Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

haha

This is the big problem. Some bars ban smoking following the law while others disregard it and allow smoking (it fuckin happens alot too). So now the ones who follow the law lose all these customers who go and smoke in the other bars where they are breaking the law. A smoking ban will only work and cause few negative economical impacts on businesses is if all establishments follow the rules.

At 3/20/04 12:14 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: So now the ones who follow the law lose all these customers who go and smoke in the other bars where they are breaking the law.

You don't want people to smoke in bars but you don't want them to leave those bars to smoke either?

I mean what's the problem? Bars that allow smoking have all the smokers and the other bars have all the squeaky-clean people. Doesn't that make everyone happy?

At 3/20/04 12:14 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: This is the big problem. Some bars ban smoking following the law while others disregard it and allow smoking (it fuckin happens alot too). So now the ones who follow the law lose all these customers who go and smoke in the other bars where they are breaking the law. A smoking ban will only work and cause few negative economical impacts on businesses is if all establishments follow the rules.

it's not about the economical impact; this is more of an ideological issue. i personally don't feel that in the "land of the free" the government has the right to tell a private business owner that he can't allow certain behaviors in his establishment, provided said behaviors are not a)harmful to others b) FORCED upon others c) considered as felonies
if a bar owner can allow strippers and can sell alchohol and can tell you you can only be there if you wear certain clothes, than he should be able to allow people to smoke too, it's his private establishment.
no body is forcing you to continue to stay at that smokey bar. it's inconvenient and i personally feel smokers are obnoxious and inconsiderate but the business owner has every right to make the rules on his turf.

At 3/20/04 01:40 AM, Izuamoto wrote:

if a bar owner can allow strippers and can sell alchohol and can tell you you can only be there if you wear certain clothes...

Well, you go to a strip bar to see strippers, you go to a bar to drink, but I don't know anywheres who goes to a bar or restaurent to smoke. They just have to smoke because they are addicted to the stuff.
Why don't people in this thread talk about that? "its a personnal choice" my fuckn' ass it is. They're hooked, addicts, they need it.

I think its just a gesture from the state to try and help those people, but as usual they won't listen because they want to continue fuckin themselves up because they have "the right too". Same thing with the recent suppression of sized-up crap at mcdonald. They're just saying "look you fatasses, we can't make you stop eating, but at least we can stop serving you stupidly large amounts of food that will either end up in your asses or in the garbage". But they people see that "they're getting ripped off and blablabla".

Now some bar owners probably don't smokey, and some waiters probably don't smoke either, but if they are stuck working in a bar, they know they'll get stuck with smoking custumers. Now they could say "this is a non-smoking bar" but then they'd go out of business because all the smokers would go the the other bars, and in a short while, no one would "choose" to have a smoke-free bar, and no one could go to a smoke-free establishement, because they'd have less business.
Or alternatively, implant a social rule that makes it so people get used to not smoking in bars and restaurants.

let me tell you a little tale. 20 years ago, people laughed at the idea of wearing a seatbelt. Now we laugh at their stupidity. Well maybe if people respect this rule, in 20 years, people will laugh at the idea of smoking in public spaces and say "that's just rude! Why would we do that??"
I think that would be a great social step-up

==================================================

man at least half of the replies in this thread are an a repetition of the first few posts. Its ridiculous.
I watched this show tonight, about politics and all that, and the guy takes calls, and ALL the callers who called-in where morons who basically wasted time by either stating the obvious or repeating the same fucking things the host had just said 5 mins earlier.

Basically, all those morons who write the same thing as another user do is write a longer version of "I agree" or "you're right". I don't see it much differently.
this is politics. Even though its the net, I think people should respect it and not post if they have nothing to say. can't really ask for more mod support, they're all gone cept' like shrike. jaysis.

I know longs posts like this one are a pain to read, but if at least people in this forum knew when to post, and when not to, there would be only 10 long posts to read in a forum to get into the debate instead of 35 middle-sized and repetitive ones.

...I don't get it, if smoking is banned in only some bars then they're going to go out of business?

Wouldn't the health nazis go to the non-smoking bar instead of the smoking one?

They aught to stop selling caffinated beverages at soda shops. They're not very common anymore, but you can still find them. People don't go to them because they want soda, they go for the caffeine, they're addicted.

At 3/20/04 02:47 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: They aught to stop selling caffinated beverages at soda shops. They're not very common anymore, but you can still find them. People don't go to them because they want soda, they go for the caffeine, they're addicted.

yeah what a great analogy.
not.

bottom line is, if you want to smoke, do it in your own little corner. People who smoke are either addicted or FUCKING STUPID. Now I'd like to believe everyone who smokes is an idiot ( because why the hell would you smoke, knowing what cigarettes are made of and what they do) but apparently its not true.

are you that kind of annoying person who always goes "I can swear on teh internet its FREE SPEECH ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

At 3/20/04 03:17 AM, -poxpower- wrote: ( because why the hell would you smoke, knowing what cigarettes are made of and what they do)

The same reasons that one would eat fast food day after day.

At 3/20/04 03:17 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

bottom line is, if you want to smoke, do it in your own little corner.

I agree, but the issue is that smokers are being denied the right to have a corner.

are you that kind of annoying person who always goes "I can swear on teh internet its FREE SPEECH ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I don't believe that I have truly free speech on the internet, unless I own the server that I'm speaking on. If Tom Fulp told me I had to stop posting, because he disagreed with what I was saying, I would have no fair rebuttal, It's his server, his property. Furthermore, I have no idea why you would ask me this question, I really don't swear that often, usually only if it's really late at night and I'm tired.

At 3/20/04 03:17 AM, -poxpower- wrote: bottom line is, if you want to smoke, do it in your own little corner.

And if you want to have children, keep them out of view, because they irritate me.

People who smoke are either addicted or FUCKING STUPID.

Or maybe they smoke because it feels so fucking good.

Now I'd like to believe everyone who smokes is an idiot (because why the hell would you smoke, knowing what cigarettes are made of and what they do)

For someone who posts in the politics forum, you sure do believe the government a lot.

but apparently its not true.

Churchill smoked.

are you that kind of annoying person who always goes "I can swear on teh internet its FREE SPEECH ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

LOL you swore in your post.

LOL

At 3/20/04 02:03 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

Why don't people in this thread talk about that? "its a personnal choice" my fuckn' ass it is. They're hooked, addicts, they need it.

I think its just a gesture from the state to try and help those people, but as usual they won't listen because they want to continue fuckin themselves up because they have "the right too".

You think the govenment should have the right to change people? Come on. The government has no right to meddle in the affairs of good citizens. If your main concern is health care costs. The real problem is the unfair high cost of health care and insurance.

At 3/21/04 01:56 AM, crass_clock wrote: The same reasons that one would eat fast food day after day.

only difference is that fast food is only damageable to the health of the person who eats it. And its not the same reasons anyways. Go away.

At 3/21/04 03:23 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

I agree, but the issue is that smokers are being denied the right to have a corner.

I thinks its sage to say that "outside" is a big enough corner.

No, I don't believe that I have truly free speech... yapyap

ok, try replied to my big long posts up there instead of playing the pinpoint game. see how long you last.

At 3/21/04 03:30 AM, Earfetish wrote:

And if you want to have children, keep them out of view, because they irritate me.

bad analogy, shut up.

Or maybe they smoke because it feels so fucking good.

dumb remark
shut up

For someone who posts in the politics forum, you sure do believe the government a lot.

not the issue, reply to my longers posts. Or better yet, shut up

Churchill smoked.

yeah, hence why I said "its not true" shut up

LOL you swore in your post.

you don't get the point of even that simple statement
you fail

At 3/21/04 03:34 AM, Vowl wrote:
You think the govenment should have the right to change people? Come on. The government has no right to meddle in the affairs of good citizens. If your main concern is health care costs. The real problem is the unfair high cost of health care and insurance.

... well why should the governement change that, right? I mean, the governement can't change the way people act, so if they get in trouble, why should it pay to bail em' out, riiiiiiiight? So I guess we'll let the insurance compagnies and hospitals make up all the rules they want, because ITS THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND THE GOVERNEMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THEIR AFFAIRS AND TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

just in case you guys are stupid enough to not see that was sarcasm, it was sarcasm. sorry, I have to take every precautions because so far, in this thread, you've all mostly shown a great deal of stupidity.

At 3/21/04 03:59 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

So I guess we'll let the insurance compagnies and hospitals make up all the rules they want, because ITS THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND THE GOVERNEMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THEIR AFFAIRS AND TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

just in case you guys are stupid enough to not see that was sarcasm, it was sarcasm. sorry, I have to take every precautions because so far, in this thread, you've all mostly shown a great deal of stupidity.

Well if the government didn't subsidize hospitals, and make it a law that every person must pay auto insurance ( totally not related to health insurance companies hahahaha). You could call those buisnesses private.

The issue is personal rights. Should the owner have the right to own his own property. (wow that's three different uses of own in the same sentence). Or should the owner have to submit to the consumer. Is it really right for a person to stop a hundred people from smoking in a bar, just because he wants to be able to use the bar without smoke.

Taking it a step further, I believe that if the owner wishes, he should be able to bar certain... types of people from being in his establishment. If a person doesn't like Republicans, then he should be able to bar them from entering his store. Similarly, a person should be able to bar certain races or sexual preferences from entering ones property. Consider, if Starbucks were allowed, and did ban blacks from their stores, how many people would boycott Starbucks? There's an economic incentive to be fair. If there was an economic incentive to ban smoking from bars, then it would have already happened voluntarily.

People have the right to have incorrect or hateful opinions. That's the price we pay for freedom.

At 3/21/04 05:47 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: The issue is personal rights. Should the owner have the right to own his own property. Or should the owner have to submit to the consumer. Is it really right for a person to stop a hundred people from smoking in a bar, just because he wants to be able to use the bar without smoke.

a hundred... heh. The issue isn't personnal rights, its social impact. Same as allowing everyone to run around with weapons, and same as allowing people to keep their religious habbits, no matter how crazy and dangerous they may be. Its not one person against the smokers in a bar, its non-smokers against smokers in general. I'm sure smokers were pissed when they started having to pay extra for their cigarettes, probably were whinning about "its my right to smoke". Yeah and its everyone else's right to not have smoke puffed in their faces, isn't it?

Its a two-way system. If you have the right to slowly waste money in something that will kill yourself, then I should have the right to not be at the same place at the same time that you smoke it. Sometimes it might seem "unfair" because as you said, 3 non-smokers will be in a place with lots of smokers, so according to "democracy" or whatever, they should just sit there and have a stinky time? Let's remember that democracy is the system of the idiots. Democracy doesn't even really apply all that well anymore anyways. All this just to say that, its not because a majority want it that its good for society.

and smoking is bad. So if the governement sees it fit to retrain people from smoking in more and more places, I say great. The notion of a "private" establishement seems flawed in most people's minds. You're still in america, you still have to abide by the laws, and if they're a law that says you can't piss while standing up, well you have to respect it as long as its in place.

Taking it a step further, I believe that if the owner wishes, he should be able to bar certain... types of people from being in his establishment.

.............................don't go into the bad analogies again.

If a person doesn't like Republicans, then he should be able to bar them from entering his store.

the simple fact of beinh a republican is not addictive, or damageable to your health, or that of others, and is not visible on first sight. Not the same thing at all. And its about politics anyways, not about health.

Similarly, a person should be able to bar certain races or sexual preferences from entering ones property.

worst analogy ever. How's that the same thing? How is being black as bad as smoking? How is being a chinese detrimental to the health of others around you? How much extra money do people pay for being gay each year? Its not the same thing. You're trying to mix people and people's bahaviors. The closest analogy would be the sexual preference part, and even is far from being the same type of behavior or choice as smoking.

Consider, if Starbucks were allowed, and did ban blacks from their stores, how many people would boycott Starbucks?

yakyak

There's an economic incentive to be fair. If there was an economic incentive to ban smoking from bars, then it would have already happened voluntarily.

Yes I agree. If the governement paid extra to owners who banned smoking from the bars, it might work better. But as I said earlier, its not fair to allow some to be smoking and some to be non-smoking.
But there's an underlying economic incentive to ban smoking from as many places as possible, and that is that it makes people die of cancer, and spend money on cigarettes. But are they still making cigarettes in the U.S. and Canada anyways? that would be interesting to know.
Thing is, if al smoking did was stink, I think we could live with it, but it kills people. Now as a society, are we supposed to allow this for "freedom".
nawe.

People have the right to have incorrect or hateful opinions. That's the price we pay for freedom.

Its not about opinions, its about behavior. Its bad behavior, plain and simple. You can't allow everything because of freedom. Smoking is not an "opinion" or whatever, its just basically an addiction. Something we haven't talked about is that people who smoked often want to QUIT. Seen the numbers of adds for patches and all that shit? Since people mostly smoke either during breaks at work or in bars, then I think it would be a great way to help these people as well.

At 3/21/04 03:59 AM, -poxpower- wrote: only difference is that fast food is only damageable to the health of the person who eats it.

Unless you live with a smoker or carpool with some, I really don't see what the big fucking issue is, so you breathe in unpleasant smoke. Boohoo.

And its not the same reasons anyways.

Uh, do you smoke? Yes it is.

Go away.

Die.

Its becuase of the danm anti smoking people, who force thier ideas of not smoking on everyone. they call for freedom, but dont let people choose wiether to smoke or not. watch that episode of South Park n this, it makes a really good point

At 3/21/04 04:36 PM, UnfocusedFenix wrote: Its becuase of the danm anti smoking people, who force thier ideas of not smoking on everyone. they call for freedom, but dont let people choose wiether to smoke or not.

We also dont want people throwing knives randomply in public places. People die from smoking, and from second-hand smoke. I dont want to breathe in anyone fag smoke, even if they fancy giving themselves lung-cancer.

How much amount of second-ahnd smoke does one need to inhale to suffer any physical damage?

At 3/21/04 05:02 PM, crass_clock wrote: How much amount of second-ahnd smoke does one need to inhale to suffer any physical damage?

If you're exposed to it for an hour every Weekend, say you go to a resturant or something, then you've increased your chance of lung canser by a 4-figure percent, I heard, but that's only my memory, sso don't quote me on that.

What seems to be a common misconception is that eating at a restaraunt it is a death sentence, sure as a bullet to the head. However, things like cancer are formed from repeated, prolonged exposure to carcinogens. Eating in a smokey restraunt once in a blue moon, or smoking one cigerette won't force you too die of lung cancer in a year.

What about say people who work there? Or does anybody else find it slightly disgusting that this shit will get on your food, what goes up must come down after all.

At 3/21/04 05:16 PM, awkward_silence wrote: However, things like cancer are formed from repeated, prolonged exposure to carcinogens. Eating in a smokey restraunt once in a blue moon, or smoking one cigerette won't force you too die of lung cancer in a year.

Thus, the reasoning behind the NY ban is for the workers sake! I guess I'll say it again (3rd time?). That was the reason - if your a bartender, imagine how much 2nd hand smoke you would inhale over the course of a day.

If I wanted to make a resturaunt, where, as a gimic, customers would play paintball while they eat, it would be extremely dangerous. However, all parties involved would be aware of the dangers of playing paintball during meals. Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a resturaunt where consenting adults play paintball while eating.

Also, I'm not talking about democracy. If everyone in the country wanted to shut down Circle K, just because, I don't think that they should have the right to do so. They are free to boycott the store.

At 3/21/04 04:32 PM, crass_clock wrote: Unless you live with a smoker or carpool with some, I really don't see what the big fucking issue is, so you breathe in unpleasant smoke. Boohoo.

well how about if you have to work in a bar all your life? Or live with someone who's a smoker? How bout that? Yeah you're right, the worst that can happen is dying of lung cancer. No biggie.

Uh, do you smoke? Yes it is.

so I take it you smoke out of necessity and if you didn't smoker you'd die? And I also take it that there are some addictive chemicals in fast food that make people crave it ( wouldn't be surprised but I never heard of that).
Fact is, you don't need to smoke, but you need to eat. Now eating fast food is often dependant on many things, but addiction isn't one of them as far as I know. If you give someone money, I think he'll have no trouble at all stopping to eat fast food. But no matter what, people always have a hard time quitting smoking.

OK THAT'S IT THOUGH STOP IT WITH THE FUCK-ALL ANALOGIES YOU GUYS.

At 3/21/04 05:21 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:
Thus, the reasoning behind the NY ban is for the workers sake! I guess I'll say it again (3rd time?). That was the reason - if your a bartender, imagine how much 2nd hand smoke you would inhale over the course of a day.

yes

don't waste your time, people in politics are mostly wannabes who don't have an once of intellect and who can't follow a debate. Don't even think you can convince them with arguments either, most of them will avoid everything you say ( as this topic clearly demonstrates) and come back at you with the same tired arguments or faulty reasoning

its amazing that so far, NONE OF THE PRO-SMOKE PEOPLE HAVE REPLIED TO MY ARGUMENTS IN A PROPER MANNER

YOU ARE FUCKING PATHETIC.

At 3/21/04 05:44 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: blablablalbabl evasion +20%

ok, you suck at debating. Here's what you have to do: QUOTE PEOPLE

I think you repeated the exact same crappy analogies about 3 times now in this thread. Every time I reply, you ignore it and repeat you crappy analogy.

can't even quote people and you're in politics. Jaysis.

At 3/21/04 05:44 PM, -poxpower- wrote: well how about if you have to work in a bar all your life?

You should've seen your school counsellor more often if you're a non-smoker working in a bar.

Or live with someone who's a smoker? How bout that?

I thought this thread was about restaurants and bars.

Yeah you're right, the worst that can happen is dying of lung cancer. No biggie.

I'm sorry but if you walk into a bar only to find out that it's full of *gasp* smokers and then walk out, that isn't nearly enough exposure to cause lung cancer.

Fact is, you don't need to smoke, but you need to eat. Now eating fast food is often dependant on many things, but addiction isn't one of them as far as I know.

I wasn't reffering to food in general, I was specifically refering to fast food because so many people eat worthless crap day after day when there are plenty of healthy alternatives around.

Why do I want to eat at McDonalds and smoke cigarettes (which are 68% taxes) when I'm opposed to capitalism?

Because I crave them both, simple enough. However, the last time I had McDonalds was 4 months ago and this is definitely my last pack of cigarettes.

OK THAT'S IT THOUGH STOP IT WITH THE FUCK-ALL ANALOGIES YOU GUYS.

Your caps scare me?

At 3/21/04 06:21 PM, crass_clock wrote: You should've seen your school counsellor more often if you're a non-smoker working in a bar.

well some people like to tend bars and stuff. And some others don't have a choice. Like all the young people who have to be waiters to pay the bills as long as they are in college and stuff like that. And its just better to have people not smoke anyways.

I'm sorry but if you walk into a bar only to find out that it's full of *gasp* smokers and then walk out, that isn't nearly enough exposure to cause lung cancer.

see above

I wasn't reffering to food in general, I was specifically refering to fast food because so many people eat worthless crap day after day when there are plenty of healthy alternatives around.

Yeah things is, everyone has to eat. If you eat fast food, at least it counts as food. Cigarettes don't respond to any basic human needs. They are pure suicide.

Because I crave them both, simple enough.

I don't think people "crave" fast food. Some people do like them a lot, but I've never heard of anyone going nuts when they can't eat fast food anymore and are stuck at home eating steaks. But people obviously crave cigarettes. I've never been a smoker, but from what I hear, you're hooked. Its not your doing anymore. Its much easier to quit fast food.

this is definitely my last pack of cigarettes.

yeah......

At 3/21/04 06:21 PM, crass_clock wrote: Because I crave them both, simple enough. However, the last time I had McDonalds was 4 months ago and this is definitely my last pack of cigarettes.

Im just curious, have you ever said that before this pack?