal of our founding fathers to have every damned behavior, in a PRIVATE establishment, in which NOBODY is forced to visit this establishment, patronize it, or work in it. Therefore, nobody's "rights" are infringed upon, other than the business owner. The idea of this ban, flies DIRECTLY in the face of what America once stood for. You must remember, people have inalienable rights, hell, some of them you might not agree with, but they do, and in this case it means the BUSINESS OWNER decides what goes on in their place. The Government should have nothing to say in this matter, the patrons should not be able to use the force of the state to inact this change. In our society it was designed to be done through the "free market" (remember capitalism?), if such a large market for a smoke free establishment were to exist, someone should open one and reap the benefits. If someone had a bar like this and it thrived, would they want the ban to go into effect and cut off their advantage? I'd bet they'd want to keep their competitive edge and keep smoking legal in bars. It's NOT your "right" to tell others what to do with their property, realize that there are bigger fish to fry in this matter than what you want, the idea that it bothers you makes you sound childish and immature. The idea of being a rationalizing adult is that you must realize everything cannot suite you, or be made to pander to your every desire. All people are not the same, and should not be forced to be so. This idea, this ban, is a LEFTIST standpoint, a socialist, or communist hallmark, sacrifice the few for the greater good, it's called social welfare, and we've seen through the short course of 100 years that it does not work with humans.

[88Nightmare]

YES!!! Yoosef, way to phucking put it!!!!

[88Nightmare]

I am not forcing any business owner to change his policy, I am simply stating what I think is fair and unfair in my own eyes.

[Yooformula]

Cj, nobody has a RIGHT to force their addiction onto me either. By smoking ina confined public place you ARE endangering my life plain and simple. Nobody says that you cant smoke, just do it outside where you cant hurt others. Its YOUR addiction, so why should others suffer from it? I agree with your points about freedoms but is this topic really about freedoms or keeping people safe? Shouldnt the govmnt do its best to keep the public safe? Is that not also their responsibility? They are not saying that you cant smoke, just saying not in public. Do I not have the right to life? Smoking kills people doesnt it? I dont recall the constitution telling people that they can jerk off in public yet thats illegal, so why is smoking in public any different?

[88Nightmare]

for sure. cig smoke for non smokers totally ruins the meal. it ruins my appetite. (which may be a good thing cuz im fuggin fat :D ) but seriously, why should we have to put our lives in danger just because we went to go to a particular restaurant? yeah I can choose not to go, but what if I want to eat there without slowly killing my life? Is that fair to me or any other non smoker?

[Lash]

If you smoke you should have to wear a fish bowl on your head and hold the cigarette in your mouth the whole time. That way you can take on the full effect of YOUR cigarette instead of 'sharing' it with everybody else.

I breathe enough dust and shit at work. I don't need to be breathing that shit too just because I want to go out to dinner with my family.

It's just a matter of time smokers...just a matter of time.

If you want to kill yourself.....zip yourself up in a big zip-lock and smoke all you want.


I just don't see how people can walk around freely and expose innocent people to something that is well known to produce DEATH causing cancer. That's like some guy raw dicking every chick he sees even though he knows he has AIDS (which by the way would be illegal...and punishable by a prison sentence).

[RedGSX]

Cj, nobody has a RIGHT to force their addiction onto me either. By smoking ina confined public place you ARE endangering my life plain and simple. Nobody says that you cant smoke, just do it outside where you cant hurt others. Its YOUR addiction, so why should others suffer from it? I agree with your points about freedoms but is this topic really about freedoms or keeping people safe? Shouldnt the govmnt do its best to keep the public safe? Is that not also their responsibility? They are not saying that you cant smoke, just saying not in public. Do I not have the right to life? Smoking kills people doesnt it? I dont recall the constitution telling people that they can jerk off in public yet thats illegal, so why is smoking in public any different?

That is the point though, this is not in public we are talking about. This is on PRIVATE PROPERTY! It should NOT be up to the government, but rather up the the business owner......

Yoosef, you run a restaurant, it should be up to you whether or not to have smoking, not up to wauwatosa or west allis or brookfield or wisconsin or whoever.

If they want to go to public places to ban smoking, fine, but not privately owned businesses. That is not their place to say....



That is my major gripe with this. The government is not giving any rights to business owners in this matter, and that is what I think is the problem with the ban.


Cjburn.....You hit the nail right on the head. This is about choice, and freedom of choice. I could not agree more.


BTW...this is Johnny--2k posting!

[fireguyrick]

Though, I seem to recall something in the Constitution about how we have rights, as long as they do not impede on the rights of another person. Basically, I have the right to yell FIRE anytime I friggin feel like it, as long as it will not cause damage to another person pursuing their rights....follow? So, I feel that people have the right to smoke, but if that causes health problems (no matter HOW minimal) they should not have the right.

Though, this concept DOES go down a VERY slippery slope.

Rick

[johnny--2k]

If the government takes control of where you can and can not smoke, what will be next?

Are they going to tell me that I can't smoke in my own house? My Car? S#it, why not just ban smoking in all of milwaukee. You want a cigarette, go to chicago.

I am just exaggerating here, so take this with a grain of salt, but seriously, where will it end if they get this far?

[88Nightmare]

I see where johnny2k is coming from, but still, I think fireguyrick hit the nail on the head, and hard.

something in the Constitution about how we have rights, as long as they do not impede on the rights of another person.

[Cjburn]

However, you are not forced to go into this establishment. It is a choice to go in there, and therefore a choice to be exposed to second hand smoke. I'm all for the banning of smoking in a public place where choice is not a matter in this like the DMV or schools. In this situation a niche in the market should exist and therefore a new competitive edge for this type of venue should appear. I understand how passionate people get about this, but small exposures of smoke is mainly more of a nuissance rather than a serious health threat. I am not a smoker by the way, I don't like going to smokey bars either, but I put up with it since I understand these are some of the risks of going to a place like that. Kind of like the risk of going to an amusement park, or taking your car down the drag strip, we weigh the risk/benefit of the situation and make our choices accordingly.

[88Nightmare]

why should there have to be risks involved with going to eat somewhere?

[fireguyrick]

but small exposures of smoke is mainly more of a nuissance rather than a serious health threat.


Except for my wife. We first found out how bad she can get near HEAVY smoking at a bar a few years ago. She ended up in the ER nearly having to be intubated because of how severe of an Asthmatic reaction she had. Yes, this was a rarety for her, as small amounts of smoke do not cause such a severe reaction, but it is potentially life threatining for her in mass quantities.

This is why when we visit a bar, which is rare, we try to keep as far from other smokers as possible. If it gets to the point where she needs to utilize her Albuterol we typically leave.

Yes, we exercise our rights to choose what facility we dine at, but it can often times be EXTREMELY difficult to find a bar that is non-smoking.

Rick

[Holeshot]

Imagine being married to a respiratory therapist that smokes:rolleyes: At least she smokes outside at home. But I won't get in her car cuz it stinks so bad.

[fireguyrick]

Imagine being married to a respiratory therapist that smokes:rolleyes: At least she smokes outside at home. But I won't get in her car cuz it stinks so bad.

Yeah, healthcare professionals are typically pretty big hypocrites. Must have something to do with MD's having to take the Hippocratic Oath.

Rick

[pickardracing]

CJBurn, I think you need to pull off the tin hat.

To refute your analogies, Yes, going into an amusement park, you'd be assuming some risk. Drag strip, risk.

The point you seem to be missing is that there are SAFETY measures implemented at these types of facilities to reduce this risk.

You could look at this proposal as simply a measure to reduce the risk of second had smoke related illnesses to other people.

I find no Big-Brother problem with this. As previously stated, yes, the smokers have a right to smoke, but if it impedes on my right to breathe clean air, then we have an issue.

Ill say it again- This bill is not about telling you that you CANT smoke, all it is doing is compromising two positions between two groups.

And for the record, Yoosef hit it on the nuts, and thats coming from a business owner.

[johnny--2k]

CJBurn, I think you need to pull off the tin hat.

To refute your analogies, Yes, going into an amusement park, you'd be assuming some risk. Drag strip, risk.

The point you seem to be missing is that there are SAFETY measures implemented at these types of facilities to reduce this risk.

You could look at this proposal as simply a measure to reduce the risk of second had smoke related illnesses to other people.

I find no Big-Brother problem with this. As previously stated, yes, the smokers have a right to smoke, but if it impedes on my right to breathe clean air, then we have an issue.

Ill say it again- This bill is not about telling you that you CANT smoke, all it is doing is compromising two positions between two groups.

And for the record, Yoosef hit it on the nuts, and thats coming from a business owner.


Again, with the big-brother issue, this is where I disagree with you.

It is your right to breath clean air.

It is my right to smoke a cigarette.

It is NOT the governments right to tell a private business owner that they can not allow smoking in their establishment.

If they want to ban it in public, fine, but not in a privately owned business. That is the right of the business owner. They can tell the owner how to run their business from a federal standpoint, but not from a "freedom of choice" standpoint.

This is where I think the problem lies. I am a smoker, and I have no problem with them banning it in PUBLIC places, but I think they need to let private business owners make the decision for themselves.

Fireguyrick, I understand where you are coming from as well, but again, it's all about choice. I have asthma, and I smoke, and I know it sucks. In a situation like your wifes, I dont know what to say. It is unfortunate, but it is something she will have to deal with. I have some pretty big health problems that are all from genetics, and it blows. It restricts me from things I like, but you know, I cant help it, so I just deal with it. I dont mean to come off as saying I dont care about her situation, but at the same time, if it is that much of a problem, you need to find a way to overcome it.

Someone telling me I cant smoke is impeding on MY rights as a smoker. The coin can be flipped both ways. You telling me I cant smoke inside, and I have to go outside when it is 10* below zero is harmful to my health. If I get frost bite, can I sue you? No....it would never fly. So how can you go the other way around and say it's fair? It's not.

Just my two cents though, take it as you will. I dont really have a say either way, I just think it will do more economic harm than good in the long run.

Like someone said earlier, why not just ban all unhealthy foods? Or how about alcohol? Thats not healthy, so why dont they just ban that too? :alcoholic

[pOrk]

THANK YOU!!! This is exactly the point I was trying to get across.

As for stepping outside, it's just an inconvenience for people. Kind of like going into a gas station to use a bathroom, and they make you buy something first. Understandable, but not necessary. If it's 15* out and I go to a bar for a drink with friends, find out the bar has no smoking inside, I'll leave and find another place that does allow smoking inside. I dont want to go out in 15* weather to have a smoke if I dont have to.

:rolleyes: You know what an inconvenience is? It's trying to find a decent bar that doesn't allow smokers inside. I am glad some bars are finally banning it, cause I can't stand cig smoke and now I can finally go to some bars with friends without sucking in all that crap. My friends are at least considerate, and not too lazy to go smoke OUTSIDE.

[pOrk]

How about people running race fuel? I dont want to be exposed to those harmful toxins, so please, if you run race gas and see me at culvers, dont pull in. Just keep driving down the street until you are out of my sight! Seriously, come on man.....

It's a bunch of crap and all it does is get people riled up for some small bulls#it.

It is illegal to run race gas on the road, so this argument gets washed right down the pooper. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[johnny--2k]

:rolleyes: You know what an inconvenience is? It's trying to find a decent bar that doesn't allow smokers inside. I am glad some bars are finally banning it, cause I can't stand cig smoke and now I can finally go to some bars with friends without sucking in all that crap. My friends are at least considerate, and not too lazy to go smoke OUTSIDE.

never said I was too lazy, just annoyed.

That's fine, good for your friends. Now, a few years ago, when this ban was non-existent, did your friends go outside? Was there even a bar that didnt have smoking in it? Probably not. So again, this was not something on-going, it's something more to complain and argue endlessly about because there is nothing more important going on in the world...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[pOrk]

The point you guys are missing is that nobody is going to lose business over this if it's a STATEWIDE ban.

Yeah, maybe if one bar in one town did it or whatnot, then maybe it would be a big deal. The thing of is is that as it stands, I can only visit a select few places because I refuse to deal wiht the smoking. If this passed those people would not be asked to leave, rather to just have the common courtesy to step outside. As it stands, the non-smokers are the ones with the short end of the stick. All this would do is level the playing field.

Hundreds of people from my town, Sheboygan, GB, and everywhere else still go to Appleton for the best nightlife in the area, and guess what- CITY WIDE smoking ban. Nobody's going to lose a dollar over it. The law would not say you can't smoke, it just says you have to go outside. Thats a fair compromise in my book.

Anyone that says they wont patronize a place that wont let them smoke inside is a selfish lazy-ass in my book. Who the **** are these people to bong out the restaurant that Im trying to eat my food in?

I'd like to shoot pool league, I'd like to go to more than one or two bars, I'd like to go to certain reastaurants, but I can't because I simply cannot tolerate the goddamn smoke.

They're the ones with the addictions, theyre the ones making the nuisance, why shouldnt they do it in a place that won't bother anyone else.

*Golf Clap*

[johnny--2k]

It is illegal to run race gas on the road, so this argument gets washed right down the pooper. You are comparing apples to oranges.



yeah, it's illegal, but people do it dont they?

[pOrk]

The point of this argument completely sails right over your head. This is about CHOICE, and FREEDOMS. You, as a patron have no RIGHT to go into a business and demand them to have no smoking. This is a choice that a business owner must make over THEIR PROPERTY, nobody forces anyone to go to a restaurant, it is not something you HAVE to do. The original purpose of the government of the United States of America was to protect personal and property rights. Early simple examples, nobody forces you to house and board soldiers in your house, the British did this with early Colonials (I have forgotten the name of this practice), forced search and seizures by the government, freedom of behaviors such as religion, speech. These are very easy, fundamental principals of our government. Simple topics, simplified for you to understand since this point has completely run over the top of your head. You would understand that it is NOT an original goal of our founding fathers to have every damned behavior, in a PRIVATE establishment, in which NOBODY is forced to visit this establishment, patronize it, or work in it. Therefore, nobody's "rights" are infringed upon, other than the business owner. The idea of this ban, flies DIRECTLY in the face of what America once stood for. You must remember, people have inalienable rights, hell, some of them you might not agree with, but they do, and in this case it means the BUSINESS OWNER decides what goes on in their place. The Government should have nothing to say in this matter, the patrons should not be able to use the force of the state to inact this change. In our society it was designed to be done through the "free market" (remember capitalism?), if such a large market for a smoke free establishment were to exist, someone should open one and reap the benefits. If someone had a bar like this and it thrived, would they want the ban to go into effect and cut off their advantage? I'd bet they'd want to keep their competitive edge and keep smoking legal in bars. It's NOT your "right" to tell others what to do with their property, realize that there are bigger fish to fry in this matter than what you want, the idea that it bothers you makes you sound childish and immature. The idea of being a rationalizing adult is that you must realize everything cannot suite you, or be made to pander to your every desire. All people are not the same, and should not be forced to be so. This idea, this ban, is a LEFTIST standpoint, a socialist, or communist hallmark, sacrifice the few for the greater good, it's called social welfare, and we've seen through the short course of 100 years that it does not work with humans.

So its okay to endanger others with the roxic smoke spewing from your lungs / cig, that makes it okay ( since it is on private property ) for me to take a 9mm hand gun with live ammunition and start capping peoples knee caps. As long as I cap my own first, its okay for me to cap everyone else in the joint because it is 'private property' right? Its not harming anyone, they can go to the hospital and have their knee patched up just like the rest of us. :thumbsup

[johnny--2k]

The point you guys are missing is that nobody is going to lose business over this if it's a STATEWIDE ban.

Yeah, maybe if one bar in one town did it or whatnot, then maybe it would be a big deal. The thing of is is that as it stands, I can only visit a select few places because I refuse to deal wiht the smoking. If this passed those people would not be asked to leave, rather to just have the common courtesy to step outside. As it stands, the non-smokers are the ones with the short end of the stick. All this would do is level the playing field.

Hundreds of people from my town, Sheboygan, GB, and everywhere else still go to Appleton for the best nightlife in the area, and guess what- CITY WIDE smoking ban. Nobody's going to lose a dollar over it. The law would not say you can't smoke, it just says you have to go outside. Thats a fair compromise in my book.

Anyone that says they wont patronize a place that wont let them smoke inside is a selfish lazy-ass in my book. Who the **** are these people to bong out the restaurant that Im trying to eat my food in?

I'd like to shoot pool league, I'd like to go to more than one or two bars, I'd like to go to certain reastaurants, but I can't because I simply cannot tolerate the goddamn smoke.

They're the ones with the addictions, theyre the ones making the nuisance, why shouldnt they do it in a place that won't bother anyone else.


Exactly, YOU refuse, but joe shmoe may not.

So then I refuse to go somewhere that does not allow indoor smoking, why, because I can. Just like YOU wont go somewhere that does allow it. How is this any different? It's a choice that you and I are both free to make. How does this make me a "selfish lazy-ass'? Because I made a choice? Wow...I must be selfish. You know, land of the free, freedom of choice, Damn...I'm selfish. Sorry.

Oh yeah, and the government making choices for business owners, this is not selfish on their part?


Again, I dont mind if they go PUBLIC, but not PRIVATE.


Oh, and I'm sorry that my CHOICE is a nuissance to you......

[johnny--2k]

So its okay to endanger others with the roxic smoke spewing from your lungs / cig, that makes it okay ( since it is on private property ) for me to take a 9mm hand gun with live ammunition and start capping peoples knee caps. As long as I cap my own first, its okay for me to cap everyone else in the joint because it is 'private property' right? Its not harming anyone, they can go to the hospital and have their knee patched up just like the rest of us. :thumbsup



And I'm the one comparing apples to oranges? It's Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, so this does not apply here either.

Dont post something then come back with a statement that completely negates what you just said earlier. It makes your credibility go "down the pooper"

[pOrk]

never said I was too lazy, just annoyed.

That's fine, good for your friends. Now, a few years ago, when this ban was non-existent, did your friends go outside? Was there even a bar that didnt have smoking in it? Probably not. So again, this was not something on-going, it's something more to complain and argue endlessly about because there is nothing more important going on in the world...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A few years ago I didn't go to the bar, because I wasn't 21. My friends and family were always considerate enough to leave the area or restaurant when they wanted to smoke. I guess I do pretty fair at picking my friends, I have more then cell phone filled with numbers so I must not be too intolerable.

[pOrk]

And I'm the one comparing apples to oranges? It's Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, so this does not apply here either.

Dont post something then come back with a statement that completely negates what you just said earlier. It makes your credibility go "down the pooper"

Who said it was concealed? Did I say I hid the weapon when I walked into the establishment? You want to get into technicalities, lets say I am a Police Officer. What you are saying still makes it ok for me to shoot people in the knee, because it was their choice to go in there knowing I go there with a gun.

[johnny--2k]

well, I dont know what to tell you there.......

It never was a problem before, but now that it has been MADE a problem, it's unavoidable......

[pOrk]

well, I dont know what to tell you there.......

It never was a problem before, but now that it has been MADE a problem, it's unavoidable......

I assure you its always been a problem, people actually come out with what they want to say instead of minding their own buisness like it used to be. Which I am down for, since I hate cig smoke. Then again, everyone used to have the right to bear arms. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION, but the government took that away from a few states as well.

Give it a few years, we won't have any rights and we won't be able to take a piss without asking Uncle Sam for permission.

[johnny--2k]

Who said it was concealed? Did I say I hid the weapon when I walked into the establishment? You want to get into technicalities, lets say I am a Police Officer. What you are saying still makes it ok for me to shoot people in the knee, because it was their choice to go in there knowing I go there with a gun.

OK, Fine, unless you are an officer of the law in some official government agency, it is illegal to carry a weapon....concealed or not, so therefore it is apples to oranges.

You are not a cop, so it does not apply to YOU.

No, it does not make it OK. I never said it did make it OK to smoke, what I am trying to get across, one more time, is this....


I THINK THE CHOICE SHOULD BE UP TO THE BUSINESS OWNER NOT THE GOVERNMENT. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL A PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER THAT SOMEONE CAN NOT SMOKE IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. IT'S NOT A FEDERAL LAW, SO IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS SAY.

[johnny--2k]

I assure you its always been a problem, people actually come out with what they want to say instead of minding their own buisness like it used to be. Which I am down for, since I hate cig smoke. Then again, everyone used to have the right to bear arms. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION, but the government took that away from a few states as well.

Give it a few years, we won't have any rights and we won't be able to take a piss without asking Uncle Sam for permission.

Exactly, it was never a VOICED problem, until it was made one......

This is another one of my points, if this goes through, what is going to be next? That's why I am mostly, not 100%, against this whole thing. It's just one more right the government is taking away from us.

[pOrk]

OK, Fine, unless you are an officer of the law in some official government agency, it is illegal to carry a weapon....concealed or not, so therefore it is apples to oranges.

You are not a cop, so it does not apply to YOU.

No, it does not make it OK. I never said it did make it OK to smoke, what I am trying to get across, one more time, is this....


I THINK THE CHOICE SHOULD BE UP TO THE BUSINESS OWNER NOT THE GOVERNMENT. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL A PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER THAT SOMEONE CAN NOT SMOKE IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. IT'S NOT A FEDERAL LAW, SO IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS SAY.

Again, this is technicalities. I can carry a rifle during hunting season, so I will wait till hunting season then pull this thread up if you want to be THAT nit-picky about it.

This pencil in my hand is a weapon if I use it as one, and GUESS WHAT! So is the cigarette you are smoking, it is killing MY capillaries so therefor that is also a weapon.

[johnny--2k]

Again, this is technicalities. I can carry a rifle during hunting season, so I will wait till hunting season then pull this thread up if you want to be THAT nit-picky about it.

This pencil in my hand is a weapon if I use it as one, and GUESS WHAT! So is the cigarette you are smoking, it is killing MY capillaries so therefor that is also a weapon.

OK, this is getting a bit carried away. But, for the sake of fun and a good whole-hearted discussion, if I saw you with a rifle, and decided to take a risk and walk in front of you and you shot me, that would be a risk I took, just like you walking into a smoky bar......

you dont have to come in, and I dont have to walk in front of you. You say you though I was a deer, I say I thought you were a smoker, or didnt care......

[pOrk]

If I saw myself with a rifle, I think I might be cautious and avoid walking in front of me as well. Reguardless, if carrying a weapon is illegal, WHY can YOU carry burning cancer sticks around other people? It is NOT a right.


This pencil in my hand is a weapon if I use it as one, and GUESS WHAT! So is the cigarette you are smoking, it is killing MY capillaries so therefor that is also a weapon.

[johnny--2k]

If I saw myself with a rifle, I think I might be cautious and avoid walking in front of me as well. Reguardless, if carrying a weapon is illegal, WHY can YOU carry burning cancer sticks around other people? It is NOT a right.

It's not illegal though, so therefore it is a right.....

And that's exactly it, you might be cautious, and avoid it. Just like you can be cautious and avoid going into a smoke filled bar.....

You have a right to have a weapon in your home, but not in public. Your home is your private property, so you can do as you want within rightful reason, just like a bar is a private business, so they should be able to do (or let their patrons do) as they want within rightful reason.

Again, Im more concerned with the private aspect of the ban.

[pOrk]

It IS illegal to carry a weapon on your person, and anything that knowingly causes bodily injury to yourself AND others IS a weapon. And I know exactly where you stand in the debate, I'm just being a pain in the ass. Not to mention the smoke really bothers me, and the girlfriend is allergic to it so it gets ugly when she is around it.

[johnny--2k]

Man, you are a pain in the ass....hahaha....j/k.

I know how you feel, but I just think this is another way for the government to have control over something that they should not, that is really my problem.

oh well, time to go to bed.....

[pOrk]

See you at culvers tomorrow? I gotta catch some shut eye as well

[johnny--2k]

possibly....what time?

[pOrk]

8:23 PM ish

[pOrk]

http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20186

[fireguyrick]

but I think they need to let private business owners make the decision for themselves...

I have some pretty big health problems that are all from genetics, and it blows. It restricts me from things I like, but you know, I cant help it, so I just deal with it... if it is that much of a problem, you need to find a way to overcome it.


Here is another way to look at what you have said.

You are right, the government should stay out of what a private business desires to do for their client's needs. I really feel that this whole handicap accesibility is silly. Why should a privately owned establishment provide handicap access. Hell, I think they need to get rid of the disabled parking too. All to often I have to park way in the back, yet there are 3 or 4 disabled spots open. What is that all about? If I have a child that wants to eat peanut butter at school they should be able to, irregardless as to if another child there has a severe peanut allergy. Hey, these people need to learn how to deal with it.

Let me ask you this, you define a RIGHT as something that is not controlled or regulated by the Federal government in some shape or form. While, this might not be EXACTLY how you define it, you have made several comments about federal laws governing people. So, anyways, if the FEDERAL government were to enact this law it would be ok? If so, then it should be ok as it stands now. The reason is that the federal government allows states to make laws that are stricter then what the feds inact. So, in some form the laws a state government passes are reflective of what the Federal government can do.

Just some items to mull over in your mind.

Rick

By the way, as a child I did not have the luxury of deciding where I would eat with my family. So, if my family decided to subject me to a smoke filled environment, well, that is ok, as it is my choice to breath right?

Perhaps the best way to deal with this at the moment is to consider allowing smoking in BARS (those that make a overwhelming majority of their money from alchol), and ban it in other establishments.

[Silver03SRT]

cant wait till they ban smoking in bars. i hate smelling like an ashtray when i get out of the bars.

[Lash]

Why do people still find the need to smoke anyways? Especially with all the information/stats out there these days.


You do realize that when you get lung cancer (which you WILL)....you only have about a 11-14% chance of being cured.....and that's over 5 years (most lung cancer patients do not die in the first year. Most deaths last YEARS and are VERY painful and drawn out. NOBODY can help you). Even if you are cured...there is only a 70% survival rate after 5 years (surgical resection).

Have you ever seen what it's like to die of lung cancer???

"This year an estimated 180,000 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States, and 90% of them will die within three years -- and 96% of these cancer victims are cigarette smokers."

"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year"

Cigarettes do not only cause lung cancer either.
Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers as well as acute myeloid leukemia.

And if you honestly thing that second hand smoke is not that bad...
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

You would have to quit smoking for 15-20 years to even start reversing the effects of cigarette smoke. The average age for lung cancer patients is between 50-60 years old. Do the math. If you keep smoking even into your late 20's...you may as well let me put a bullet in your head now.


And on the argument about the "private property/business owners".

You argue that the gov. can not make these owners do anything they don't want to because it goes against their rights.

But what if, for ever single person that came into a bar, they slipped a small amount of poison into their drink. Just enough that they don't die right away...but after a few more visits to the bar it starts to make an impact in their health.
How is that ANY different that cigarette smoke. Its a KNOWN KILLER and a know POISON!!!!!!!!
Why should the government ALLOW smokers to kill themselves and others.....no matter where the fvck it is??????????? We don't allow private business owners to kill customers with knives or guns. So why should this be any different?? You may say it's your right...we'll then it's our right to call you suicidal (since everybody knows that you will eventually die from it) and make you get professional help.


Bottom line...


If you smoke...I think your a dumbfvck.....and you should think the same about yourselves.

You have a better chance of survival being exposed to 5+ times the safe level of radon over your entire life than you do smoking cigarettes.

And if you are being exposed to even a small amount of radon (which a lot people are) AND you smoke.....we'll you're screwed. There will basically be ZERO chance of curing you.

[Cjburn]

It's nice to know people notice that I do where a hat, however it's made of aluminum foil so that MLB can't read my mind. Anyways, it would be a great idea to have rights written down, so that they cannot be changed, or re-interpreted whenever it suits whomever. I take a very strong stance against further regulation in the private sector, be it property or personal rights. This is where this argument must be taken, smoking is bad, it really is, but whose choice should it be whether they smoke or not? The smoker. Whose choice should it be whether there is smoking or not in their bar? The owner. Lash, the idea that the government "allows" us to do things, and rather not the other way around is pretty disturbing. IN this country you should do what you want, whenever you want, as long as no persons personal or property rights are intruded upon. IF a smoker wants to smoke and kill themselves, have at it, but in a private public setting where it is allowed by the person who owns the property. Yellow Wagon, the idea that the "government" is just doing the "greater good" since it what people generally want, doesn't make it right, since it infringes on a part of what founded this country (Bill of Rights), no matter what the "great good" argument gets to, it cannot infringe on the rights of the person who owns the property. A lot of bad things can handle, but we cannot legislate all bad outcomes out of our lives, it would take the risk out of it, and therefore all the fun. To continue to force choices out of people, we won't be left any free ones.

[Lash]

we won't be left any free ones.


And I'll go ahead and say that there are a lot (maybe even the majority) of people in this country who shouldn't be given the opportunity to make choices.
It has a lot to do with why this country is a fvked up as it is.

I dont expect you to understand though. You seem to be one of those 'fight the power' types...lol.
:thumbsup


It's too early in the morning for this shit anyways.

[88Nightmare]

I was just gonna say that. Why do people smoke anyway? "well we are addicted" So quit. "but unless you were ever a smoker, you don't realize how hard it is to quit" No I don't. But I can come up with a relative idea of what its like. However, others have quit and have stayed smoke free for years. They realized their smoke was killing them. They realized their smoke was killing others around them. They realized it was making their house, car, clothing, and everything else around them smell like shit.

(ignoring all gun laws) do I have the right to go into a restaurant or bar with a revolver, point it to a smokers head and play russian roulette with him? no, because its endangering his right to live. Just like how if I want to go into a restaurant or bar, a person should not be allowed to have the right to light up a cigarette and smoke, because its endangering my life, and I have that right to live and breath clean air.

If you smokers are simply arguing the fact that the federal government should not be allowed to create this kind of law and ban indoor smoking at establishments, then yes, I can agree with that. It seems as if they are going above and beyond their power and enacting laws on land that isnt theirs. It should be left up to the business owner since its private property. I can agree with that.

But on the other hand, I still feel the government should enact this law. Of course I feel that way, because it would better on my end of the deal. But again, if I have the right to choose what bar or restaurant I want to go to and sit down with friends and enjoy a meal, why should I have to deal with other peoples smoke because they feel the need to smoke cigarettes? Is that fair to me? "well you had the right to pick that restaurant, you could have gone elsewhere". That statement is spoken like a true asswipe. Thats like saying "well since you had the right to choose what restaurant, you had the right to choose a smoke free establishment or this one, if this establishment you chose has smokers in it and our bad habit is going to kill you slowly, then so be it".

Smoking has been banned in so many places already that arent public property. Shopping malls, movie theaters, inside of car dealerships, bike dealerships, supermarkets, the largest food chain in the world aka mcdonalds, burger king, wendys.... I mean I could go on forever. And guess what? None of those places listed are public property. They are all privately (or corporately owned).

What I don't understand is why smokers are having such a tough time with this? What is so hard about going outside to have a cigarette? Don't want to brave the weather if it happens to be inclement? Tough shit. I and a few hundred million other people in america dont want to breathe your crap, so fuggin deal with it!

[Lash]

Just for the record...I smoked for almost 7 years.

I met a really hot girl who refused to date smokers. At the time she didn't know I smoked...so I had to hide it from her to even date her. The easiest way to hide it from her was to basically to try and quit all together (and to tell my frinds to STFU about it....lol). We'll....that girl eventually became my wife. :) It was worth it.

[Waver]

Well, here is my take on the whole issue. I smoke, I have no problems with goingoutside and smoking, as I do it at work right now. I dont choose a restaraunt because it allows smoking or not. I go there because I like the food. If I go to a bar, I will go out side if I have to, however it is not somthing that I am used to. I like haing a smoke after I drink a beer. However if I cant, then it is not going to chase me out....I am o.k. with the smoking ban, as long as it dosnt effect me smoking in my home, car, or outside....

As far as the tax thing goes, eigther lower the tax on gas or allow me to deduct it on my taxes at the end of the year. It is not fair that I have to pay extra just so that doyle can get the state out of the deficit that he created, or to line his pockets.....

[88Nightmare]

see, even neuwave gets it! :D :rolf

but seriously, just like neuwave said, you pick the restaurant because of the food, service, and atmosphere, not because of whether people smoke there or not. You shouldn't have to avoid a place just because their is deadly smoke in the air.... there just shouldn't be deadly smoke in the air

[Waver]

bars and smoking kind of go together, restaraunts and smoking, well if it is offered I will smoke in it, howeve I will be still considerate of others.

[88Nightmare]

how can you smoke indoors but still be considerate of others?



its like peeing in a pool. you can't have a peeing section in a swimming pool, its eventually gonna drift around and go everywhere...

[Waver]

easily, if you are in a smoking section that is seperated from a non smoking section and there are other people smoking, then I say go for it....however if there are people eating around you, then dont smoke....the few restaraunts that I go to on a regular basis, there ar hardly any one there when I go, so I know I am not offending people, and also there is a bit more ventilation in smoking areas in the restaraunts that I go to so that it wont go over to the non smoking section....if I am in a restaraunt/bar, where all the tables around the bar, I wont smoke....the places that I go to on a regular basis are eighter not in their peak hours (i hop and dennys is dead when I go at 8) and in places like webs, there are a lot of people smoking.....I can understand what you are saying, however for smokers it is a double edged sword....If I am in a place that a majority of people smoke, I will ask before I light up.

[johnny--2k]

Rick, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I dont think the government is trying to take away MY rights, but rather the rights of the business owners. If the federal government enacts this, I do NOT think it would be OK. That is where I have an even bigger problem with this.


Just like Cjburn said,


This is where this argument must be taken, smoking is bad, it really is, but whose choice should it be whether they smoke or not? The smoker. Whose choice should it be whether there is smoking or not in their bar? The owner.

it should be up to them. If this continues, we wont have any freedom of choice any more, and is that not what this country is about?

Anyways, I'm fine with just banning it in restaurants if they keep it in bars. I'd be 110% OK with that. I dont really smoke much when I eat, usually after, and I can wait to leave for that. But when I am out having a drink, I like to smoke. Will I not go to a bar that is no smoking, probably not. I would still go if I were with people and someone wanted to go there. I'll go outside to smoke, but if I'm just going out, and someone asks ME where I want to go, I'm not gonna suggest a place that bans indoor smoking.....

[pickardracing]

So I should have to drink at home because a bunch of inconsiderate fcuktards are addicted to nicotine and are too lazy to walk 10 ft out the door to spread their toxins?

I know more people that say the reason they dont go to bars is the smoke, rather than people who say they wouldnt go to a bar that doesnt allow smoking.

In fact, most smokers I know, even the heavy smokers, prefer places that are either non-smoking, or have adequate ventilation so that smoke is not an issue.

[xxsn0blindxx]

Let's say I invite a bunch of my friends over to my place for dinner and drinks every week. Me and a bunch of my friends hang out and drink and smoke and the house gets about as smokey as your typical bar. A couple of my friends who don't smoke are irritated by all the smoke at my house. Should they ask the government to make a law that bans smoking in my house? No, that's stupid. They should ask ME to stop allowing smoking in MY house or stop coming to MY house and maybe invite their non-smoking friends to their house. Now if a bunch of the friends say hey Joe, I'm not coming to the weekly get-together at your house because I can't stand the smoke, I have the choice to either say, alright guys, I won't allow smoking in the house anymore because I want you guys to keep coming back. I could also say screw you guys if you don't like the smoke then don't come over, that's MY choice. However, if 9 out of 10 people said they won't come back to my house because of the smoke I'd likely cater to them.

A restaurant or bar is not required to cater to your desires. They can if they want to and I can guarantee they will if it will bring them more business. You as a consumer have the choice to patronize or avoid any bar/restaurant. Nobody is forcing anyone to go into a bar/restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it, then it is your choice not to go there, however it is the owner's choice whether or not to allow it, not yours or the government's. You can certainly try to influence the owner's choice. Convince the owner that it is in their best interest to not allow smoking. Or open up your own non-smoking place and steal away all of the non-smokers and make shit-tons of money. One of the great things about this country is that people have the freedom to make choices, a smoking-ban eliminates the choice of a business owner to allow smoking on their property. Smoking in a bar/restaurant does not take away your choice to go there. You may not like it, but we shouldn't make laws that ban everything you don't like.

[Silver03SRT]

Let's say I invite a bunch of my friends over to my place for dinner and drinks every week. Me and a bunch of my friends hang out and drink and smoke and the house gets about as smokey as your typical bar. A couple of my friends who don't smoke are irritated by all the smoke at my house. Should they ask the government to make a law that bans smoking in my house? No, that's stupid. They should ask ME to stop allowing smoking in MY house or stop coming to MY house and maybe invite their non-smoking friends to their house. Now if a bunch of the friends say hey Joe, I'm not coming to the weekly get-together at your house because I can't stand the smoke, I have the choice to either say, alright guys, I won't allow smoking in the house anymore because I want you guys to keep coming back. I could also say screw you guys if you don't like the smoke then don't come over, that's MY choice. However, if 9 out of 10 people said they won't come back to my house because of the smoke I'd likely cater to them.

A restaurant or bar is not required to cater to your desires. They can if they want to and I can guarantee they will if it will bring them more business. You as a consumer have the choice to patronize or avoid any bar/restaurant. Nobody is forcing anyone to go into a bar/restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it, then it is your choice not to go there, however it is the owner's choice whether or not to allow it, not yours or the government's. You can certainly try to influence the owner's choice. Convince the owner that it is in their best interest to not allow smoking. Or open up your own non-smoking place and steal away all of the non-smokers and make shit-tons of money. One of the great things about this country is that people have the freedom to make choices, a smoking-ban eliminates the choice of a business owner to allow smoking on their property. Smoking in a bar/restaurant does not take away your choice to go there. You may not like it, but we shouldn't make laws that ban everything you don't like.

Resteraunts bars are public places. Yes they are owned by a private person or corp. but they are still open to the public.

[Silver03SRT]

If people want to smoke thats fine and dandy just go outside. Why should everyone who doesnt smoke deal with breathing in your second hand smoke. Not to mention getting your cloths smelling like crap as well. You choose to smoke I dont, I shouldnt have to deal with the effects of smoking because of you.

[johnny--2k]

Let's say I invite a bunch of my friends over to my place for dinner and drinks every week. Me and a bunch of my friends hang out and drink and smoke and the house gets about as smokey as your typical bar. A couple of my friends who don't smoke are irritated by all the smoke at my house. Should they ask the government to make a law that bans smoking in my house? No, that's stupid. They should ask ME to stop allowing smoking in MY house or stop coming to MY house and maybe invite their non-smoking friends to their house. Now if a bunch of the friends say hey Joe, I'm not coming to the weekly get-together at your house because I can't stand the smoke, I have the choice to either say, alright guys, I won't allow smoking in the house anymore because I want you guys to keep coming back. I could also say screw you guys if you don't like the smoke then don't come over, that's MY choice. However, if 9 out of 10 people said they won't come back to my house because of the smoke I'd likely cater to them.

A restaurant or bar is not required to cater to your desires. They can if they want to and I can guarantee they will if it will bring them more business. You as a consumer have the choice to patronize or avoid any bar/restaurant. Nobody is forcing anyone to go into a bar/restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it, then it is your choice not to go there, however it is the owner's choice whether or not to allow it, not yours or the government's. You can certainly try to influence the owner's choice. Convince the owner that it is in their best interest to not allow smoking. Or open up your own non-smoking place and steal away all of the non-smokers and make shit-tons of money. One of the great things about this country is that people have the freedom to make choices, a smoking-ban eliminates the choice of a business owner to allow smoking on their property. Smoking in a bar/restaurant does not take away your choice to go there. You may not like it, but we shouldn't make laws that ban everything you don't like.


OH MY GOD!!! Thank you so much......this is exactly what I have been trying to say.


and to Pickard and Silver03SRT.....why should a smoker have to go outside in the freezing below zero cold of winter to smoke a cigarette just because YOU dont like it? That's not fair to smokers either, especially in climates like ours. And dont give me some crap line about well then they should just quit smoking....that's not a valid argument.

[88Nightmare]

OH MY GOD!!! Thank you so much......this is exactly what I have been trying to say.


and to Pickard and Silver03SRT.....why should a smoker have to go outside in the freezing below zero cold of winter to smoke a cigarette just because YOU dont like it? That's not fair to smokers either, especially in climates like ours. And dont give me some crap line about well then they should just quit smoking....that's not a valid argument.

if they don't like smoking outside, then don't smoke. its not like its good for ya anyway. you guys are making it seem like we are holding you back from doin somethin good for ya. awww its not fair to smokers that they have to stand outside for 5 minutes to smoke their cancer stick. Is it fair that non smokers have to sit inside a smoked up restaurant for an hour while they try to eat their meal?

[Cjburn]

if they don't like smoking outside, then don't smoke. its not like its good for ya anyway. you guys are making it seem like we are holding you back from doin somethin good for ya. awww its not fair to smokers that they have to stand outside for 5 minutes to smoke their cancer stick. Is it fair that non smokers have to sit inside a smoked up restaurant for an hour while they try to eat their meal?

A simple point you seem to miss, is that you're deeming what is good or not for the person, when you have absolutely no right to do so. It's the actions of small minds who think they know what is best for people, especially when it is thought the right to do something (even if it's "bad") should be restricted or taken away. This is why I have such a large problem with the political left in this country, they have deemed to know what is best for everyone. Their insistance to continue the welfare state on the poor (knowing how to run a persons life), their consistant tax raising (knowing how to use the money I've earned), and "free health care" (knowing what is best to do with ones body). The argument gets a little deeper here than a mere annoyance in a private setting, whether you can see past your whiny demands on what others should do with THEIR own property.

[88Nightmare]

im not saying what is good or bad for the person, but I DO know second hand smoke is bad for me, and I don't want it around me, my non smoking friends and family, whether I am in my own home, walking down the street, in a bar, restaurant, or wherever I go.

[johnny--2k]

im not saying what is good or bad for the person, but I DO know second hand smoke is bad for me, and I don't want it around me, my non smoking friends and family, whether I am in my own home, walking down the street, in a bar, restaurant, or wherever I go.



Yes, you are. And I quote...


its not like its good for ya anyway.

Dont come in here and try to argue with the same un-original "well, why dont you just quit" crap that everyone else does. Come up with a VALID argument, then voice your opinion.

Please, walking down the street? Give me a break.......that's going a bit extreme considering there are much worse toxins in the air than some cigarette smoke......

Like I said earlier, I dont like people who run 110 octane because the fumes are toxic and will make me sick....so dont come around if you see me at culvers because you are harming me by doing something ILLEGAL and I feel you are infringing on my rights to stand in the culvers parking lot. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[88Nightmare]

well whatever you have quoted was kinda taken out of context, I think we all exaggerate once or twice in our lives

i simply cannot stand smoke when I am trying to eat. I try to tolerate it other times, but why should I? Is smoking outside really going to be bad for the poor smokers?

[johnny--2k]

well whatever you have quoted was kinda taken out of context, I think we all exaggerate once or twice in our lives

i simply cannot stand smoke when I am trying to eat. I try to tolerate it other times, but why should I? Is smoking outside really going to be bad for the poor smokers?

it's not taken out of context at all....but anyways,

For arguments sake, lets say you smoke. Now every bar you go to, you can no longer smoke inside. It's the middle of january, and you are out with friends and you want to have a cigarette, so you step outside, into the -15* weather with the windchill all because some people were complaining about smoky bars.....now how do you feel? Do you think it's fair? What happens if you catch pneumonia or get frost bite on the tips of your fingers (ok, exaggerating here, but just trying to make a point) can you sue the bar owner or the government for making you go outside in the freezing winter weather to smoke? I dont think so!

[pickardracing]

So if me and my friends wanted to go out to a bar, and take fat steaming liquid shits on the floor, that would be ok?

"Oh, I always shit when I drink"

What would happen if the place smelled so goddamn bad that you could harldy breathe and your eyes watered, and you went home smelling like Montezuma's Revenge?

What if you were trying to eat a meal and I decided to drop a huge load in the booth next to you?

"Oh, I always take a shit after I eat"

Wouldnt you be disgusted? Wouldnt you want something done about it? What if half the population did it?

No ******* difference. Replace shit with smoke.

[Reverend Cooper]

^ lololol thats funny

[johnny--2k]

So if me and my friends wanted to go out to a bar, and take fat steaming liquid shits on the floor, that would be ok?

"Oh, I always shit when I drink"

What would happen if the place smelled so goddamn bad that you could harldy breathe and your eyes watered, and you went home smelling like Montezuma's Revenge?

What if you were trying to eat a meal and I decided to drop a huge load in the booth next to you?

"Oh, I always take a shit after I eat"

Wouldnt you be disgusted? Wouldnt you want something done about it? What if half the population did it?

No ******* difference. Replace shit with smoke.


Well, you know what, if it smelled that bad, or I was that disgusted, I WOULD NOT GO THERE! Simple as that.

Restaurants, I can understand, but do you know how many people smoke only when they drink? I cant tell you the number of times I hear that, so they are normally not smokers, but when they drink, they smoke. I see a lot more smokers in bars than I do non-smokers.....

[88Nightmare]

it's not taken out of context at all....but anyways,

For arguments sake, lets say you smoke. Now every bar you go to, you can no longer smoke inside. It's the middle of january, and you are out with friends and you want to have a cigarette, so you step outside, into the -15* weather with the windchill all because some people were complaining about smoky bars.....now how do you feel? Do you think it's fair? What happens if you catch pneumonia or get frost bite on the tips of your fingers (ok, exaggerating here, but just trying to make a point) can you sue the bar owner or the government for making you go outside in the freezing winter weather to smoke? I dont think so!


Yeah, but it isn't the non smokers choice's faults that the smokers do smoke. Cold weather isnt going to kill you if you have a strong immune system... although its been proven that smoking weakens your immune system. The way I see it, if you want to put yourself in danger simply by lighting up a cig and inhaling that crap in your lungs, you should have no problem braving sub zero temperatures to do so.

[xxsn0blindxx]

So if me and my friends wanted to go out to a bar, and take fat steaming liquid shits on the floor, that would be ok?

"Oh, I always shit when I drink"

What would happen if the place smelled so goddamn bad that you could harldy breathe and your eyes watered, and you went home smelling like Montezuma's Revenge?

What if you were trying to eat a meal and I decided to drop a huge load in the booth next to you?

"Oh, I always take a shit after I eat"

Wouldnt you be disgusted? Wouldnt you want something done about it? What if half the population did it?

No ******* difference. Replace shit with smoke.

Well I would have to assume that the owners of the bar and restaurant probably don't allow taking shits on their floor. If they did, I would certainly avoid that place. I would also imagine that allowing people to take shits on the floor would chase a lot of business away so the owner would likely prohibit it. Then again they may have found a niche market and make good money catering to those who enjoy shitting on the floor and being in the company of those who shit on the floor. If shitting on the floor is offensive to most people there will likely be tons of choices for places that offer a nonshitting-on-the-floor atmosphere.

[xxsn0blindxx]

Yeah, but it isn't the non smokers choice's faults that the smokers do smoke. Cold weather isnt going to kill you if you have a strong immune system... although its been proven that smoking weakens your immune system. The way I see it, if you want to put yourself in danger simply by lighting up a cig and inhaling that crap in your lungs, you should have no problem braving sub zero temperatures to do so.

You're missing the point. It is up to the business owner to determine whether or not smoking is allowed in their business. You may not like it, but it is not your decision and you should not use the government to force your will on others.

[Silver03SRT]

Why should my health be at risk because you dont care about yours. I choose not to smoke you choose to do so. Dont put me in a position where I am subject to that. If you want to smoke feel free to do so but dont be so inconsiderate of others heath. I should not have to change the place where I enjoy going to because people who choose to smoke. If they want to make a smoking section thats fine keep it in a seperate room. I guess the only way I can desribe it that makes some sense is like speeding. The government put speed limits up for the saftey of others on the road. Should they take away speed limits because there are a number of people that like to speed. NO, because your speeing can cause an accident and lead to injury or death. Well its the same with smoking. Your putting my life and health at risk with the activity you like doing. So someone has to step up and say something.

[johnny--2k]

Well I would have to assume that the owners of the bar and restaurant probably don't allow taking shits on their floor. If they did, I would certainly avoid that place. I would also imagine that allowing people to take shits on the floor would chase a lot of business away so the owner would likely prohibit it. Then again they may have found a niche market and make good money catering to those who enjoy shitting on the floor and being in the company of those who shit on the floor. If shitting on the floor is offensive to most people there will likely be tons of choices for places that offer a nonshitting-on-the-floor atmosphere.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.............HAHAHAHA.......:rolf

Thats great.

and I agree, a lot of people are missing the big picture that you and I are trying to make, it should be up to the business owner....not the government.

[johnny--2k]

Why should my health be at risk because you dont care about yours. I choose not to smoke you choose to do so. Dont put me in a position where I am subject to that. If you want to smoke feel free to do so but dont be so inconsiderate of others heath. I should not have to change the place where I enjoy going to because people who choose to smoke. If they want to make a smoking section thats fine keep it in a seperate room. I guess the only way I can desribe it that makes some sense is like speeding. The government put speed limits up for the saftey of others on the road. Should they take away speed limits because there are a number of people that like to speed. NO, because your speeing can cause an accident and lead to injury or death. Well its the same with smoking. Your putting my life and health at risk with the activity you like doing. So someone has to step up and say something.


Yeah, and you are putting my health at risk by making me go outside to smoke in freezing temperatures, its the same shit just flipped around.

Besides, when you walk into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, you are putting your own health at risk by CHOOSING to go there, so dont ***** about the choices you make, because it makes you out to be a hypocrite. I choose to smoke, you choose to go to the places that allow smoking, its your CHOICE. You are not FORCED to be there, you CHOOSE to be, so make a different choice if it bothers you.

[xxsn0blindxx]

Your health doesn't have to be at risk, don't go to places that allow smoking. A better analogy would be a race track. High rates of speed are allowed and those who go there know and accept that risk.

[Cryptic]

Owhy should a smoker have to go outside in the freezing below zero cold of winter to smoke a cigarette just because YOU dont like it?

Why not? Should I have to eat outside to avoid your smoke? Your smoke intrudes everyone else's space. Not the otherway around.

Comedian Steve Martin put it best, saying: "if I'm in a restaurant and I'm eating and someone says, 'Hey, mind if I smoke?' I always say, 'No. Mind if I fart?'"

[johnny--2k]

oh my god....you guys are missing the point completely.

you know what, go ahead and fart.....I cant smell anyways, my nose is always plugged up.

and no, you dont have to eat outside. Go to another restaurant.

[xxsn0blindxx]

Again the real question is why shouldn't the business owner be allowed to decide?

p.s. "because the business owners aren't choosing my way" is not a valid answer

[pOrk]

Okay, how about we take the buisness owner out of the picture together.

Lets say I am sitting in a restaurant that allows smoking ( which I MAY or MAY NOT be aware of ) and I am seated with a few people ( fellow non-smokers ) off in the corner of a very un-populated restaurant.

Then 3 lazy smokers come into the restaurant, and sit one table away from ours. The smoke-free environment we were in is now a smoke filled in evironment. Heres the questions

1. If you were the smoker and were politely asked to take it outside or move your ass to the other side of the restaurant, would you?

2. Is it okay, since I am now disgusted and the restaurant staff gives no **** about how my party dislikes smoke when eating, for us to give up and leave the restaurant without paying? I paid for a smoke free service which was now filled with smoke, due to the hostess seating the smokers near us?

[johnny--2k]

well, if I was asked to move, then I would. No questions asked there. I would not be an ass about something like that.

As for your second question, no it is not OK, because the restaurant allows smoking, and whether or not you knew that is irrelevant. If you were unsure, you should have asked, and if you were non-smokers, why would you be sitting in a section that allows smoking. They probably would have asked you if you wanted to be seated in smoking or non-smoking, so that question just gets thrown out the window.

If you were asked, and sat in smoking, then got upset because someone was smoking, that's your own damn fault.

[pOrk]

Not all restaurants have smoking and non smoking sections. That argument is not one of your better ones.

[johnny--2k]

Which ones dont? I have never been to one that is not separated, unless it's a pub/bar then it does not really apply, and you should know better than to think that would be non-smoking.

[pOrk]

So from now on, you're saying I should call ahead to find out if they have a non-smoking section because some smokers are too inconsiderate to wait 30 minutes to smoke a cigarette. Think about it, its up hauling.

[johnny--2k]

No, what I am saying is if they have smoking and non-smoking sections, just ask to be seated as far away from the smoking section as possible. If you are nice about it, they will be nice about it. That's all.

So, which restaurants dont have split sections? I'm kinda curious as I thought it was some kind of law or something to at least have them split up unless it's a bar or pub type place. Even Webbs has "separate" sections for smoking and non.

[88Nightmare]

I have already acknowledged the fact that the government is taking too much power into their hands and are forcing restaurant owners what to do when it is their restaurant on private property. I agreed with that many times. I think most of us agree with that. The point that I and the other non smokers are trying to make is the fact that we should not have to deal with smokers in restaurants. Yes we understand we have the choice what restaurant we want to go to, but choice aside, sometimes it doesnt make a difference. You can still smell it. In an enclosed building, what difference does a smokers section make? Its like I said before. Its like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. Even if you pee in the corner, its still eventually gonna float everywhere. Same thing with smoking. Smoking is bad for everyones health. We all know that. Just because you choose to smoke, and smoke inside where everyone else can breath that in, why should everyone else who doesnt smoke have to breath that in? Is it fair? "just go to a different restaurant" **** that. **** anyone who says that. That is a PRICK statement. Its arrogant and selfish. You can endanger your life all you want with your cancer sticks, but ill be damned if your going to endanger mine.

[pOrk]

Most places do, I was at a few small restaurants on my travels to Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, and Oklahoma that didn't have split sections and I was rather surprised. When I travel, I like to hit mom and pop restaurants.

[88Nightmare]

When I travel, I like to hit mom and pop restaurants.

thats where the best food is man! :thumbsup

[xxsn0blindxx]

I have already acknowledged the fact that the government is taking too much power into their hands and are forcing restaurant owners what to do when it is their restaurant on private property. I agreed with that many times. I think most of us agree with that. The point that I and the other non smokers are trying to make is the fact that we should not have to deal with smokers in restaurants. Yes we understand we have the choice what restaurant we want to go to, but choice aside, sometimes it doesnt make a difference. You can still smell it. In an enclosed building, what difference does a smokers section make? Its like I said before. Its like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. Even if you pee in the corner, its still eventually gonna float everywhere. Same thing with smoking. Smoking is bad for everyones health. We all know that. Just because you choose to smoke, and smoke inside where everyone else can breath that in, why should everyone else who doesnt smoke have to breath that in? Is it fair? "just go to a different restaurant" **** that. **** anyone who says that. That is a PRICK statement. Its arrogant and selfish. You can endanger your life all you want with your cancer sticks, but ill be damned if your going to endanger mine.

Life isn't always fair, you don't always get things your way. If the business owners say smoking is allowed then it is allowed. Just because you don't like their decision to allow smoking doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to make it.

[xxsn0blindxx]

Here's what it comes down to. Most bars and many restaurants cater to smokers and non-smokers who tolerate smoking. There is a smaller group who is anti-smoking, can't stand being around it and won't go anywhere that allows it. This smaller group is mad because they want to go to all of the restaurants and bars but can't because they refuse to go to any that allow smoking. So they're made that they can' have things their way and want the government to force their will on the owners of the bars and restaurants.

[88Nightmare]

it comes down to a good percentage of smokers being some of the most selfish and arrogant people on the face of the earth aside from environmentalists and PETA

[johnny--2k]

I have already acknowledged the fact that the government is taking too much power into their hands and are forcing restaurant owners what to do when it is their restaurant on private property. I agreed with that many times. I think most of us agree with that. The point that I and the other non smokers are trying to make is the fact that we should not have to deal with smokers in restaurants. Yes we understand we have the choice what restaurant we want to go to, but choice aside, sometimes it doesnt make a difference. You can still smell it. In an enclosed building, what difference does a smokers section make? Its like I said before. Its like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. Even if you pee in the corner, its still eventually gonna float everywhere. Same thing with smoking. Smoking is bad for everyones health. We all know that. Just because you choose to smoke, and smoke inside where everyone else can breath that in, why should everyone else who doesnt smoke have to breath that in? Is it fair? "just go to a different restaurant" **** that. **** anyone who says that. That is a PRICK statement. Its arrogant and selfish. You can endanger your life all you want with your cancer sticks, but ill be damned if your going to endanger mine.


wow....easy killer. I guess sarcasm doesn't come off as obvious online. Just a joke....I even said it above,I wont be an ass about it. Personally, like I said before, I dont care if they do it in restaurants, but NOT bars. That i where I think they will loose business. Restaurants I dont mind, I will wait till I leave to smoke, but when I am out for a drink, I want to have smoke with my drink.

[johnny--2k]

it comes down to a good percentage of smokers being some of the most selfish and arrogant people on the face of the earth aside from environmentalists and PETA

I would have gone the other way around......you non-smokers are the niche in the restaurant and especially bar industry, you are the selfish ones.

[88Nightmare]

I don't care about my health and im gonna smoke my life away. I don't care about the wellness of others so **** em, if they wanna eat next to me they can just breathe my second hand smoke which is twice as bad as the cigarette itself. Uh oh they don't like it? **** em, they can just deal with it

[pickardracing]

I would have gone the other way around......you non-smokers are the niche in the restaurant and especially bar industry, you are the selfish ones.

Selfish?

We make a healthy decision to NOT partake in smoking and WE'RE selfish?

Get a clue.

[johnny--2k]

you are not making a decision, you are trying to get others (business owners) to make a decision that impacts their busineness for a few of the many. This is not something that is serving the GREATER good since non-smokers like you are few and far between. Most non-smokers could care less about being in a smoke filled bar.

Again, a restaurant is a different story, I would be fine with no smoking in restaurants, but not bars or businesses who get more than 35% of their revenue from liquor sales.

[pOrk]

^ some of us non-smokers DONT HAVE A CHOICE. Like I said before, my girlfriend is incredibly allergic, it has NOTHING to do with her being selfish. Her body can not handle the smoke.

[pickardracing]

you are not making a decision, you are trying to get others (business owners) to make a decision that impacts their busineness for a few of the many. This is not something that is serving the GREATER good since non-smokers like you are few and far between. Most non-smokers could care less about being in a smoke filled bar.

Again, a restaurant is a different story, I would be fine with no smoking in restaurants, but not bars or businesses who get more than 35% of their revenue from liquor sales.

No offense to you personally, but this is the most bullshit laden post yet.

Are you kidding? NOT serving the greater good? I cant even comprehend how you could SERIOUSLY type that and beleive it. So cigarettes are healthy now?

Few and far between? Do you even KNOW any non-smokers?

What the **** do liquor sales have to do with simply taking your lazy ass outside to smoke rather than doing it indoors?

[Silver03SRT]

Yeah, and you are putting my health at risk by making me go outside to smoke in freezing temperatures, its the same shit just flipped around.

Besides, when you walk into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, you are putting your own health at risk by CHOOSING to go there, so dont ***** about the choices you make, because it makes you out to be a hypocrite. I choose to smoke, you choose to go to the places that allow smoking, its your CHOICE. You are not FORCED to be there, you CHOOSE to be, so make a different choice if it bothers you.

Youre crazy. Your health isnt at risk by going outside because its your decision to smoke. If you had to smoke to live then no problem but you are filling the air with smoke that is harmful to my health. I choose to go there because almost every bar allows smoking in the city. I dont like going to those place just because of it. It basically boils down to you being inconciderate and only worrying about yourself. Just remember what goes around comes around like my fav singer justin timber lake says. :rolf

[johnny--2k]

I know many non-smokers, and they dont seem to give a shit. Infact, a lot of them feel the same way I do because this is not about smoking or not smoking, it's about taking rights away from business owners.

As far as the smoking world goes, it is not serving the greater good, and non-smokers who have no problem with standing in a bar that allows smoking are much more prevalent than non-smokers who can't stand the smoke, so no, it's not serving the greater good in terms of people and businesses.

NOW, in terms of health, I do agree, it will probably help the greater good, but that's not my argument. I am not all gung-ho about the health issue since that is not my main concern.

And liquor sales have a lot to do with it. For one, have you ever been to a state that does not allow smoking in bars? If so, you know that you cant stand anywhere within 25 feet of the entrance, so that puts you out in the street, then you have a drink in your hand, and you get a ticket for open intoxicants, so liquor sales have a big part in this argument...again, I am talking about BARS, NOT RESTAURANTS!!!

[johnny--2k]

Youre crazy. Your health isnt at risk by going outside because its your decision to smoke. If you had to smoke to live then no problem but you are filling the air with smoke that is harmful to my health. I choose to go there because almost every bar allows smoking in the city. I dont like going to those place just because of it. It basically boils down to you being inconciderate and only worrying about yourself. Just remember what goes around comes around like my fav singer justin timber lake says. :rolf

so I cant worry about myself, but you can worry about yourself? I see, that makes total sense now.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[johnny--2k]

To all the whining non-smokers, do you have any bad habits? Please, lets talk about those for a while. :rolleyes:

I would love to know what bad habits you have that I can rip into you for.....anyone ever done drugs in the past? Lets talk about that. How about anyone who has driven drunk? You endanger my health, so lets bring back prohibition. Ban all alcohol period.:rolleyes:

[johnny--2k]

Youre crazy. Your health isnt at risk by going outside because its your decision to smoke. If you had to smoke to live then no problem but you are filling the air with smoke that is harmful to my health. I choose to go there because almost every bar allows smoking in the city. I dont like going to those place just because of it. It basically boils down to you being inconciderate and only worrying about yourself. Just remember what goes around comes around like my fav singer justin timber lake says. :rolf



OH YEAH, and also in the words of YOUR favorite singer,

"Cry me a river"

[pickardracing]

To all the whining non-smokers, do you have any bad habits? Please, lets talk about those for a while.

I pick my nose and scratch my ass. In public.

Neither of which pose any danger to you.

[Silver03SRT]

you are not making a decision, you are trying to get others (business owners) to make a decision that impacts their busineness for a few of the many. This is not something that is serving the GREATER good since non-smokers like you are few and far between. Most non-smokers could care less about being in a smoke filled bar.

Again, a restaurant is a different story, I would be fine with no smoking in restaurants, but not bars or businesses who get more than 35% of their revenue from liquor sales.

Would you stop going to a bar because it doesnt allow somking? If we were driving together in your car and you started to smoke and I asked you to put it out would you? My guess would be no. Because you dont care about others you would say its my car I do what I want. Its the same thing at the bars. Just on a much larger scale. Why should your choice of smoking that puts OUR HEALTH at risk make us not go to an establishment that we like hanging out at. You make the unhealthy lifestyle and we have to suffer for it. Sounds like a jag move to me. Oh and by looking at this thread I see more people that are against smoking in bars then are for it. If you want to put your health at risk do it. Dont put mine at risk. Dont be so selfish. You seem to miss that point. I dont care if you smoke just dont do it around me. Its not the polite thing to do.

[Silver03SRT]

so I cant worry about myself, but you can worry about yourself? I see, that makes total sense now.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ummm you are not worrying about yourself if you choose to smoke. :thumbsup

[Silver03SRT]

Oh ya one more thing. How many people each year die from not smoking vs. people who do smoke. Im not talking about accidents and other non related deaths.

[johnny--2k]

If you look at one of my earlier posts, the chances of getting cancer from second hand smoke are less than the chances of getting cancer from drinking chlorinated water.

If you worry so much about my smoking, the dont come near me, it's as simple as that. You have a choice to go where you please, and if you dont want to go there, dont. In the rare case that you don't have a choice, just suck it up.

[johnny--2k]

Would you stop going to a bar because it doesnt allow somking? If we were driving together in your car and you started to smoke and I asked you to put it out would you? My guess would be no. Because you dont care about others you would say its my car I do what I want. Its the same thing at the bars. Just on a much larger scale. Why should your choice of smoking that puts OUR HEALTH at risk make us not go to an establishment that we like hanging out at. You make the unhealthy lifestyle and we have to suffer for it. Sounds like a jag move to me. Oh and by looking at this thread I see more people that are against smoking in bars then are for it. If you want to put your health at risk do it. Dont put mine at risk. Dont be so selfish. You seem to miss that point. I dont care if you smoke just dont do it around me. Its not the polite thing to do.

Chances are, I would stop going. Now, if you were in my car, and asked my not to smoke while you were there, I would. Because you are on my private property. But, if the government said I could not smoke in my car when a non-smoker was in it, thats where I would have the problem, and that is what I am trying to argue. i'm not saying I dont care about non-smokers, I am saying you guys are missing the point that this is just letting the government take over somewhere that they should not. This should be up to the bar owners and restaurant owners, not the government.

Im done arguing this point. You people dont seem to undersand this and I am sick of repeating myself.

Bye.

[Cryptic]

In a way I do agree that businesses should make the decision.
But it isn't businesses that pay for the health care when smokers come down with conditions that send them to the hospital and then the tax payers end up paying for their care. That's why the gov't is intervening.

My girlfriend works at St. Lukes on the 11th floor (which is where all these old foogies end up) She sees it everyday what smoking does in the long run and who ends up paying for it.

Smokers want the freedom to smoke while they drink. Fine, if it only effects you and you plan on taking care of yourself when your 50+ years old. It's easy to say it doesn't hurt me while your in your 20's or 30's.

IMO it's a freedom we all could benefit without. It's a habit I can't understand.

-Cryptic out :rock:

[07ROUSHSTG3]

the main argument is not about smoking at all, it is about how private property owners' rights are going down the crapper. it is a slippery slope. the same can be said about the law that makes it illegal in wisconsin to stop a woman from breastfeeding in ANY public place. what that means is that if you owned a restaurant you could not ask a woman to please not whip them out at the table when the dining area is full. this law would slap the owners of the establishment with a fine for doing so, again property owners' rights are not what they used to be. nowhere in the constition does it say that you have the right tell other people what do do with there own possessions or properties because you don't agree with what they are doing. just my $.02.

[Cryptic]

a valid point indeed.

[Silver03SRT]

Chances are, I would stop going. Now, if you were in my car, and asked my not to smoke while you were there, I would. Because you are on my private property. But, if the government said I could not smoke in my car when a non-smoker was in it, thats where I would have the problem, and that is what I am trying to argue. i'm not saying I dont care about non-smokers, I am saying you guys are missing the point that this is just letting the government take over somewhere that they should not. This should be up to the bar owners and restaurant owners, not the government.

Im done arguing this point. You people dont seem to undersand this and I am sick of repeating myself.

Bye.

I can see your point too. I just dont agree with it like you dont agree with mine. Screw it lets go get a drink :alcoholic wait im working.

[johnny--2k]

I'm down for a drink......and a smoke....hahaha...


But seriously, Even though the business dont pay for the health factor of it, if you were a business owner, and there was a law that basically would cut your profits by any amount, would you be saying, "Well, I dont want to expose my alcoholic non-smoking customers to smoke, so I'll just take the profit loss" ....I highly doubt that. That is the point I am trying to make, they have a business to run, and they need to be able to run it at the most profitable level. It comes down to business almost more than it does politics.....


So, about that drink........

[pickardracing]

I disagree. What will happen is that these places of business will make accomodations for the smokers, like they do in CA.

[Silver03SRT]

I'm down for a drink......and a smoke....hahaha...


But seriously, Even though the business dont pay for the health factor of it, if you were a business owner, and there was a law that basically would cut your profits by any amount, would you be saying, "Well, I dont want to expose my alcoholic non-smoking customers to smoke, so I'll just take the profit loss" ....I highly doubt that. That is the point I am trying to make, they have a business to run, and they need to be able to run it at the most profitable level. It comes down to business almost more than it does politics.....


So, about that drink........

You have a point but people dont go to bars to smoke they go to socialize and have a couple of drink, and well if your a guy you might be trying to get laid.:banana but all that aside I dont think its going to affect the profit margin for the owners. For one if its a state city wide ban against smoking in bars and such then you dont have much options as far as places to go. I guess both sides have their arguments. If I were a smoker I still wouldnt mind the ban.
oh ya lets get that drink thursday.

[johnny--2k]

You have a point but people dont go to bars to smoke they go to socialize and have a couple of drink, and well if your a guy you might be trying to get laid.:banana but all that aside I dont think its going to affect the profit margin for the owners. For one if its a state city wide ban against smoking in bars and such then you dont have much options as far as places to go. I guess both sides have their arguments. If I were a smoker I still wouldnt mind the ban.
oh ya lets get that drink thursday.

I suppose. Like I said, I'm still on the fence, but definitely leaning more twoards against the ban.....

Plus, a lot of people I know only smoke when they drink, which is the other problem that I see.....

I got night class on thursday, but I might still be down for a drink or two afterwards. As long as I can wake up for my class at 9 then work, I'm good to go!:alcoholic

[88Nightmare]

my bad habits don't affect the lives and health and well being of others :D

[Silver03SRT]

I suppose. Like I said, I'm still on the fence, but definitely leaning more twoards against the ban.....

Plus, a lot of people I know only smoke when they drink, which is the other problem that I see.....

I got night class on thursday, but I might still be down for a drink or two afterwards. As long as I can wake up for my class at 9 then work, I'm good to go!:alcoholic

ya i just dont like the feeling it leaves the next morning. i feel like crap. thats why i am for it. ya work sucks in the am. i start at 6 and work till whenever i want to leave basically. normally its 10 hours a day

[Silver03SRT]

my bad habits don't affect the lives and health and well being of others :D

ditto. well ya they dont.

[pOrk]

To all the whining non-smokers, do you have any bad habits? Please, lets talk about those for a while. :rolleyes:

I would love to know what bad habits you have that I can rip into you for.....anyone ever done drugs in the past? Lets talk about that. How about anyone who has driven drunk? You endanger my health, so lets bring back prohibition. Ban all alcohol period.:rolleyes:

I have never done drugs, hell I don't take Advil or Tylenol either and I never will. I don't drink either, again never will. Drunk driving is illegal, hardly a comparison once again. Seems like you are reaching for apples that have already fallen from the tree

[pOrk]

And liquor sales have a lot to do with it. For one, have you ever been to a state that does not allow smoking in bars?

Uhh, Madison does not allow smoking in any of the Bars and they are ALWAYS busy as ****. Shot down, again.

[johnny--2k]

I'm talking about an entire state though. And milwaukee is the "drunkest city in the US" with the most bars per capita and the most bars per square mile. Madison is not a comparison to milwaukee.....

Reaching for apples? What about your gun example? That was reaching a bit too.....and if this goes through, technically smoking would be "illegal"

[UnderPSI]

Plus, a lot of people I know only smoke when they drink, which is the other problem that I see.....

Um, Yea..... "I got a great buz going, now if I only smelled like $hit, yea that would make for a great night. Someone get me a cigarette!"

What the hell is the sense in that????

[johnny--2k]

hey, a lot of people do it....it's not uncommon.

[Silver03SRT]

To all the whining non-smokers, do you have any bad habits? Please, lets talk about those for a while. :rolleyes:

I would love to know what bad habits you have that I can rip into you for.....anyone ever done drugs in the past? Lets talk about that. How about anyone who has driven drunk? You endanger my health, so lets bring back prohibition. Ban all alcohol period.:rolleyes:

Ive never done drugs and I will NEVER drive drunk. I remember about 5 my friends asked me to go to a party I said no because I didnt have a ride home and I didnt want to drive if I was drinking. Well I told my brother that story and he said good you would be stupid of you drove drunk. Less then a week later him and his friend were killed by a drunk driver running from the cops. So thats my biggest reason why I will never drive drunk.

[johnny--2k]

and thats good. I'm not saying anyone does, but the chances are out there, and the risk is always present, no matter what......