Smoking ban in Tyler, Texas

[Volumnius Flush]

A monumental decision in Tyler the comprehensive smoking ban passes.*The law takes affect June 1st, and all public places including bars and restaurants will be smoke free. Smokers must be 20 feet away from the front or back door and smoking patios must be open air, with no roof, and still be past the 20 foot threshold.*
At the packed council meeting, most of the people were in favor of it.
"We took on a very important, very difficult issue. And made a difficult decision here today to go forward and to be sure that the public health and safety is protected," said*Nathaniel Moran City Council Member and Task Force Chair, "Even though we recognize it is some degree intrusion into lives and businesses."
The city council was unanimous in passing the ban. So, what happens now with East Texas smokers and the businesses they frequent, now going smoke free?
"You try to eat and enjoy your meal and you got smoke and it's that nasty smell on your clothes and food," said Michelle Wister who is happy the smoking ban passed.
*"I really don't think people should be able to tell us where we can and can't smoke," said*James Brucher of Tyler, "If they are going to cut it out they are going to hurt these businesses that people are going to come to smoke at."
That's one reason Jennifer Reed, a waitress at Texas Roadhouse is worried.
"Our smoking sections make far more money than our other sections so that is affecting my income," said Reed, "Smokers always tip more because they are more comfortable in their environment and they enjoy their meal more."
But at the future home of Coyote Sam's a bit of a different story. Owner Sam Wells has spent the past*six years trying to be all things to all people.
"I built it to be divided up to different rooms, in the design of it*I have*five different eating areas," said Wells, "One area smoking that has it's own patio and eating area."
And in each room, it's own air conditioning. One of many*attempts to make the two separate sections, separate.
"Spent $30,000 extra for the smoking non smoking separation," said Wells, "Now it is going to be all non smoking and that is fine by me."
Some say it's a sign of the times,and clearly Tyler's time was today.
Danielle Capper, Reporting.

A.
The fact is East Texas is known not so much for the inbred Arkansan cousin infatuation, but rather for some of THE most ignorant people you will ever meet. They will claim they are Christians though they are really not, but they do their gosh darn best to live the life. There is something to be said for growing up in close-minded ignorant East Texas and I am probably worse off for it.

The truth is it comes down to a holier-than-thou judgmental religious preference. These people have made it a moral issue when really it's a matter of choice. These country bumpkins who have such deep religious values that they can't even stand to be around smoke are some of the most ignorant people you will ever meet. I know, I've met them!

B.

One reason they passed the ban, besides indoctrination, is that those in favor of the ban were made up of doctors, lawyers, local dignitaries, and highly-esteemed and educated people. Who were against the ban? What bureaucrats consider white trash, scum, bums, losers, people ridden with stupidity. So in effect, we thought they were stupid, and they thought we were stupid.

In this case, the so-called idiots were right. Constitutionally, legally, technically, our rights have been violated! We have been thrown in the closet and locked inside. Just because you're a doctor, you think you aren't held to the same high standard I am by the Constitution? Well you are. This was the least objective decision I have seen in a long time. Just because doctors weren't all out against the ban, you will vote in favor of the doctors and attorneys?

C.

This is just one example of the majority trampling on the rights of the minority. It is sick and twisted. It is perverted justice and has no place in the land of the free.

Don't get me wrong. If the voters had voted on it and this was their conclusion, I would not be so upset right now but when a city council with maybe 20 members votes on an issue on behalf of 100,000 people, that is when they cross the line. The people should have the final say on this subject, not some council. If it is the people's will, then so be it, but when 20 or so people claim to know what's best for 100,000... They have crossed a major line with me.

"You try to eat and enjoy your meal and you got smoke and it's that nasty smell on your clothes and food," said Michelle Wister who is happy the smoking ban passed

Then sit in the nonsmoking section, Idiot!

"We took on a very important, very difficult issue. And made a difficult decision here today to go forward and to be sure that the public health and safety is protected," said*Nathaniel Moran City Council Member

Public health and safety is protected? Next they'll ban automobiles and then planes: "They're too dangerous.."

Then he goes on to say:

"Even though we recognize it is some degree intrusion into lives and businesses."

Oh so you're a fascist and make no bones about it. I got you. You think it's okay to just intrude on my rights. Ok, I see what's up.

The fact is this is a low blow to all hard-working citizens of America, this is a low blow to the law-abiding citizens who put up with big government's excessive and bogus mandates and laws, and this is a step in the wrong direction.

Since when was it okay to violate my rights as a law-abiding citizen? Never. But that's what their doing. This is the biggest crock I have seen in a long time.

And what is the penalty for breaking this law? A $300 fine on the first offense and $500 on the second. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

This is a victory for those who hate the Constitution, it is a victory for all ignorant human beings and it is a victory for those who seek to remove our rights one by one, kind of like a woman's undergarments. First, the bra, then the panties...

Until we're naked! In all of our naked majesty we stand before the government of the United States of America and say, "Not in my land! Not in my country!"

But who is there to listen? No one, and the sound waves which are so violently spout from our mouths hit the wall and bounces back and we only hear ourselves!

This is the end of human natural rights as we know it! First in Tyler, then in Dallas and Austin, then to the other 49 states.

PEOPLE: The Constitution is all or nothing. You can't cherry-pick with the Constitution. "Oh, I like this right, but this one sucks, but this one is okay, I don't like that one."

NO! It is all or nothing, once we do away with one amendment, we do away with them all. You can't have one without the other and you can't have bread without the butter.

Once they start taking away my rights as a smoker, they'll take away your rights as a toker. Once they take away my rights as a doctor, they'll take away your rights as a proctor. Once they take away my rights as a free thinker, they'll take away your rights as a winker-blinker.

I rest my case.

[beso negro]

good post. smoking bans suck.

PEOPLE: The Constitution is all or nothing. You can't cherry-pick with the Constitution. "Oh, I like this right, but this one sucks, but this one is okay, I don't like that one."

NO! It is all or nothing, once we do away with one amendment, we do away with them all. You can't have one without the other and you can't have bread without the butter.

i'm with ya bro. unfortunately you're gonna get some heat because this place is over run with commies.

[Volumnius Flush]

good post. smoking bans suck.



i'm with ya bro. unfortunately you're gonna get some heat because this place is over run with commies.

Thanks.:wave:

Right has no color. Right knows no discriminatory practices and has no discrimination period. Right is not commie or conservative or liberal. It is truth and it is what I seek to uncover.

It is why I am so adamant about conservative values because they seek to protect what is rightfully ours. It is in defense of liberty and all justice, for all people, whether or not you're a conservative too. We want to keep this land a beacon of shining light and a ray of hope in a dark world left desolate by the specter of despotism and totalitarian regime, which is something that will come to America if we do not take a stand.

[BassRevelation1029]

I'm wondering why all of Texas didn't follow suit with Austin's smoking ban.

[Light Fantastic]

um this is pretty simple

ban it in truly public places but let owners of private property do what they like and their customers can decide

[ncnxonattronn]

this happened like 20 years ago where I live in California

just go outside to breath in smoke

[Iscariot]

vf making a good thread? how often does this happen

but yeah i think smoking bans are pretty stupid and unconstitutional

it shouldn't be up to a room full of people to decide if a city full of people should be allowed to smoke inside of establishments that already offer non-smoking alternatives it should be up to the owners of those establishments if they want to allow smoking or not inside of their businesses

we have a pretty comprehensive smoking ban that was recently instituted in portland that pretty much covers all of the same points - no smoking in restaurants, no smoking in bars, no smoking on the sidewalks or even the streets anymore

i'm lucky enough to live in milwaukie which is just across the portland border so the diners here still offer smoking/non-smoking sections and i can still smoke at the bar

as for people who don't want to breathe in someone's cigarette smoke - go somewhere with a non-smoking section or someplace that doesn't allow smoking at all

don't walk into a diner that allows smoking knowing full well that there will be cigarettes burning inside and then complain about your health being endangered

take some responsibility for your own choices

[Smokey D]

um this is pretty simple

ban it in truly public places but let owners of private property do what they like and their customers can decide

But then workers have to breath in smoke.

unconstitutional

Where?

There's nothing in the constitution that grants a right to smoke.

[Light Fantastic]

so dont work there

[Smokey D]

That places an unfair burden on the worker.

[Volumnius Flush]

That places an unfair burden on the worker.

Fair schmair

What about the unfair, exceedingly unfair, burden that now, I can't smoke anywhere but in my home or car for fear of a $300 fine.

There's nothing in the constitution that grants a right to smoke.

But what was the original intent of the Framers?

vf making a good thread? how often does this happen

Occasionally...

um this is pretty simple

ban it in truly public places but let owners of private property do what they like and their customers can decide

But that's not all. It's banned in all restaurants, even ones privately owned. Bars, included.

I'm wondering why all of Texas didn't follow suit with Austin's smoking ban.

I know.

[BassRevelation1029]

Fair schmair

What about the unfair, exceedingly unfair, burden that now, I can't smoke anywhere but in my home or car for fear of a $300 fine.

smoking is a privilege, not a human right.

Same way you can't drink in front of a convenient store without being fined.

[Smokey D]

What about the unfair, exceedingly unfair, burden that now, I can't smoke anywhere but in my home or car for fear of a $300 fine.

If it's true they have banned smoking in public open spaces then yes that's retarded.

But what was the original intent of the Framers?


Who cares?

[Iscariot]

If it's true they have banned smoking in public open spaces then yes that's retarded.

in portland the ban states that you cannot smoke inside of any business or establishment and these businesses are not allowed to offer any indoor smoking areas

you cannot smoke within 25 feet of any business which means you cannot smoke on the sidewalks

you cannot smoke in pioneer square which is a large open space with small businesses bordering it at more than 25 feet of distance

if you violate the smoking ban you get a $250-$300 fine which is non-negotiable

[Iscariot]

also the ban did not have widespread support it was actually a decision made by the city council that has been strongly disputed but to absolutely no avail

[dei]

Portland sounds pretty cool.

[BassRevelation1029]

At my uni people smoke in front of the "no smoking" sign.

[JonG]

here in iowa they have smoking legal at all casinos...because casinos generate all the revenue duh

but other places like small business bars and restaurants lose business because of the ban

dumb

[Volumnius Flush]

smoking is a privilege, not a human right.

Same way you can't drink in front of a convenient store without being fined.

Smoking is not a privilege. Go tell that to Harvard law professors and you'll get laughed out of Cambridge.

If it's true they have banned smoking in public open spaces then yes that's retarded.



Who cares?

Yes, Even parks are now non-smoking. The zoo is included. 20 feet away is the new rule. Which in effect leaves you your home and your car to smoke in.

Who cares? Probably numbers in the hundreds of millions of people.

At my uni people smoke in front of the "no smoking" sign.

Me too.

[Smokey D]

in portland the ban states that you cannot smoke inside of any business or establishment and these businesses are not allowed to offer any indoor smoking areas

you cannot smoke within 25 feet of any business which means you cannot smoke on the sidewalks

you cannot smoke in pioneer square which is a large open space with small businesses bordering it at more than 25 feet of distance

if you violate the smoking ban you get a $250-$300 fine which is non-negotiable

In New Zealand you're not allowed to smoke on commercial premises but you can smoke outside without restriction. Most places just move their smoking section outside.

In NZ it appears not to have harmed bar or restaurant patronage.

[spitfirejunky]

An indoor smoking ban is less expensive than imposing that public establishments have good enough ventillation for smoking.

[Volumnius Flush]

An indoor smoking ban is less expensive than imposing that public establishments have good enough ventillation for smoking.

What is wrong with an ultimatum? Either your ventilation meets our standard or no smoking whatsoever...

But the manpower that would take to enforce would be astronomical.

[spitfirejunky]

What is wrong with an ultimatum? Either your ventilation meets our standard or no smoking whatsoever...

But the manpower that would take to enforce would be astronomical.

I'd imagine it would be enforced like fire safety regulations. But I think a good 99% of venues would just forfeit the ventillation anyway.

[BridgeToSolace]

An indoor smoking ban is less expensive than imposing that public establishments have good enough ventillation for smoking.

Except that all the smokers will being going to bars with the expensive ventilation.

Increased patronage will cover the cost of ventilation.

They'll become niche bars.

[spitfirejunky]

More incentive to implement a total ban I suppose.

[Der Übermensch]

Smoking bans are un-American, and should be declared unconstitutional imo.

[Smokey D]

They aren't unconstitutional.

[BridgeToSolace]

Yes, unnecessarily putting your workers at risk is un-American.

This is an employment issue, not a patronage issue.

[Der Übermensch]

They aren't unconstitutional.

I know, but they should be... Madison was just a dick and decided not to keep with Jefferson's theme of "pursuit of happiness" and instead went Locke on the damn thing and stuck with property :(

[Volumnius Flush]

Yes, unnecessarily putting your workers at risk is un-American.

This is an employment issue, not a patronage issue.

I forgot to mention the statistic that says a mother driving in her car with her young daughter has to smoke 4 cigarettes for her daughter to have the equivalent of having smoked 1 cigarette. According to Oprah Winfrey...

Now how long does it take to get cancer, heart attacks, strokes, et cetera from inhaling these vapors of smoke? Most people it takes from 20 years to 50 years. Therefore a second-hand smoker ingesting one-quarter the smoke should on average take 80 years to 200 years before they get an adverse side effect from second-hand smoking, id est longer than one typically lives.

EDIT: One could potentially second-hand smoke all their lives and it might never harm them.

I know, but they should be... Madison was just a dick and decided not to keep with Jefferson's theme of "pursuit of happiness" and instead went Locke on the damn thing and stuck with property :(

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Smokey D]

I know, but they should be... Madison was just a dick and decided not to keep with Jefferson's theme of "pursuit of happiness" and instead went Locke on the damn thing and stuck with property

I have no idea how you could create a pursuit of happiness into a meaningful right.

[BassRevelation1029]

They aren't unconstitutional.

its bad when someone from New Zealand knows the U.S Constitution better than Americans.

[Volumnius Flush]

I have no idea how you could create a pursuit of happiness into a meaningful right.

It is an inalienable right which means just what it says. I think the only exclusion may be when your happiness pertains to some sort of illegal act.

its bad when someone from New Zealand knows the U.S Constitution better than Americans.

Actually it is unconstitutional. You want proof, it will take me some time to find. I forgot which clause it was.

[BassRevelation1029]

Smoking is not a privilege. Go tell that to Harvard law professors and you'll get laughed out of Cambridge.

No they'd most likely nod their heads and show me the case law which confirms this.

Go find that for me.

[Smokey D]

It is an inalienable right which means just what it says. I think the only exclusion may be when your happiness pertains to some sort of illegal act.

Then it's not an inalienable right.

It's an extraordinarily inconsistent principle. That's why I can't see how you could transfer it into a right with meaningful political effect.

As for smoking being a right: it's a common law right not a constitutional right and may be extinguished by statute.

[Volumnius Flush]

No they'd most likely nod their heads and show me the case law which confirms this.

Go find that for me.

It is just revisionist history, at it again. People who don't appreciate the value of the U.S. Constitution and the rights we as free Americans have and have had from the day of our birth and seek to rid us of all freedom and liberty in the name of "I know what's best for you." But anyone who claims they know what is best for us is probably eating the yellow snow because they are typically those that want to extinguish freedom in the land of the free, they want to devise a malevolent plan to strip us of these rights one by one, until there are none left, and then we will be the epitome of vulnerable.

I can't believe you Bass, of all people would support the degradation and vandalism of one of our most beloved rights such as smoking.

This is an outrage!

This fire cannot be quenched! It is an everlasting fire that we as smokers build as our pyre, in the name of liberty.

This smoking ban is unconstitutional, and is unjust and inappropriate. We will take this to the Supreme Court and we will take our rights back!

It's like the right to privacy. I mean, really who came up with that one, I never saw that in the Constitution.

[BassRevelation1029]

I can't believe you Bass, of all people would support the degradation and vandalism of one of our most beloved rights such as smoking.
I can't believe you would support the vicious assault on the health of innocent bystanders and undermine the rules of a restaurant owner.

This smoking ban is unconstitutional, and is unjust and inappropriate. We will take this to the Supreme Court and we will take our rights back!
IF you say "smoking is unconstitutional" one more time without making a direct reference to the constitution, I'm going to ban you till next week.

[Volumnius Flush]

I can't believe you would support the vicious assault on the health of innocent bystanders and undermine the rules of a restaurant owner.

That's the great thing about inalienable rights. I have the right to stand by you and smoke! You have the right to get the hell away from me if you don't like it. Novel concept, huh?

[BassRevelation1029]

That's the great thing about inalienable rights. I have the right to stand by you and smoke!
and invade my privacy?

no, you don't have that right.

no, you don'tt.

You have the right to get the hell away from me if you don't like it. Novel concept, huh?
im sure my health is more important than your stubborn insistence to continue smoking around me.

[Volumnius Flush]

and invade my privacy?

no, you don't have that right.

no, you don'tt.

im sure my health is more important than your stubborn insistence to continue smoking around me.

How am I invading your privacy by standing by you and smoking? Seriously, people have done much worse things to me and it never went to the court system so I don't know what you're crying over. The right to privacy isn't even constitutional.

[BridgeToSolace]

The right to privacy isn't even constitutional.

How could you ever possible imply the right to privacy is not constitutional, but the right to smoking is?

That's soooooooooooooooooo stupid.

You have yet to show how it's an inalienable right.

[Der Übermensch]

I have no idea how you could create a pursuit of happiness into a meaningful right.

Agreed, codifying such a metaphysical concept would be a legal nightmare :-\

This smoking ban is unconstitutional, and is unjust and inappropriate.
It isn't. Point to the phrase in the Constitution that says so. I said that it SHOULD be, not that it is.
The DoI unfortunately has no standing as a legal document.

[Volumnius Flush]

How could you ever possible imply the right to privacy is not constitutional, but the right to smoking is?

That's soooooooooooooooooo stupid.

You have yet to show how it's an inalienable right.

The right to privacy is an implied right, which means it's not actually in there.

[BridgeToSolace]

The right to privacy is an implied right, which means it's not actually in there.

You have the right to free speech, no?

You thus have the right of freedom of consciousness. The right to know that you are not being watched unjustifiably by the government, for this would of course limit your speech.

You thus have the right to privacy from the federal/state government. At least this is how it was justified to me, and I liked it.

There is no implied right to assault someone's lungs. However minor this assault is.

[Smokey D]

You might be getting somewhere with saying smoking is under the umbrella of the right to privacy, but I'd say that only applies in private spheres-- not commercial premises.

[Volumnius Flush]

You have the right to free speech, no?

You thus have the right of freedom of consciousness. The right to know that you are not being watched unjustifiably by the government, for this would of course limit your speech.

You thus have the right to privacy from the federal/state government. At least this is how it was justified to me, and I liked it.

There is no implied right to assault someone's lungs. However minor this assault is.

Except the freedom is limited to what could not be construed as being in violation of municipal/state or federal law. And if you're using this kind of language then the government is justified with watching to you.

It's why the politicalcompass test says, "what goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.".

The fact is we do not have the right to privacy. It is arguably not even implied and if anything under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, smoking is a protected right.

[Smokey D]

Can you go through your reasoning on the last point?

[Volumnius Flush]

smoking is a privilege, not a human right.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Der Übermensch]

The fact is we do not have the right to privacy. It is arguably not even implied and if anything under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, smoking is a protected right.

It is more than implied. It is explicit. I am protected from search and seizure. It's an explicit constitutional right. Without a warrant, the government has no right to spy on or violate my person within the privacy of my own home. (14th also implies it in Section 1)

I see no way the 9th Amendment can support the right to smoke unless you believe we have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly ban.

14th Amendment MAYBE could be construed to support the argument, as it is a bit more explicit - "privileges and immunities" - except it suffers the same fate. To interpret as such, it means the States can't ban anything. Only the Federal government can, and that violates the 10th Amendment, so obviously it can't be read that way.

[Aaron]

I can't believe in this day and age anyone would be stupid enough to smoke.
Smokers shouldn't have access to public health benefits.

[Volumnius Flush]

I can't believe in this day and age anyone would be stupid enough to smoke.
Smokers shouldn't have access to public health benefits.

Smoking is started for many reasons. For some it is the allure of being made to look older. It is the obsession with the thought that "If I smoke, people will think I'm cool." With me, it's because I grew up around it and my uncle got me into it. I had factors in my life that sort of predestined me to be a smoker.

Most of my family smokes or has smoked, and I have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, which puts me at much greater risk of smoking.

It is more than implied. It is explicit. I am protected from search and seizure. It's an explicit constitutional right. Without a warrant, the government has no right to spy on or violate my person within the privacy of my own home. (14th also implies it in Section 1)

I see no way the 9th Amendment can support the right to smoke unless you believe we have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly ban.

14th Amendment MAYBE could be construed to support the argument, as it is a bit more explicit - "privileges and immunities" - except it suffers the same fate. To interpret as such, it means the States can't ban anything. Only the Federal government can, and that violates the 10th Amendment, so obviously it can't be read that way.

It is implied, and that is all I'm going to say on the subject. I'll let you Bass, Smokey, and Aaron take the floor now. I just like to get a topic started, add a little substance to it, then get out and let you all kill each other over it, so to speak. :) Just a figure of speech of course.

Unless anyone has any question? I am getting ready to get off here in a little bit.

[Der Übermensch]

Question! Question!
Why did you completely not respond to my counter of your point?!
I see no way the 9th Amendment can support the right to smoke unless you believe we have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly ban.

14th Amendment MAYBE could be construed to support the argument, as it is a bit more explicit - "privileges and immunities" - except it suffers the same fate. To interpret as such, it means the States can't ban anything. Only the Federal government can, and that violates the 10th Amendment, so obviously it can't be read that way.

Question! Me! In the Back! Pick Me!
If protection from unreasonable search and seizure doesn't directly (explicitly) mean a reasonable expectation of and right to privacy, what the hell does it mean Mr. Expert-on-Constitutional-Law?

[Volumnius Flush]

If protection from unreasonable search and seizure doesn't directly (explicitly) mean a reasonable expectation of and right to privacy, what the hell does it mean Mr. Expert-on-Constitutional-Law?

I'll answer this one question. The right to privacy is implied in the 14th amendment, not the 4th but good try though.

And it's not so much a right to privacy, it's a complex right of property and expression. You can express yourself in virtually any legal way without fear of unreasonable search and seizure.

[Der Übermensch]

Yes, it is implied in the 14th. It's explicit in the 4th :)

4th Amendment.... Katz v. US? Kyllo v. US? I can commit any crime I want in my own house, and probably get away with it if the cops bust in in violation my 4th Amendment rights, because the 4th Amendment gives me a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to non-approved surveillance and warrant-less searches.

And answer my other ****ing question. This is exactly what I meant when I said you couldn't win in the debate thread. You simply ignore what you know you will lose, which is as good as an admission. At least here you tried, even if you were wrong.

[Volumnius Flush]

Yes, it is implied in the 14th. It's explicit in the 4th :)

4th Amendment.... Katz v. US? Kyllo v. US? I can commit any crime I want in my own house, and probably get away with it if the cops bust in in violation my 4th Amendment rights, because the 4th Amendment gives me a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to non-approved surveillance and warrant-less searches.

And answer my other ****ing question. This is exactly what I meant when I said you couldn't win in the debate thread. You simply ignore what you know you will lose, which is as good as an admission. At least here you tried, even if you were wrong.

Like I said, the 4th protects a complex property and expression right.

[Aaron]

Question for americans; Why do you rely upon your ammendments so much? To me it seems silly as legislation is progressive and designed to be changed with just cause..

[Mr. Ron]

smoking should be discriminated against whenever possible.

[Der Übermensch]

Yes. It explicitly protects my right to be secure in my property. Which is an explicit right to privacy. So seriously, I don't see how you can say otherwise.

AND ANSWER THE OTHER DAMN QUESTION. How can you say the 14th Amendment supports the right to smoke when the only possible interpretation to support that explicitly contradicts the 10th Amendment?

Why do you rely upon your ammendments so much? To me it seems silly as legislation is progressive and designed to be changed with just cause..
Because no Legislation can be passed (or at least any passed will be struck down) that violates the Constitution or its Amendments. The Amendments are a set of guidelines that state what we can expect to never lose regardless of what legislation may happen.

[beastman168]

I live in Longview, which is in Gregg County i.e., the county next to Tyler. This is absolute bs in my opinion. It is very easy to get away from a smoker in a restaurant, or anywhere else for that matter. I would like to add that Smith County is also a dry county.

[Aaron]

smoking should be discriminated against whenever possible.
Irrespective of whether this was some sneaky sarcasm or not I agree. I think smoking is a form of self-harm and that people that smoke are lesser people... YEAH BRING IT ON THE REBUTTAL!

Because no Legislation can be passed (or at least any passed will be struck down) that violates the Constitution or its Amendments. The Amendments are a set of guidelines that state what we can expect to never lose regardless of what legislation may happen.
But why? It's completly contradictory to the concept of modern law-making.

[Mr. Ron]

I live in Longview, which is in Gregg County i.e., the county next to Tyler. This is absolute bs in my opinion. It is very easy to get away from a smoker in a restaurant, or anywhere else for that matter. I would like to add that Smith County is also a dry county.

I shouldn't have to "try to get away from you" in a public setting just because you have a habit you can't control.

[beastman168]

Question for americans; Why do you rely upon your ammendments so much? To me it seems silly as legislation is progressive and designed to be changed with just cause..

because our founding fathers created this to protect our liberties and from crap like this.

[Mr. Ron]

Irrespective of whether this was some sneaky sarcasm or not I agree. I think smoking is a form of self-harm and that people that smoke are lesser people... YEAH BRING IT ON THE REBUTTAL!

I was totally serious. This idea is only going to help people.

[Volumnius Flush]

Yes. It explicitly protects my right to be secure in my property. Which is an explicit right to privacy. So seriously, I don't see how you can say otherwise.

It is a right to property. It is simply saying that you have the right to the property, and have no fear of your property being violated, unless you've committed a crime and someone allows them into that property... You know the story.

I live in Longview, which is in Gregg County i.e., the county next to Tyler. This is absolute bs in my opinion. It is very easy to get away from a smoker in a restaurant, or anywhere else for that matter. I would like to add that Smith County is also a dry county.

Smith isn't anymore. Not since Proposition 9 or whatever. And good to see you fellow Texan!

[Aaron]

because our founding fathers created this to protect our liberties and from crap like this.
Okay, in your logic you can't stop me using meth, ignoring it's obvious health and socioeconomic repercussions ALL NEGATIVE, just because some legislature past more than a hundred years ago. It's endorcing lack of enforcibility, it's so ironic it makes me lulz.

[Volumnius Flush]

I shouldn't have to "try to get away from you" in a public setting just because you have a habit you can't control.

Why should the burden be on me when we can equally share the burden? I realize you shouldn't have to bear a burden at all considering it was my choice, but can't we come to some agreement? Can't we agree to some terms and not just an all-out ban?

[Aaron]

VF you're ignoring this simple fact: the government has a responsibility to protect the health of their people.

[Mr. Ron]

Why should the burden be on me when we can equally share the burden? I realize you shouldn't have to bear a burden at all considering it was my choice, but can't we come to some agreement? Can't we agree to some terms and not just an all-out ban?

No no no. I don't think there should be an outright ban. I think there should be things to ween people off of cigs. Outright bans don't work well. Incentives to quit and making it illegal in most places will help.

[Der Übermensch]

But why? It's completly contradictory to the concept of modern law-making.
I kind of like knowing my right to free speech is now and forever guaranteed to me. Thats why.
It is a right to property. It is simply saying that you have the right to the property, and have no fear of your property being violated, unless you've committed a crime and someone allows them into that property... You know the story.
Yes. Property. My person, house, papers... and I think something else. I'll need to check that. These are all my PRIVATE possessions, my property. I have a reasonable right to be secure in them, and this right may not be violated with out probable cause. That is an explicit right to privacy. I can't be singled out for no reason. I can only be if I draw attention to myself.

Go read your Locke kid, then you can play with the big boys.

Okay, in your logic you can't stop me using meth, ignoring it's obvious health and socioeconomic repercussions ALL NEGATIVE, just because some legislature past more than a hundred years ago
No, I can stop you from using meth because there is no constitutional protection against actions. As I already said to VF, who refuses to counter it, the 14th Amendment does NOT protect our right to do anything. We don not have that right. We can SAY anything (libel/slander and various espionage laws aside), but we can't DO anything.

the government has a responsibility to protect the health of their people.
Yes it does. It is fully within its right to pass laws banning smoking in public places. When it starts to ban it in private establishments, I don't like that. That goes against the principals of property I have been schooling VF in, or at least in my opinion it does. It should be up to the owner of a private establishment whether or not smoking is allowed there.

[Aaron]

You're missing my point; I'm talking about it's structure, not it's content.
Having one piece of legislation that can never be changed...

[Mr. Ron]

I kind of like knowing my right to free speech is now and forever guaranteed to me. Thats why.

Yes. Property. My person, house, papers... and I think something else. I'll need to check that. These are all my PRIVATE possessions, my property. I have a reasonable right to be secure in them, and this right may not be violated with out probable cause. That is an explicit right to privacy. I can't be singled out for no reason. I can only be if I draw attention to myself.

Go read your Locke kid, then you can play with the big boys.


No, I can stop you from using meth because there is no constitutional protection against actions. As I already said to VF, who refuses to counter it, the 14th Amendment does NOT protect our right to do anything. We don not have that right. We can SAY anything (libel/slander and various espionage laws aside), but we can't DO anything.

you're drawing attention to yourself when you smoke in a close quarters public setting.

[Volumnius Flush]

No, I can stop you from using meth because there is no constitutional protection against actions. As I already said to VF, who refuses to counter it, the 14th Amendment does NOT protect our right to do anything. We don not have that right. We can SAY anything (libel/slander and various espionage laws aside), but we can't DO anything.

What about sedition and what about HR 1955?

VF you're ignoring this simple fact: the government has a responsibility to protect the health of their people.

I have already made it clear. Second hand smoking is a farce!

[beastman168]

VF you're ignoring this simple fact: the government has a responsibility to protect the health of their people.
well, in that case we should ban alcohol, fast food, and have mandatory exercise!

[Aaron]

Are you a doctor? Oh that's right, no you're just an idiot kid on the internet.

EDIT: lol, applies to both of you.

Alcohol when used responsibly isn't negative. Same with fast-food. The problem is that stupid people like you can't control your impules and abuse them. Smoking however is always negative.

[beastman168]

I'm know enough that a sedentary, fast food lifestyle is not good for you health

[Mr. Ron]

Fast food should be discouraged as much as possible as well.

[Volumnius Flush]

Are you a doctor? Oh that's right, no you're just an idiot kid on the internet.

EDIT: lol, applies to both of you.

Alcohol when used responsibly isn't negative. Same with fast-food. The problem is that stupid people like you can't control your impules and abuse them. Smoking however is always negative.

I am no idiot. I was ranked in the top 10 of all 14 year olds in the entire state of Texas in math. Which makes me at least as smart as anyone else who is 14, which isn't bad! :thumb:

[Aaron]

No, it means people in texas are bad at maths.

[Volumnius Flush]

No, it means people in texas are bad at maths.

Actually there were some there who are lightning fast. I was lightning fast and averaged around 1-2 sec per problem for something like 20% of the first page

[Der Übermensch]

You're missing my point; I'm talking about it's structure, not it's content.
Having one piece of legislation that can never be changed...

It can be changed. It just requires more than a simple majority.


you're drawing attention to yourself when you smoke in a close quarters public setting.
Very mafioso?

What about sedition and what about HR 1955?
Hopefully won't pass, and hopefully if it is, be struck down. It's sketchy at best, and scary to say the least.
Sedition hasn't been prosecuted successfully in ages as far as I know. Last I could think of was WW1/ Espionage Act of 917/Sedition Act. Wiki says the SC pretty much stopped it as a crime in the 50's with Yates v. US.

[BridgeToSolace]

I am no idiot. I was ranked in the top 10 of all 14 year olds in the entire state of Texas in math. Which makes me at least as smart as anyone else who is 14, which isn't bad! :thumb:

When will people realize that testing is not indicative of intelligence?

And when will people realize that only stupid people try to defend their intelligence?

[Mr. Ron]

I don't get what you mean Der

[Volumnius Flush]

When will people realize that testing is not indicative of intelligence?

And when will people realize that only stupid people try to defend their intelligence*?

Generalization*

The fact is I was called an idiot. To prove a point, I brought up how I was ranked pretty high out of a total of several thousand students I was around the top 10.

[Aaron]

VF have you seen rain man? that guy was good at maths.

It can be changed. It just requires more than a simple majority.
Well that makes sense. Thanks for the lesson :)

[Der Übermensch]

I don't get what you mean Der

Well I didn't get what you meant either :p

I was assuming you meant its stereotypically criminal to be sitting in a dark corner smoking a ciggy...

To prove a point, I brought up how I was ranked pretty high out of a total of several thousand students I was around the top 10.
Well I can say I won my state spelling bee, but it doesn't prove it...

Well that makes sense. Thanks for the lesson
NP :) It is very rare that it happens however. The only one that has been totally struck down was the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), and in a few cases things have been changed up a bit.

[Volumnius Flush]

VF have you seen rain man? that guy was good at maths.


What's the point? I never saw that movie...

Well I can say I won my state spelling bee, but it doesn't prove it...

Did you really? That would actually make you a very good speller.

[Smokey D]

But why? It's completly contradictory to the concept of modern law-making.

No, not really. It's contradictory to the concept of law making under a Westminster or derived system. The US doesn't have a Westminster based system, and it's conception of law making is entirely consistent with its constitutional basis.

The main difference being that in Australia and similar places, the constitution is at best a piece of normal legislation with a few entrenched provisions. In New Zealand and the UK, it's not even that. The basis for state sovereignty is based on the sovereignty of parliament. In the US, the basis of sovereignty is based on the sovereignty of the Constitution.

But as I say, smoking is not a constitutional right, and can be legislated on like everything else.

[BridgeToSolace]

Generalization*


No, smart people realize that the best way to defend your intelligence is to act intelligent, rather than state it.

You ever seen person say "I'm not stupid!" without affirming the accusation?

The character in rainman who was good at maths was an autistic savant. He had a poorly developed ability to reason, but he was really good at math.

[Volumnius Flush]

The character in rainman who was good at maths was an autistic savant. He had a poorly developed ability to reason, but he was really good at math.

Well I am not that good in math (as good as Rain Man was). I am actually a math minor but that could all change.

I am also autistic. Hope that helps!

[Der Übermensch]

Did you really? That would actually make you a very good speller.

I'm a horrible speller. I was a finalist in the geography bee though.

My real point was this is the internet. You saying it doesn't make it true.

[Aaron]

DU is right...

"I am Bill Gates!!"

[Volumnius Flush]

I'm a horrible speller. I was a finalist in the geography bee though.

My real point was this is the internet. You saying it doesn't make it true.

Actually I just counted my score. I was tied for 22rd (I think) out of the entire 6th, 7th, and 8th grades in all Texas for the 2002-2003 school year.

http://www.texasmath.org/results/0203/j-tmsca-040503big.html

[Aaron]

you were good at maths but can't count your place? :lol:

[Volumnius Flush]

you were good at maths but can't count your place? :lol:

Well I miscounted or something and I am too lazy to go back now... So I'll just say tied for 22nd. That sounds good out of no telling how many hundreds of thousands of other students.

And it's funny, if you went back and checked which ones I missed, I was literally an average of less than 5% per question from having a perfect score. And I think one was just an honest mistake like I misplaced the decimal.

[BridgeToSolace]

Well I miscounted or something and I am too lazy to go back now... So I'll just say tied for 22nd. That sounds good out of no telling how many hundreds of thousands of other students.

Wait...so you're just really good at 6-8 grade math.

that's really not impressive :(

I suck at math and even I'm in the top 20% or so. No one cares, really. especially since math has nothing to do with reasoning skills.

[Volumnius Flush]

Wait...so you're just really good at 6-8 grade math.

that's really not impressive :(

I suck at math and even I'm in the top 20% or so. No one cares, really. especially since math has nothing to do with reasoning skills.

It was much higher than 6-8 math, It had up to 12th grade and even college level math on a test where you had an average of 7.5 seconds per question. It got into calculus even.

[Aaron]

The reason there's always outliers in educational systems at a younger age is because the content is so dumbed down.

[Volumnius Flush]

The reason there's always outliers in educational systems at a younger age is because the content is so dumbed down.

What is an outlier?

[Aaron]

What is an outlier?
Are you kidding? You have to be..

[Volumnius Flush]

Are you kidding? You have to be..

Oh, like something outside? No I know what it means but I misunderstand what you're trying to say. It doesn't make sense in the sentence.

Are you trying to say more intelligent students?

[Aaron]

Um, yes.

[BridgeToSolace]

Oh, like something outside? No I know what it means but I misunderstand what you're trying to say. It doesn't make sense in the sentence.

Are you trying to say more intelligent students?

This is why scoring high on math tests holds no relevance in a judge of reasoning skills and general intelligence.

[Volumnius Flush]

This is why scoring high on math tests holds no relevance in a judge of reasoning skills and general intelligence.

Well I'll get back to you in three years when I finish college. Then call me an idiot! But the funny thing is, you don't even really have to be that smart anymore to get a degree. You can be average, or even to some extent below average intelligence and still get a degree. But my math iq is in the 97th percentile.

[Aaron]

Same with most people in school past grade-10. Look at the rest of the world for reference.

[Volumnius Flush]

Same with most people in school past grade-10. Look at the rest of the world for reference.

Are you trying to say that even below average intelligence people can finish high school? Well I already knew that. I'm actually a high school dropout. I've got a GED.

[Aaron]

I forgot to mention the statistic that says a mother driving in her car with her young daughter has to smoke 4 cigarettes for her daughter to have the equivalent of having smoked 1 cigarette. According to Oprah Winfrey...
I can't believe I missed you using Oprah as a valid reference :amaze:

What does Jerry Springer have to say?

[BridgeToSolace]

Well I'll get back to you in three years when I finish college. Then call me an idiot!

If all that changes between now and then is you getting a college degree, then I will.

[Volumnius Flush]

If all that changes between now in then is you getting a college degree, then I will.

Between now in then? I'll just remember to discredit anything you might say.

I can't believe I missed you using Oprah as a valid reference :amaze:

I know right?

[BridgeToSolace]

I know right?

You mean "I know, right?"

I'll just remember to discredit anything you might say.

Seriously, if you're going to attack someone for a typographical error, make sure you don't **** up in the same post.

[Aaron]

I'm going to ignore that it's fragmented and passive at the same time.

[Volumnius Flush]

You mean "I know, right?"

I'll just remember to discredit anything you might say.

Seriously, if you're going to attack someone for a typographical error, make sure you don't **** up in the same post.

It was just a joke, don't get so angry.

[Smokey D]

Wait...so you're just really good at 6-8 grade math.

that's really not impressive :(

I suck at math and even I'm in the top 20% or so. No one cares, really. especially since math has nothing to do with reasoning skills.

Say what?

Maths is all about reasoning. It's just a very specific type of reasoning.

I suppose you could say that arithmetic has no basis in reasoning but even that's debatable.

[big80smullet]

ok having read this whole thread i can safely say that TS doesnt know what hes talking about. Smoking is the only thing that is legal and when used properly harms you. Second hand smoking in a confined space can actually be more harmful then smoking cigarettes especially to children (developing lungs) and in confined spaces (ie bars and restaurants) Smoking is not a right and you dont have the right to smoke.

The saying goes "Your right to extend your fist stops at the end of my nose" ie you can smoke if you want but the second it starts to affect me you no longer have the right.

Smoking bans have been successfully implemented in UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ even New York. You only hear positive things. Having been working in a pub when the ban was implemented in UK i can safely say that it didnt affect business and it made my work environment more enjoyable. EVEN THE SMOKERS I WORKED WITH FOUND IT EASIER TO WORK IN A SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT.

Just because your state is full of inbred intolerant rednecks doesnt mean its special. And just cause you have autism doesnt mean you have an excuse to smoke or spout false facts from oprah (hardly a reliable source. Youd probably get just as good statistics from the marlboro website :rolleyes:)

an outlier is a statistical result that doesnt follow the trend that the rest of the results do. Ie one very high or very low result. Surely a mathematical genius would know some low level high school statistics?

[Volumnius Flush]

ok having read this whole thread i can safely say that TS doesnt know what hes talking about. Smoking is the only thing that is legal and when used properly harms you. Second hand smoking in a confined space can actually be more harmful then smoking cigarettes especially to children (developing lungs) and in confined spaces (ie bars and restaurants) Smoking is not a right and you dont have the right to smoke.

The saying goes "Your right to extend your fist stops at the end of my nose" ie you can smoke if you want but the second it starts to affect me you no longer have the right.

Smoking bans have been successfully implemented in UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ even New York. You only hear positive things. Having been working in a pub when the ban was implemented in UK i can safely say that it didnt affect business and it made my work environment more enjoyable. EVEN THE SMOKERS I WORKED WITH FOUND IT EASIER TO WORK IN A SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT.

Just because your state is full of inbred intolerant rednecks doesnt mean its special. And just cause you have autism doesnt mean you have an excuse to smoke or spout false facts from oprah (hardly a reliable source. Youd probably get just as good statistics from the marlboro website :rolleyes:)

an outlier is a statistical result that doesnt follow the trend that the rest of the results do. Ie one very high or very low result. Surely a mathematical genius would know some low level high school statistics?

I am not a mathematical genius, I am mathematically gifted in speed. And I stay away from statistics. It bothers me.

[big80smullet]

Actually I just counted my score. I was tied for 22rd (I think) out of the entire 6th, 7th, and 8th grades in all Texas for the 2002-2003 school year.

http://www.texasmath.org/results/0203/j-tmsca-040503big.html

:lol:

[Volumnius Flush]

:lol:

But you have to realize that this is out of hundreds of thousands who are nearing the end of their educational careers and are really as smart now as they will just about ever be.

I was also doing post-high school math on a 13 year olds level.

Not that that makes me a math genius, there are kids doing calculus at 4, but I can confidently say I was doing math at a more competent level than most adults at the age of 12 or 13.

[big80smullet]

so? no one cares tbh. you used oprah as a source of statistics that invalidates anything of merit you might have said

[Volumnius Flush]

so? no one cares tbh. you used oprah as a source of statistics that invalidates anything of merit you might have said

Dr. Oz is a very intelligent doctor!

[big80smullet]

seriously though saying that second hand smoking isnt as bad as smoking is just plain dumb.

a) second hand smoke is unfiltered

b) second hand smokers may not have a choice about inhaling smoke whereas smokers do

c) to say that it has no effect on children is just plain stupid.

[Volumnius Flush]

c) to say that it has no effect on children is just plain stupid.

I never said that. You read too much. It is in fact very harmful to the development of a child's lungs and has many adverse side effects, especially asthma.

[big80smullet]

you said if a child rides in the car with his mother and she smokes 4 cigarettes it will take 80-200 years to develop lung cancer

[Volumnius Flush]

you said if a child rides in the car with his mother and she smokes 4 cigarettes it will take 80-200 years to develop lung cancer

No I said a child in the car with the window down inhales one-quarter of the smoke.

Then I said that we can roughly estimate the time it takes for a second-hand smoker to develop disease to about one-quarter the speed of the smoker himself. Therefore it shall take approximately 80-200 years, unless where the second-hand smoker is elderly, or very young (that is not an adult).

[monkeysonmars.]

I forgot to mention the statistic that says a mother driving in her car with her young daughter has to smoke 4 cigarettes for her daughter to have the equivalent of having smoked 1 cigarette. According to Oprah Winfrey...

Now how long does it take to get cancer, heart attacks, strokes, et cetera from inhaling these vapors of smoke? Most people it takes from 20 years to 50 years. Therefore a second-hand smoker ingesting one-quarter the smoke should on average take 80 years to 200 years before they get an adverse side effect from second-hand smoking, id est longer than one typically lives.

EDIT: One could potentially second-hand smoke all their lives and it might never harm them.



just for reference.

I love the logic of 'you don't get lung caner until you're 100% at risk from it'.

[Volumnius Flush]

just for reference.

I love the logic of 'you don't get lung caner until you're 100% at risk from it'.

Well medically speaking, am I wrong?

[monkeysonmars.]

wait what, you understand probability yeah? someone with 1% risk of getting lung cancer can get lung cancer...

[big80smullet]

yes you are. there is no black and white "IF YOU SMOKE YOU WILL GET CANCER" inhaling tobacco smoke increases your chance of getting lung cancer. There is a correlation to the amount of smoke ingested over time and the chance of getting cancer, but there is no set amount of time or smoke it takes. You could smoke for 60 years and not have cancer, or you could smoke one packet and develop it.

Emphysema is a different matter though, every smoker gets emphysema to a certain degree. Not to mention the myriad of other health issues that smoking can cause.

Basically this isnt a thing that can be sloved by straight forward maths.

[Volumnius Flush]

So what would you say are my chances of developing cancer, Doctor?

I've smoked two years now.

[Oriah]

Dude, you think its bad there, I live in College Station at A&M. I swear to god everyone here is retardedly closed-minded.

But anyhow, I share your pain.

[big80smullet]

So what would you say are my chances of developing cancer, Doctor?

I've smoked two years now.

im not a doctor but these facts are widely known by anyone who has even the smallest amount of education about smoking. smoking decreases life expectancy. If you stop smoking today your lungs wont be fully healed for another 10 years. The sooner you stop the less chance you'll get cancer or other complications

[Volumnius Flush]

im not a doctor but these facts are widely known by anyone who has even the smallest amount of education about smoking. smoking decreases life expectancy. If you stop smoking today your lungs wont be fully healed for another 10 years. The sooner you stop the less chance you'll get cancer or other complications

Luckily I'm stopping tomorrow. Or so I plan on it.

[big80smullet]

hahaha i sincerely hope you do

[McP3000]

I really couldn't care less if smoking is banned.

First of all its stupid, addicting, and worthless
Secondly, its an oral fixation for people with no self control
Thirdly, pot plz and ty

[Oriah]

I really couldn't care less if smoking is banned.

First of all its stupid, addicting, and worthless
Secondly, its an oral fixation for people with no self control
Thirdly, pot plz and ty

I couldn't agree more with your "thirdly" but I think it should be all up to the choice of the person if they want to smoke cigs or not. However I think that the Tobacco companies should do a complete reworking of their products, take out all the **** they put in them and let the people taste real tobacco. Not that thats my thing. Just sayin.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

There's a smoking ban here too, and I love it. I used to go out for a beer with friends and feel like utter crap the next day, so I always assumed one beer took that much out of me; once the ban came into effect, I realized how much second-hand smoke really does to non-smokers. Short term, I don't want to smell like *** because of other people's habits, I don't want my eyes to burn, I don't want to have trouble breathing when I exercise the next day, and I don't want my foot to taste like the inside of a sweaty gym shoe; long term, I don't want your damn cancer.

I don't have an issue with smokers having separately ventilated smoking sections; that's not how our ban works, which I believe has more to do with protecting non-smokers who work in smoking environments (waiters, bartenders, etc.), but I'm not sure. Anyway, smokers here have adapted. For every smoker who can't go out because going outside for 5 minutes every half hour is too much to ask, there are 10 people like me who are thrilled they can go for a beer with friends without waking up the next day feeling like crap. If you don't believe that second-hand smoke has that much of an effect on you, you're either a smoker or you're unaware of what's going on in your body.

[Smokey D]

Er, I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't disputing that smoking, second hand or no, causes cancer or anything like that. He was saying if N=1, you can't make any conclusions.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

haha yeah misread and deleted. my bad, it's 4am.

[beso negro]

I couldn't agree more with your "thirdly" but I think it should be all up to the choice of the person if they want to smoke cigs or not. However I think that the Tobacco companies should do a complete reworking of their products, take out all the **** they put in them and let the people taste real tobacco. Not that thats my thing. Just sayin.

yea i always wondered what second hand smoke from straight tobacco is like compared to second hand smoke normal cigs like Marlboro. American Spirit ftw.

[muthafunkabass]

So what would you say are my chances of developing cancer, Doctor?

I've smoked two years now.
Depending on your body, yeah you'll probably end up with lung cancer and die too early to really experience a fulfilling life.:o






And how can you be mad at the City Council for using the authority over the people they were given when they were elected by those very people? If there is so many smokers in Tyler that are suffering from this terrible, unconstitutional injustice (:rolleyes:) then why didn't you all vote for a few smokers to be in control?

[Aaron]

Concluding this thread:
Smoking is bad for you, no matter the extent of your exposure.
Stupid people don't realise this, however currently have the choice to do so.
Government's are realising and attemptingto reduce the negative health implications.
It's not a constitutional right to be able to smoke in a restaurant.
VF thinks he's good at maths; none of us care however.

[Volumnius Flush]

Depending on your body, yeah you'll probably end up with lung cancer and die too early to really experience a fulfilling life.:o

The way my life is going I can't really say I want to be here too much longer. But I have no other choice.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

The way my life is going I can't really say I want to be here too much longer. But I have no other choice.
Be a man and kill yourself.


It really bugs me when smokers say they don't want to live to be 80. You can live a healthy life and jump off a bridge when you get old enough or you can quit your bitching and realize that when you're 55 and coughing up phlegm every morning you're going to wish you hadn't been on some holier-than-thou quest to prove to the world you don't want to be around until you're old.

[Volumnius Flush]

Be a man and kill yourself.


It really bugs me when smokers say they don't want to live to be 80. You can live a healthy life and jump off a bridge when you get old enough or you can quit your bitching and realize that when you're 55 and coughing up phlegm every morning you're going to wish you hadn't been on some holier-than-thou quest to prove to the world you don't want to be around until you're old.

Suicide is not an option. I am a devout Christian.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Suicide is not an option. I am a devout Christian.

Then you're a hypocrite for killing yourself slowly.


If your life sucks so much you might as well do some good with it. Go volunteer in countries where they need you. Y'know, helping the disadvantaged and stuff. Like Jesus said.

[BridgeToSolace]

Suicide is not an option. I am a devout Christian.

I didn't know really slow suicide didn't count as suicide.

I don't think you can trick god like that.

[Volumnius Flush]

I didn't know really slow suicide didn't count as suicide.

I don't think you can trick god like that.

Good point. I will have to really think hard about this even though you probably don't believe in God, this has been a very helpful post.

Then you're a hypocrite for killing yourself slowly.


If your life sucks so much you might as well do some good with it. Go volunteer in countries where they need you. Y'know, helping the disadvantaged and stuff. Like Jesus said.

I am not big on volunteering.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Good point. I will have to really think hard about this even though you probably don't believe in God, this has been a very helpful post.

I said the same thing in my post and you ignored it to proclaim you're lazy and don't feel like putting your life to good use. Funny how selective your reading is.



I am not big on volunteering.

I'm not religious, but last time I checked the Bible didn't have an "if you feel like it" clause. If you truly believe, your own convenience should be irrelevant.

[guitrguy]

I really couldn't care less if smoking is banned.

First of all its stupid, addicting, and worthless
Secondly, its an oral fixation for people with no self control
Thirdly, pot plz and ty

not for everyone.

[Volumnius Flush]

I said the same thing in my post and you ignored it to proclaim you're lazy and don't feel like putting your life to good use. Funny how selective your reading is.

Ok.



I'm not religious, but last time I checked the Bible didn't have an "if you feel like it" clause. If you truly believe, your own convenience should be irrelevant.

Show me in the Bible where it says I need to spend my precious time volunteering to help the poor. It says in one verse where Jesus was talking to a rich young ruler to sell all of his possessions and give it to the poor.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Show me in the Bible where it says I need to spend my precious time volunteering to help the poor. It says in one verse where Jesus was talking to a rich young ruler to sell all of his possessions and give it to the poor.
I thought you wanted to die but were too religious to kill yourself? Your time obviously isn't all that precious.

So let me get this straight: you are a devout Christian who would rather spend his time passively trying to kill himself than do any good for those around him. Yeah, you're going straight to Heaven.

edit: Google is helping me find Bible passages regarding the poor. give me a minute.

[Volumnius Flush]

So let me get this straight: you are a devout Christian who would rather spend his time passively trying to kill himself than do any good for those around him. Yeah, you're going straight to Heaven.

I am going to pay my tithes, and cancer doesn't necessarily kill you.

[guitrguy]

I am going to pay my tithes, and cancer doesn't necessarily kill you.

the fatality rate is still high

[Volumnius Flush]

the fatality rate is still high

Thanks for the tip. I have just finished my last cigarette even though I was already experiencing chest pain. This may be my last pack. I don't know if I should go to the doctor or not. But considering I don't have a car, I think it would be best to wait until tomorrow.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

double post so you see that this is new stuff


All quotes taken from http://www.worldvision.org/about_us.nsf/child/g8_bibleverses?Open#commands

Plenty more on the page where this came from. I selected a few that seemed most relevant to me, but I'm atheist (and therefore immoral), so what do I know.

All quotes taken from http://www.worldvision.org/about_us.nsf/child/g8_bibleverses?Open#commands

Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Deuteronomy 26:12 “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

Leviticus 19:9-10 “'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”

Isaiah 1:16-17 “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”

Isaiah 58:6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”


Matthew 5:42 “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

Luke 3:11 “John answered, ‘the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’"


Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

2 Corinthians 9:6-9 “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. As it is written: ‘He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.’"

James 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

[guitrguy]

I've found going to the gym on a regular basis has helped me to cut back considerably. I used to smoke close to a pack a day, now I am down to 3 cigs.

[Volumnius Flush]

double post so you see that this is new stuff


All quotes taken from http://www.worldvision.org/about_us.nsf/child/g8_bibleverses?Open#commands

Plenty more on the page where this came from. I selected a few that seemed most relevant to me, but I'm atheist (and therefore immoral), so what do I know.

Well those are all very good scripture, but none apply to what you are talking about which is volunteering. Most of these verses refer to a donation or gift, not necessarily giving of time, but giving money, food, or shelter.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well those are all very good scripture, but none apply to what you are talking about which is volunteering. Most of these verses refer to a donation or gift, not necessarily giving of time, but giving money, food, or shelter.

The very fact you're using every possible way to justify your lack of action is what makes you a hypocrite. You should be giving what you can, not what you have to.

[Volumnius Flush]

The very fact you're using every possible way to justify your lack of action is what makes you a hypocrite. You should be giving what you can, not what you have to.

I don't have to give anything. It's more of a strong suggestion that I should.

As far as tithing go, I am about to start paying them sometime in the next 5 months.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I don't have to give anything. It's more of a strong suggestion that I should.
As far as tithing go, I am about to start paying them sometime in the next 5 months.


Tithing is not sufficient to say you are giving what you can. And you'd think a strong suggestion from Jesus and/or God would be enough to make you want to do something.

[Volumnius Flush]

Tithing is not sufficient to say you are giving what you can. And you'd think a strong suggestion from Jesus and/or God would be enough to make you want to do something.

But you misunderstand. All I have to give in both senses of the term is shelter and food, come to the defense of the poor and neeedy, which I do in the form of paying tithes.

That is one reason for organized religious institutions, to put to use the tithe money in a proper and fair way and in a biblically sound way.

All I have to give is money.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

But you misunderstand. All I have to give in both senses of the term is shelter and food, come to the defense of the poor and neeedy, which I do in the form of paying tithes.

That is one reason for organized religious institutions, to put to use the tithe money in a proper and fair way and in a biblically sound way.

All I have to give is money.

What you misunderstand is that you see religion as being a carrot and the stick game, where if you jump through the hoops you will be rewarded in heaven. If you really think that a tenth of your income and killing yourself slowly makes you a devout Christian, you're missing a whole lot.

Anyway, I can tell you're going to keep doing the bare minimum. I guess this discussion is over because I've said all I have to say and all you're answering with is that you don't have to make yourself a better person just because you could and should.

[Smokey D]

Depending on your body, yeah you'll probably end up with lung cancer and die too early to really experience a fulfilling life

I can't tell if you're being serious or not but even if a smoker smokes a pack a day he's not likely to get cancer until sometime in his sixties. Even for people with high exposure to most carcinogens, cancer is generally an old person disease.

[Iscariot]

it's also strongly influenced by genetics

[Smokey D]

Smoking is probably a stronger influence although some people are lucky enough to smoke all their lives and not get it.

[Iscariot]

how active a person is influences how much smoking effects you as well

i've been smoking for six years now but i'm fairly active and smoking really hasn't harmed my ability to be active in any way whereas i know people who have been smoking for as long as me that get winded just walked up a flight of stairs because they just sit around and smoke all day

[Smokey D]

That doesn't really reflect your risk for cancer though.

[Iscariot]

well yeah i know i'm just saying

of course active people can get cancer i was just elaborating on the more immediate effects of smoking

[Aaron]

Suicide is not an option. I am a devout Christian.
The bible tells you not to smoke. Know the phrase "your body is a temple?" Guess where it came from..?

[big80smullet]

smokey i think you may be a little misguided about the fact that lung cancer is an old people disease. My dad is a radiation oncologist (cancer doctor) and hes treating a dude whos 27 and has lung cancer and he says its not really uncommon. Also statistically 1/3 of us are going to get some form of cancer. Its not just old people.

[Smokey D]

The average age for cancer onset is in the late fifties or sixties. You can get it earlier. Obviously people do, but the majority of people who contract cancer get it later in life.

[sweboy]

The probability for cancer increases with age, this is an extremely explicit connection. Basically, at any given time there is a certain probability that you will aquire a mutation in the DNA of a given cell, and for cancer to occur you need a number of mutations in the same cell. So do the math.

Then if you smoke or in other ways expose your cells to mutagens, the probability at any given time is higher, so you'll get cancer earlier.

[Smokey D]

Well, you're more likely to get it earlier yes.

[muthafunkabass]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not but even if a smoker smokes a pack a day he's not likely to get cancer until sometime in his sixties. Even for people with high exposure to most carcinogens, cancer is generally an old person disease.The :o after it was supposed to show it was a joke. I was trying to get the idea that it was a generic response from people against smoking.


Basically, VBulletin needs to get more expressive smilies.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

how active a person is influences how much smoking effects you as well

i've been smoking for six years now but i'm fairly active and smoking really hasn't harmed my ability to be active in any way whereas i know people who have been smoking for as long as me that get winded just walked up a flight of stairs because they just sit around and smoke all day

Bullshit man. Exercise can partly offset the effects, but you'd be in twice as good shape if you didn't smoke at all. I've seen a lot of teammates at hockey over the years suddenly drop off because they started smoking even a little bit.

[Iscariot]

really because i know a guy that's been playing hockey for years and smokes regularly and he still plays 3-4 games every weekend usually one right after another

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

really because i know a guy that's been playing hockey for years and smokes regularly and he still plays 3-4 games every weekend usually one right after another

I'd be willing to bet he isn't skating all-out every shift for the entire 4 games. Either that or he's Lance Armstrong with a smoking habit.

[Volumnius Flush]

The bible tells you not to smoke. Know the phrase "your body is a temple?" Guess where it came from..?

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Yes I know it...

[ringworm]

everyone may find it odd that i support harsh smoking restrictions

and i smoke

smoking and non-smoking sections dont really do anything inside a facility

smokers seem incapable of keeping clean and neat areas designed for our habit, it seems every time i go to a smoking area, its so disgusting i just wait till later or look somewhere else to light up

besides the health problems, its outright disgusting for non-smokers to be around smokers and i dont blaim them for wanting us as far away from them as possible

[Jude]

I don't see where the government gets off telling people what they can and can't do inside their own private property, unless we're going to define the right not to have people smoking in your self-chosen vicinity to be a fundamental right

[Smokey D]

The government tells you not to do things inside your private property all the time.

Like taking drugs. Or shooting people. Or beating your children. Private property isn't a new and independennt jurisdiction where the laws outside the door suddenly don't apply.

[Jude]

The government tells you not to do things inside your private property all the time.

Like taking drugs. Or shooting people. Or beating your children. Private property isn't a new and independennt jurisdiction where the laws outside the door suddenly don't apply.

Those things are illegal anyway but how can they tell you that you can't do something which otherwise is legal, inside your own property
I thought that was obvious that I was not referring to things that are illegal anyway

[guitrguy]

wait... The smoking ban goes for the privates homes too?

[Der Übermensch]

I don't think so. I think he is refering to private establishments, like bars or restaurants.

[guitrguy]

oh well, its not that private when other customers are there as well.

[Der Übermensch]

Restaurants... I agree. Bars... it should just be expected tbh.

[Aaron]

Those things are illegal anyway but how can they tell you that you can't do something which otherwise is legal, inside your own property
I thought that was obvious that I was not referring to things that are illegal anyway
How do you think things become illegal? lol.

[guitrguy]

Restaurants... I agree. Bars... it should just be expected tbh.

yeah, smoking and bars are basically synonymous. You know with out a forced ban, a alternative bar that bar that offers a smoke free environment could make a killing off people who want a smoke free bar.

We have a smoking ban down here on the Gulf Coast, but they make exception for bars and Casinos. I also know that a few Casinos offer a smoke free gaming area voluntarily.

[Aaron]

In Australia, smoking is banned in all restaurants, public spaces [ie train stations], bars and cafes, with the exception being beer-gardens [the gardens] at pubs and clubs. You can't smoke in an covered area, even if it's outside under a sail.

They transitioned it from smoking in all bars and pubs, to one room of the pub, then to finally outside only. The eventual plan is a non-smoking ban on streets as far as I can tell. Not too many smokers here complain as it was gradual. Seems to have gone down well.

[guitrguy]

When I was a smoker, I never really had a problem with smoking bans. It never bothered me to step outside to smoke.

[J Rad]

tbh since the smoking ban went into effect in portland a lot of the mom & pop bars and diners have lost business because most of their customer base was older, blue collar customers who would go to the bar after work, have a few drinks and have a few smokes

people expressed a strong resentment towards the smoking ban because not only were they restricted from doing something they'd been doing for the past several years but they would also have to give up their seat to go outside and have a drink and that in itself is unfair

here in milwaukie where there is no current smoking ban, bar traffic has increased dramatically because people who use to frequent the bars in portland are coming here so they can smoke inside without losing their spot at the counter

it's made it hard to find a place to sit but business is booming in my neighborhood as a result

[Lars_Ulrich]

The 'not-giving-a-****' meter is as far into the red-zone as ever before.”

[Against Miik!]

Smoking bans are fine, if made by the bar or restaurant owner, not the state. Granted, any bar owner would be crazy to voluntarily ban smoking, but thats because its, dun dun dun...a bar.

[Jude]

oh well, its not that private when other customers are there as well.

Private in the sense that I own it and I don't think the government has a right to tell me I can't do an otherwise illegal activity in it

Smoking bans are fine, if made by the bar or restaurant owner, not the state.
123

[Smokey D]

Those things are illegal anyway but how can they tell you that you can't do something which otherwise is legal, inside your own property
I thought that was obvious that I was not referring to things that are illegal anyway

It's also pretty obvious you're making stuff up since there is no and never has been any constitutional right to do anything in your house, not even if it's legal elsewhere. I can think of dozens of examples of a generally legal activity banned in specific circumstances.

[Jude]

If you ask me it's completely illegit to outlaw something specifically in someone's privately owned property, that's legal elsewhere. Either make the whole thing illegal, or only ban in government-run areas.

There is something to the argument that it harms employees who work at the establishment but I think that treats them as if they're too retarded to work anywhere else

[Smokey D]

No it means they shouldn't have to work anywhere else.

[Jude]

No it means they shouldn't have to work anywhere else.

If you ask me, saying that an employee has the right to a fairly safe workplace is not the same as demanding that employers tailor all aspects of the job to suit the employee. The employee can always go elsewhere if they don't like how the business is run.

[TJtheguitarist2]

The smoking ban here has worked well. I know a lot of smokers, none of them complain about it.
However I do agree with Jude's point that the government shouldn't be able to tell bar/restaurant owners what to do with their own, privately owned property. State property is fair game

[J Rad]

No it means they shouldn't have to work anywhere else.

they're intentionally endangering their own health if they seek out employment in a bar filled with cigarette smoke

complaining about the damage done a few years later is pointless when they did it to themselves

of all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are smoke-free environments, why pick the one that you think is going to harm you

[Jude]

they're intentionally endangering their own health if they seek out employment in a bar filled with cigarette smoke

complaining about the damage done a few years later is pointless when they did it to themselves

of all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are smoke-free environments, why pick the one that you think is going to harm you

This pretty much sums it up
It's one thing to not let factories have machines that are liable to cut employees in half every other day but another not to let patrons smoke in a restaurant because it might possible cause cancer in someone who might not get cancer or might not have gotten it anyway, and could just choose to work in one of the many restaurants where smoking is not allowed.

[Phalanx]

I kind of understand the smoking ban in places like the UK. I mean, the only perception I have of the US healthcare system is that people have to pay for treatment. In the UK, it's free so, if lots of people are developing health problems due to second hand smoke, it's understandable that they should ban smoking indoors. It costs the taxpayers money to pay for all these needless people gaining health problems from second hand smoke.

In the US however, people (again, from what I understand - Michael Moore etc) pay for healthcare themselves, if I was a person living in America, I'd make damn sure I didn't catch salmonella or hypothermia, second hand smoke problems or any other ignorance induced health problems (hypothermia to a lesser extent) since I'd have to pay for the effects. It seems like people are being robbed of their responsibility to avoid accidents by punishing the people who mind their own business. This is also true in the UK and don't get me wrong, I'd much rather there wasn't a smoking ban here but as it stands, the government is saving money because of all the people who are now free of second hand smoking problems. Really in Texas, all it's done is punish smokers and saved stupid people a few dimes.

I think that's a fragmented reflection on this subject. At the end of the day though, the smoking ban in the UK hasn't been nearly as bad as you'd expect. I kind of like the idea of "popping out" for a smoke with some friends, it ironically seems to induce a state of self importance and there's always people to talk to outside.

Sucks in the winter though.

[Smokey D]

If you ask me, saying that an employee has the right to a fairly safe workplace is not the same as demanding that employers tailor all aspects of the job to suit the employee. The employee can always go elsewhere if they don't like how the business is run.

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Act

they're intentionally endangering their own health if they seek out employment in a bar filled with cigarette smoke

They won't be endangering themselves if we make it illegal.

complaining about the damage done a few years later is pointless when they did it to themselves

There won't be any damage if we make it illegal.

of all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are smoke-free environments, why pick the one that you think is going to harm you

Because no worker anywhere should have to leave their work because it's dangerous.

[LoNElYGuRl666]

i hate these threads because people bash on smokers without acknowledging how rad smoking cigarettes makes you look

[J Rad]

They won't be endangering themselves if we make it illegal.

too bad that's a restriction of personal freedoms



There won't be any damage if we make it illegal.

too bad that's a restriction of personal freedoms

lol look i can say the same thing twice too

Because no worker anywhere should have to leave their work because it's dangerous.

i'm not advocating that they leave i'm stating that they should make the intelligent and safe decision of not seeking employment in these establishments to begin with

if someone told you that working in a nuclear power plant would make you sterile would you go seek out employment in a nuclear power plant and then advocate the banning of nuclear power 10 years later when your balls stop working

[Smokey D]

too bad that's a restriction of personal freedoms

There are about 10 million of those you cope with everyday.


too bad that's a restriction of personal freedoms

Okay well way to not actually address it.

You say they won't be damaged if they don't work there. I say the possibility of them being hurt doesn't arise in any situation, at least with regards to smoking, if we ban it outright.


if someone told you that working in a nuclear power plant would make you sterile would you go seek out employment in a nuclear power plant and then advocate the banning of nuclear power 10 years later when your balls stop working

I would advocate stricter OSH standards to prevent it. If I went sterile because I worked in a power plant, I would sue their asses bare. So either we make publicans liable for any problems suffered by the bar staff that arise from working in a smokey environment or we prevent it from being an issue.

But since smoking is purely incidental to working in a bar and working in a nuclear plant virtually entails working with nuclear material in some way (although possibly very indirectly), I think the comparison is a poor one.

[J Rad]

it may not be the most accurate comparison i'll admit but i'm trying to stress the common sense applied to the situation

if you don't smoke and you place yourself in a situation where you are constantly exposed to second hand smoke, you have to accept responsibility for your own decision and not blame the smokers that you chose to serve

[Smokey D]

You're question begging. If you don't expose yourself to smoke, you don't get smoke related illnesses. True. But you wouldn't be exposing yourself to smoke if it were made illegal in bars etc.

[J Rad]

making it illegal should not be a prerequisite for a private institution

it should be up to the discretion of the bar owners if they want to allow or disallow smokers from indulging their habit inside of the facility

and if a bar owner decides to allow smoking, a non-smoker should not feel attracted to work in that establishment they should apply for employment in a non-smoking environment

[Smokey D]

making it illegal should not be a prerequisite for a private institution

Why not? Private institutions are forbidden from doing a lot of things that are open to individual citizens.


and if a bar owner decides to allow smoking, a non-smoker should not feel attracted to work in that establishment they should apply for employment in a non-smoking environment

I don't see that that follows.

Also, you're assuming the person can get another job.

[J Rad]

Why not? Private institutions are forbidden from doing a lot of things that are open to individual citizens.

and this is inappropriate legislation


I don't see that that follows.

Also, you're assuming the person can get another job.

you can always get another job

it's harder to get a job in a bar than it is to get a job in a grocery store and they pay about the same

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

are you insane? a good bartender can easily earn 500 bucks a night.

Working at a gun range doesn't mean you should be willing to dodge bullets. Just because a lot of drinkers smoke doesn't mean you should have to suck in their industrial poison. I don't pee in your soup, so don't smoke my air.

[Jude]

Ugh. Whatever. it's just the principle of the thing that rubs me the wrong way - I'm all for the government reaching into people's lives to stop child abuse or make sure people have enough food to eat, but over something as trivial as smoking, it just seems wrong.

Anyway I've had this debate before and it goes nowhere.

[beso negro]

you can always get another job

it's harder to get a job in a bar than it is to get a job in a grocery store and they pay about the same

lol no bartenders are actually highly trained. they don't have grocery bagging school like they have bartending schools.

but i agree with you. though I would use a different example. dealing with second hand smoke should be part of bartending just like an alaskan crab fisher has to deal with all the risks involved with his job. if you're too puss it aint for you.

[ringworm]

i dont get why smokers cant get past that their habit is disgusting to non-smokers
besides the fact that it can seriously affect non-smokers health


*smokes

[Smokey D]

and this is inappropriate legislation

Why? As a private citizen, you are affecting only yourself. As an employer you are affecting a lot of people.

you can always get another job

Not if you have commitments to meet.

it's harder to get a job in a bar than it is to get a job in a grocery store and they pay about the same

Not everyone has the option to look for work.

Ugh. Whatever. it's just the principle of the thing that rubs me the wrong way - I'm all for the government reaching into people's lives to stop child abuse or make sure people have enough food to eat, but over something as trivial as smoking, it just seems wrong.

It's quite different to say the government doesn't have the right to interfere in private businesses and to say it's too trivial for teh government to be concerned with.

lol no bartenders are actually highly trained. they don't have grocery bagging school like they have bartending schools.p;

Some are, maybe.


but i agree with you. though I would use a different example. dealing with second hand smoke should be part of bartending just like an alaskan crab fisher has to deal with all the risks involved with his job. if you're too puss it aint for you.

Again you mistake inherent risk with incidental risk.

And risk that is within the control of the employer and risk that is outside it.

[Jude]

It's quite different to say the government doesn't have the right to interfere in private businesses and to say it's too trivial for teh government to be concerned with.



To me, the triviality of the thing involved is what makes the government's right debatable.

[Smokey D]

Well, the government's right is pretty much absolute. Triviality isn't about right it's about pragmatism and practicality.

[Jude]

Well, the government's right is pretty much absolute.

I would hope not.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

To me, the triviality of the thing involved is what makes the government's right debatable.

How is protecting the health of its citizens debatably trivial?

[Jude]

Because people choose by their own free will to work in and frequent bars

And if it's OK to allow people to smoke at all, then by extension it's OK to allow them to smoke where they want as long as they're in a place where the owner is fine with it.

[mph4ever]

i own a bar, i don't work in it too often. its non smoking, my punters are smokers, they have to smoke outside, my business is seriously down since it was introduced. i have some b&b rooms also, like any hotel, the legislation means that you have to allow people to smoke in their accomodation, i get the bar staff to help make the beds sometimes, there is no legislation to protect them from going into a bedroom and inhaling smoke.

this legislation is a "smokescreen". at the time they decided to bring this legislation in, there were terrible problems with the health service. they made a national example of pubs as a place to get sick and caused national debate on the topic. media got a hold of it. they have done the same with alcohol. another health issue that the media loves to throw about.

at the end of the day, it is all simple. i asked my staff what they made of the issue and every single one said it a was a matter of choice, their choice. this is just another example of the governments shoving their poxy little left wing agendas down our throats and giving in to certain lobby groups. freedom of choice is gone.

if you don't like fu'cking smoking then don't work where there is smoke. it doesn't get much easier than that. i would have really liked the choice to opt in or out of the legislation. i had just installed 150k worth of air exchange. i could change the entire air contents of the pub 15 times per hour. my air was cleaner than the air outside due to pollution even with smokers in the pub. i had extract on the bar counter such that no smoke hit the serving staff. we should have been allowed to stay as a smoking pub and others to become non smoking and let the punters choose. but that didn't happen. why? because no one would want to be a non smoking pub for fear of serious loss of business. also, all these do gooders who don't like smoking, even passive smoking, tend to dislike drinking too much also. thats good for business, bunch of fu'cks

[ashman]

I agree with mph here.

I would say I'm a frequenter of the local watering hole and since the smoking ban, the bars I go to seem lifeless and a number of pubs/clubs in my city have closed down. In the ones that are still open, all the crowd goes outside (even the none smokers), I think it's a pointless law, that should either have an opt out or even including seperate areas for smokers and none smokers and I bet more people will be in the smokers area.

I've also worked in a bar and in my interview for the job, the boss said "Do you mind working in an environment with smokers?", if this question was asked at every bar, all the none smokers wouldn't get jobs in bars, thus they can't whine :thumb:

[Iscariot]

Why? As a private citizen, you are affecting only yourself. As an employer you are affecting a lot of people.

it is still a matter that should be left up to the employer

the government isn't owning, paying for, maintaining, and operating the business, the business owner is

if they want to allow smoking and they have no issue with smoking, then smoking should be permitted

if they don't want to then it shouldn't

the patrons can decide if they want to frequent the establishment or not and obviously if smoking is harmful for the establishment's overall business and success, then they'll stop permitting it on the premises

however this is not the case. how long has smoking been permitted in bars and these bars are actually the most successful ones in their field

and to those responding to my last comment with "lol bartenders are highly trained" maybe you should learn how to read since i said "it's harder to get a job in a bar than it is in a grocery store" implying that if someone is really in need of a job and they don't want to work in an environment where they are exposed to second hand smoke, there are easier jobs to acquire and maybe a grocery store isn't the best alternative but smoky bars are not the only establishments where the employees work for tips

also i was mostly referring to waitresses/hostesses/employees of this caliber not necessarily bartenders, though if you think all bartenders are "highly trained" you're an idiot

i know a couple of bartenders right here in town that didn't receive any sort of formal training they have a chart behind the bar that tells them how to mix everything they aren't exactly high level professionals

[Smokey D]

Mph and Ashman's stories are interesting because in New Zealand, the exact opposite happened. There was an initial downturn in bar patronage but it was higher than pre-ban levels within a month. I'll concede that the legislation should provide for people who have installed extraction systems, either by rebate or by allowing the smoking to continue, perhaps based on clean air standards.

I would hope not.

As we have been discussing, there is no constitutional right so there is nothing to bind government legislation.

it is still a matter that should be left up to the employer

the government isn't owning, paying for, maintaining, and operating the business, the business owner is

if they want to allow smoking and they have no issue with smoking, then smoking should be permitted

if they don't want to then it shouldn't

the patrons can decide if they want to frequent the establishment or not and obviously if smoking is harmful for the establishment's overall business and success, then they'll stop permitting it on the premises

however this is not the case. how long has smoking been permitted in bars and these bars are actually the most successful ones in their field


Governments regulate business activities all the time. They interfere with how businesses treat their staff and rightly so. This is just one more manifestation.

Not to mention smoking should be driven off the face fo the earth.

[Volumnius Flush]

Governments regulate business activities all the time. They interfere with how businesses treat their staff and rightly so. This is just one more manifestation.

Not to mention smoking should be driven off the face fo the earth.

I don't disagree that the government should be able to say it is no longer allowed in a business but to say it's not allowed outside? They have gone too far.

[Jude]

Not to mention smoking should be driven off the face fo the earth.

My other problem with this is that behind all the logical arguments there's this attitude of wanting to control people's lives and lifestyles and the government just should not have that kind of power

[Volumnius Flush]

My other problem with this is that behind all the logical arguments there's this attitude of wanting to control people's lives and lifestyles and the government just should not have that kind of power

ITT Jude and I finally agree on something.

[Smokey D]

My other problem with this is that behind all the logical arguments there's this attitude of wanting to control people's lives and lifestyles and the government just should not have that kind of power

I'm skeptical about the exercise of government power in achieving this end, but I would not shed a tear if cigarettes vanished from this earth.

[Volumnius Flush]

I'm skeptical about the exercise of government power in achieving this end, but I would not shed a tear if cigarettes vanished from this earth.

You have to understand for my ancestors this tobacco was a great commodity and did wonders for the colonial infrastructure of the United States. Without tobacco we wouldn't be where we are today, imo.

[Jude]

I'm skeptical about the exercise of government power in achieving this end, but I would not shed a tear if cigarettes vanished from this earth.

I wouldn't either, but I WOULD shed a tear if the government went down the route of reaching more and more into people's private lives, unneccessarily, because people don't want to be uncomfortable or have to deal with things themselves.

[Der Übermensch]

u mean 1984?

[BridgeToSolace]

You have to understand for my ancestors this tobacco was a great commodity and did wonders for the colonial infrastructure of the United States. Without tobacco we wouldn't be where we are today, imo.

We wouldn't be here without slavery either. Or massive bloodshed.

What's your point?

[Iscariot]

smokey probably keeps a copy of 1984 in a frame on his wall with a little plaque beneath it that says, "may these dreams one day become a reality"

[Smokey D]

1982

Class.

[Iscariot]

i didn't post that

[Smokey D]

Oceania had always been at war with East Asia.

[ashman]

"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."

[Volumnius Flush]

We wouldn't be here without slavery either. Or massive bloodshed.

What's your point?

Can't you read? I made my point... The point is, "You have to understand for my ancestors this tobacco was a great commodity and did wonders for the colonial infrastructure of the United States."

[lfantwister]

Those historical what-ifs are so irrelevant and frustrating. If there hadn't been tobacco, would it have been corn?
Plus the fact tht it was historically significant doesnt mean it necessarily ought to be continued...

[Volumnius Flush]

Those historical what-ifs are so irrelevant and frustrating. If there hadn't been tobacco, would it have been corn?
Plus the fact tht it was historically significant doesnt mean it necessarily ought to be continued...

It is still a great commodity, especially to the South Carolinian community.

[mph4ever]

Mph and Ashman's stories are interesting because in New Zealand, the exact opposite happened.

thats because everything is upside down in kiwiland

[ringworm]

I'm skeptical about the exercise of government power in achieving this end, but I would not shed a tear if cigarettes vanished from this earth.
same here

[ashman]

I'm skeptical about the exercise of government power in achieving this end, but I would not shed a tear if cigarettes vanished from this earth.

I think you would as the angry smokers would beat you with a trout, trying to find a source of nicotine :smoke:

[Volumnius Flush]

I think you would as the angry smokers would beat you with a trout, trying to find a source of nicotine :smoke:

Yes. Why people would support the abolition of cigarettes is beyond me. They did it with alcohol in the 20's and we saw how that turned out.