I'm not keen on government interference in peoples' lives.
However tobacco smokers have things very cushy in comparison with users of other recreational drugs. That minor inconvenience of having to go outside for 3 minutes to satisfy one of the powerful chemical addictions is a far cry for that of the pot smoker who is always liable to arrest, a court appearance, a lost job, a fine and/or jail sentence and a criminal record.
Smoking is not permitted in public places here in California, and it seems to work well; bars and clubs etc. haven't gone out of business because of this ban. What is most important? The liberty of the smoker to smoke wherever he/she pleases, or the liberty of the nonsmoker not to have to smoke someone else's fumes? Its all down to compromise, taking a middle ground and working out something sensible.
And....making tobacco illegal is plain unworkable and authoritarian, just as the anti-marijuana laws are.
chicago recently tried to get an anti smoking law passed but to no avail.
but then, in chicago you can still get steaks and chops injected intravenously, and they have a defibrillator table side (if needed) whilst you talk about 'da bears.
just kidding.
but seriously, the quality of air argument is genius! an anti-smoking ordinance that never mentions smoking is brilliant! i'm going to pass it along to 'da mayor.
chicago recently tried to get an anti smoking law passed but to no avail.
but then, in chicago you can still get steaks and chops injected intravenously, and they have a defibrillator table side (if needed) whilst you talk about 'da bears.
just kidding.
but seriously, the quality of air argument is genius! an anti-smoking ordinance that never mentions smoking is brilliant! i'm going to pass it along to 'da mayor.
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
Why not. I'm sure There are areas where we agree. I'm against the banning of smoking and for the decriminalization of currently illegal drugs.
There are all sorts of luxuries and recreational activities that are powered by electricity via coal or oil. Air conditioning is a good example. These plants extremely degrade the livelihoods of those living near them. Why aren't there more nuclear plants? It's partly because yuppies who don't live near coal plants understand neither the plight of the public airspace, especially to those near the plants, nor the relative security of nuclear plants.
So let people smoke. Living near a fossil fuels plant, or even a sewage treatment plant (another municipal amenity) is much worse than having to be near a smoker for a while. If you want to be consistent with your arguments, ban all violations of public resources that have any connection to luxury. Otherwise stop whining.
Why not. I'm sure There are areas where we agree. I'm against the banning of smoking and for the decriminalization of currently illegal drugs.
There are all sorts of luxuries and recreational activities that are powered by electricity via coal or oil. Air conditioning is a good example. These plants extremely degrade the livelihoods of those living near them. Why aren't there more nuclear plants? It's partly because yuppies who don't live near coal plants understand neither the plight of the public airspace, especially to those near the plants, nor the relative security of nuclear plants.
So let people smoke. Living near a fossil fuels plant, or even a sewage treatment plant (another municipal amenity) is much worse than having to be near a smoker for a while. If you want to be consistent with your arguments, ban all violations of public resources that have any connection to luxury. Otherwise stop whining.
And you completely missed the point. I'm not for a complete ban on smoking. I'm for heavy restrictions and sales taxes on smoking...weed, cigarettes, cloves whatever. Smoke to your heart's content, in your own residence.
As for all the other things you mentioned, at least they provide us with something in addition to being subject to regulations. A cigarette doesn't give me anything but respiratory ills.
And you completely missed the point. I'm not for a complete ban on smoking. I'm for heavy restrictions and sales taxes on smoking...weed, cigarettes, cloves whatever. Smoke to your heart's content, in your own residence.
As for all the other things you mentioned, at least they provide us with something in addition to being subject to regulations. A cigarette doesn't give me anything but respiratory ills.
Do you smoke?
I don't think i missed the point. Public spaces in many areas are compromised because of luxuries. If we watched less TV, turned off our AC's, and in general were more interested in living without luxuries, these public spaces wouldn't be degraded nearly as much.
Smoking is also a luxury that degrades public spaces. A private establishment has the right to ban smoking in its space, but I don't think the same government that allows degradation of so many public spaces for the pursuit of individual freedom should be able to ban the degradation of other public spaces due to smoking -- which I think is easily tolerable, even in Europe -- at the cost of individual freedom.
And no, i don't smoke. Too expensive and too ephemeral.
Just an update: So I went out to meet a friend for drinks and pool last night at a local wateringhole/ sports bar, in Manhattan. There were people in there but not that crowded since it was only 9:00 pm. There were only two girls smoking out off the whole crowd. They left shortly. I was there for awhile. The place started to get crowded by 10:30. I didn't notice the smoke or the lack there of until my friend mentioned how no one is smoking in the bar. I know that the patrons still had one more day to light up but guess they were trying to ween off smoking even before the April 1. The funny sight was that across the street is a bar called KGB and there were huge crowds just waiting huddling outside and they were all smoking. It was a cold, rainy, windy night in the city and at that point, rain actually started to change to snow. The diehard smokers were shivering outside to smoke. I scratched my head but didn't care because when I came home I didn't have to take a shower to take the smoke stench off me.
Also, I have a feeling that a lot of the smokers will use this law as a final reason to stop smoking. All of the people that I know admit that it's really bad and since they also go to gym for the superfluous (not really for health benefit but aesthetic reasons), smoking is counterproductive to going to gym. Then You have cost of cigs. Marlb & Marlb Lights are $7.50 a pack. Then you add the drinks at $5.00 for beer or $7.00 for mixed drinks plus tip = empty wallet in two rounds at a average cost bar. Don't forget to include $1000.00 for one year membership to local gym.
I know several chain smoking friends that quit cold turkey because the cigs were too costly...
i hate smoke, it makes me sick. i think smokers are a bane to any nice bar setting. i sucks ass to come home smelling like old cigarettes butts and having to take a shower before i can sleep.
i wouldn't think for one second to force business to ban smoking. that's the stupidest thing i've heard in a while.
if non-smokers want a smoke free environment that bad, someone can have a smoke free bar. then the non-smokers go there and are happy.
forcing everyone to be smoke free is just plain wrong. this is america people, where you have every right to kill yourself however you damn well please (or at least you should)
this is just another example of regulations where they don't belong, trying to dictate how people should live their lives. it's none of the govt's damn business.
Actually, the ban went into effect at 12:01 am Sunday the 30th, so it had already started when you were at the bar.
At about 11.50pm on Saturday night I was putting out what I thought was to be my final cigarette in a Manhattan bar. I commented on this to the manager (who works the bar) and she responded that people could smoke all night if they wanted as no fines are being levied until May 1st. She added that she "didn't give a sh1t" about the legislation and would continue allowing people to smoke until the bar received its first fine.
forcing everyone to be smoke free is just plain wrong. this is america people, where you have every right to kill yourself however you damn well please (or at least you should)
But do you or should you have the right to kill other people?
But do you or should you have the right to kill other people?
nope, which is why you don't have to go to bars. the workers is an interesting point. if they're stuck there, that's a problem. is it illegal to only hire people who are willing to work in a smokey bar? dunno.
i can't imagine that there's a huge demand for smoke-free bars when i've only seen one or two in my life.
Does anybody know if this new law affects hookah bars (where the main attraction is the large tobacco bongs)? Hookah bars don't offer much aside from tobacco. I think a hookah would cost me too much to purchase outright.
Hmm nice thread... Its been a while since I saw an argument that didnt entirly decay into an immature slagging match. FellowshipChurch iBook, I like the way you think about arguments... I would deffo like to be part of the next one
Thanks Gargoyle. You are always welcome to join in with your thoughts.
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God. What if in a given community 85% of the population voted to make it the law of the land to force young students to recite a prayer to a Christian God in school? Would you still stand behind your argument? I am simply saying that while sure people disagree on things it is wrong to ban smoking in a private business. Public place just fine with me but a private business is different and what you say about the city granting the right for a business to run its business is a point but it alone while it may be the rule of law does not also mean it is the right thing to do. Again many disagree over many things.
Fellowship
Aha! Fighting against tyranny of the masses I see. Just agree to restore our motto to E Pluribus Unum and remove Under God from the pledge and I'll back you 100% on this. Just checking to see if you are consistent.
Comments
However tobacco smokers have things very cushy in comparison with users of other recreational drugs. That minor inconvenience of having to go outside for 3 minutes to satisfy one of the powerful chemical addictions is a far cry for that of the pot smoker who is always liable to arrest, a court appearance, a lost job, a fine and/or jail sentence and a criminal record.
Smoking is not permitted in public places here in California, and it seems to work well; bars and clubs etc. haven't gone out of business because of this ban. What is most important? The liberty of the smoker to smoke wherever he/she pleases, or the liberty of the nonsmoker not to have to smoke someone else's fumes? Its all down to compromise, taking a middle ground and working out something sensible.
And....making tobacco illegal is plain unworkable and authoritarian, just as the anti-marijuana laws are.
Originally posted by sammi jo
And....making tobacco illegal is plain unworkable and authoritarian, just as the anti-marijuana laws are.
that was the main reason why i brought up both issues... it is hypocritical....
but then, in chicago you can still get steaks and chops injected intravenously, and they have a defibrillator table side (if needed) whilst you talk about 'da bears.
just kidding.
but seriously, the quality of air argument is genius! an anti-smoking ordinance that never mentions smoking is brilliant! i'm going to pass it along to 'da mayor.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
chicago recently tried to get an anti smoking law passed but to no avail.
but then, in chicago you can still get steaks and chops injected intravenously, and they have a defibrillator table side (if needed) whilst you talk about 'da bears.
just kidding.
but seriously, the quality of air argument is genius! an anti-smoking ordinance that never mentions smoking is brilliant! i'm going to pass it along to 'da mayor.
GRANTED!
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Should we ban the sun because so many get skin cancer from the harmful UV rays?
Or how about we ban legal right to run a business unless the business owner installs 100% UV protection windows in their place of business.
Faulty analogies, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Eugene
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
Why not. I'm sure There are areas where we agree. I'm against the banning of smoking and for the decriminalization of currently illegal drugs.
There are all sorts of luxuries and recreational activities that are powered by electricity via coal or oil. Air conditioning is a good example. These plants extremely degrade the livelihoods of those living near them. Why aren't there more nuclear plants? It's partly because yuppies who don't live near coal plants understand neither the plight of the public airspace, especially to those near the plants, nor the relative security of nuclear plants.
So let people smoke. Living near a fossil fuels plant, or even a sewage treatment plant (another municipal amenity) is much worse than having to be near a smoker for a while. If you want to be consistent with your arguments, ban all violations of public resources that have any connection to luxury. Otherwise stop whining.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Why not. I'm sure There are areas where we agree. I'm against the banning of smoking and for the decriminalization of currently illegal drugs.
There are all sorts of luxuries and recreational activities that are powered by electricity via coal or oil. Air conditioning is a good example. These plants extremely degrade the livelihoods of those living near them. Why aren't there more nuclear plants? It's partly because yuppies who don't live near coal plants understand neither the plight of the public airspace, especially to those near the plants, nor the relative security of nuclear plants.
So let people smoke. Living near a fossil fuels plant, or even a sewage treatment plant (another municipal amenity) is much worse than having to be near a smoker for a while. If you want to be consistent with your arguments, ban all violations of public resources that have any connection to luxury. Otherwise stop whining.
And you completely missed the point. I'm not for a complete ban on smoking. I'm for heavy restrictions and sales taxes on smoking...weed, cigarettes, cloves whatever. Smoke to your heart's content, in your own residence.
As for all the other things you mentioned, at least they provide us with something in addition to being subject to regulations. A cigarette doesn't give me anything but respiratory ills.
Do you smoke?
Originally posted by Eugene
And you completely missed the point. I'm not for a complete ban on smoking. I'm for heavy restrictions and sales taxes on smoking...weed, cigarettes, cloves whatever. Smoke to your heart's content, in your own residence.
As for all the other things you mentioned, at least they provide us with something in addition to being subject to regulations. A cigarette doesn't give me anything but respiratory ills.
Do you smoke?
I don't think i missed the point. Public spaces in many areas are compromised because of luxuries. If we watched less TV, turned off our AC's, and in general were more interested in living without luxuries, these public spaces wouldn't be degraded nearly as much.
Smoking is also a luxury that degrades public spaces. A private establishment has the right to ban smoking in its space, but I don't think the same government that allows degradation of so many public spaces for the pursuit of individual freedom should be able to ban the degradation of other public spaces due to smoking -- which I think is easily tolerable, even in Europe -- at the cost of individual freedom.
And no, i don't smoke. Too expensive and too ephemeral.
I know several chain smoking friends that quit cold turkey because the cigs were too costly...
Actually, the ban went into effect at 12:01 am Sunday the 30th, so it had already started when you were at the bar.
i wouldn't think for one second to force business to ban smoking. that's the stupidest thing i've heard in a while.
if non-smokers want a smoke free environment that bad, someone can have a smoke free bar. then the non-smokers go there and are happy.
forcing everyone to be smoke free is just plain wrong. this is america people, where you have every right to kill yourself however you damn well please (or at least you should)
this is just another example of regulations where they don't belong, trying to dictate how people should live their lives. it's none of the govt's damn business.
Originally posted by mrmister
Actually, the ban went into effect at 12:01 am Sunday the 30th, so it had already started when you were at the bar.
At about 11.50pm on Saturday night I was putting out what I thought was to be my final cigarette in a Manhattan bar. I commented on this to the manager (who works the bar) and she responded that people could smoke all night if they wanted as no fines are being levied until May 1st. She added that she "didn't give a sh1t" about the legislation and would continue allowing people to smoke until the bar received its first fine.
Originally posted by alcimedes
forcing everyone to be smoke free is just plain wrong. this is america people, where you have every right to kill yourself however you damn well please (or at least you should)
But do you or should you have the right to kill other people?
But do you or should you have the right to kill other people?
nope, which is why you don't have to go to bars. the workers is an interesting point. if they're stuck there, that's a problem. is it illegal to only hire people who are willing to work in a smokey bar? dunno.
i can't imagine that there's a huge demand for smoke-free bars when i've only seen one or two in my life.
Originally posted by alcimedes
is it illegal to only hire people who are willing to work in a smokey bar? dunno.
I think most places of employment have to have minimum standards wether it's an office or amazingly enough a bar.
Originally posted by Gargoyle
Hmm nice thread... Its been a while since I saw an argument that didnt entirly decay into an immature slagging match. FellowshipChurch iBook, I like the way you think about arguments... I would deffo like to be part of the next one
Thanks Gargoyle. You are always welcome to join in with your thoughts.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
That is a poor argument and here is why..
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God. What if in a given community 85% of the population voted to make it the law of the land to force young students to recite a prayer to a Christian God in school? Would you still stand behind your argument? I am simply saying that while sure people disagree on things it is wrong to ban smoking in a private business. Public place just fine with me but a private business is different and what you say about the city granting the right for a business to run its business is a point but it alone while it may be the rule of law does not also mean it is the right thing to do. Again many disagree over many things.
Fellowship
Aha! Fighting against tyranny of the masses I see. Just agree to restore our motto to E Pluribus Unum and remove Under God from the pledge and I'll back you 100% on this. Just checking to see if you are consistent.