| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
zappaholic 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
|
 Posted: April 13 2009 at 19:44 |
I made this a few years ago, when an indoor smoking ban was on the ballot in Ohio (it passed). It's based on the infamous slogan of christianunderground.com.....
For the record, I don't smoke, I've never smoked, I've never wanted to smoke. But I don't care if anyone else does. Just don't blow it in my face is all I ask.....
|
|
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
|
 |
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 17:11 |
 MovingPictures07 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
|
I believe free will allows you not to take the job knowing smoke will be involved. You presume either that A)workers are ignorant to the hazards of the job they are taking or B)workers should be allowed to take a job then demand immediate changes to suit their needs. It also seems that you believe government must actively regulate who recieves what liberties where and when. If you allow for both options in a free society then the customers will decide what is important to them without the interference of a central bureaucracy which, incidently, is no better at making everyday decisions effecting your life than you yourself (if someone disagrees with this then I am sad for you).
Garion81 wrote:
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar.
|
Then let the smokers have their bars and allow other entrepreneurs to open their own smokeless bars, which they will, because there is a market. Smokers are already looked down upon and taxed through the teeth, can't you just let them have somewhere to smoke? Instead of having the government force them to bend to your will why not create an alternative so no one is oppressed. And if you know a certain bar still allows smoking you could simply avoid that bar or implore the owner to change his/her policies. Incidently, I believe smokers would still like to be able to have a cigarette on bad weather days.
Garion81 wrote:
After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. |
How many minor inconveniences till we lose our liberty? Precident like this is a dangerous gift to give government beaurecrats. Next thing you know you won't be able to eat the same foods (oh wait) or buy the same lightbulbs (oh wait) that you used to and it will continue like this till one day you wake up in your government approved bed, in your government approved house, in your government built Levett town, where you will sit and wait for the hour a day you'll be allowed to use the electricity required to listen to your government approved music. Why grumble when it is easier to let someone else make your decisions for you anyway? I mean their choices will always fall in line with the ones you'd have made, right? |
 |
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 17:10 |
I hope you're not trying to say that smoking is as harmful to society as hard drugs like crack and meth. Because from what I've seen that couldn't be farther from the truth. I will admit I've never smoked before and I never plan to start. But I'd prefer that free enterprise and individuals consciously make this decision than governments. And there are so many people who are anti-smoking when it comes to bars and clubs that I wouldn't be surprised if such establishments were established and became more popular than or even put bars and clubs that allow smoking out of business.
|
|
|
|
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 10:28 |
manofmystery wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
|
I believe free will allows you not to take the job knowing smoke will be involved. You presume either that A)workers are ignorant to the hazards of the job they are taking or B)workers should be allowed to take a job then demand immediate changes to suit their needs. It also seems that you believe government must actively regulate who recieves what liberties where and when. If you allow for both options in a free society then the customers will decide what is important to them without the interference of a central bureaucracy which, incidently, is no better at making everyday decisions effecting your life than you yourself (if someone disagrees with this then I am sad for you).
Garion81 wrote:
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar.
|
Then let the smokers have their bars and allow other entrepreneurs to open their own smokeless bars, which they will, because there is a market. Smokers are already looked down upon and taxed through the teeth, can't you just let them have somewhere to smoke? Instead of having the government force them to bend to your will why not create an alternative so no one is oppressed. And if you know a certain bar still allows smoking you could simply avoid that bar or implore the owner to change his/her policies. Incidently, I believe smokers would still like to be able to have a cigarette on bad weather days.
Garion81 wrote:
After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. |
How many minor inconveniences till we lose our liberty? Precident like this is a dangerous gift to give government beaurecrats. Next thing you know you won't be able to eat the same foods (oh wait) or buy the same lightbulbs (oh wait) that you used to and it will continue like this till one day you wake up in your government approved bed, in your government approved house, in your government built Levett town, where you will sit and wait for the hour a day you'll be allowed to use the electricity required to listen to your government approved music. Why grumble when it is easier to let someone else make your decisions for you anyway? I mean their choices will always fall in line with the ones you'd have made, right? |
|
|
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17258
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 09:17 |
The Pessimist wrote:
I miss that old pub smell of lager and cigarette smoke, I found it quite comforting. It's a shame about the ban IMHO.
|
Agreed. Glad I got a chance to experience the old bar scene and it's devious charms. Everyday the world loses a bit more of its character. As for smokers "creating their own reality" or whatever PF said below, EVERYone creates their own reality. Everyone sees the world through their own filter--that tendency is not exclusive to smokers.
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 08:43 |
|
I miss that old pub smell of lager and cigarette smoke, I found it quite comforting. It's a shame about the ban IMHO.
|
|
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
|
|
cobb2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 06:03 |
|
Governments pass laws to ban smoking, but ignore global warming- what a great world we live in (sorry that should read what a great world we are consuming).
Edited by cobb2 - April 12 2009 at 09:54
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 05:20 |
|
Time to be Mr Negative Pants:
I saw we make it a law you have to smoke 50 cigarettes a day.
That way hopefully we have more chance of the human race dying out for good and then all things to do with smoking will become a non issue.
:P
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 04:40 |
manofmystery wrote:
Being in favor of forced smoking bans on privately owned business in nothing more than selfish and flies in the face of America's founding principals. I don't smoke but I don't wish to see smokers punished by government decree (especially when its a government that wants it both ways: keep smoking and pay all our taxes but don't do it around anybody else). If the owner of the bar/restraunt/club decides to ban smoking then fine, more power to him, but the government shouldn't be forcing anything on him/her. This is another case of government not allowing citizens to make their own decisions.
By the way, do those awful TRUTH commercials make anyone else want to start smoking? |
Smoking is different than your typical suicidal drug abuse ... it harms others. Like Garion81 said: Even in privately owned businesses there are still employees who may not want to be injured by smokers. Sure, you can claim that it's their free choice. But in this case I'll say: to hell with freedom, let's save some lifes! BTW: I'm really shocked to see how smokers create their own reality, where common sense doesn't apply. Quit smoking right now ... it might safe your life, it *will* safe you quite some money, and you won't be bothered by smoking bans anymore. 
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 04:29 |
^Yeah, what's next a ban on drinking in bars?????  And while were at it, let's allow smoking of crack and pot and couch stuffing in bars. 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 00:50 |
Garion81 wrote:
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
|
I believe free will allows you not to take the job knowing smoke will be involved. You presume either that A)workers are ignorant to the hazards of the job they are taking or B)workers should be allowed to take a job then demand immediate changes to suit their needs. It also seems that you believe government must actively regulate who recieves what liberties where and when. If you allow for both options in a free society then the customers will decide what is important to them without the interference of a central bureaucracy which, incidently, is no better at making everyday decisions effecting your life than you yourself (if someone disagrees with this then I am sad for you).
Garion81 wrote:
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar.
|
Then let the smokers have their bars and allow other entrepreneurs to open their own smokeless bars, which they will, because there is a market. Smokers are already looked down upon and taxed through the teeth, can't you just let them have somewhere to smoke? Instead of having the government force them to bend to your will why not create an alternative so no one is oppressed. And if you know a certain bar still allows smoking you could simply avoid that bar or implore the owner to change his/her policies. Incidently, I believe smokers would still like to be able to have a cigarette on bad weather days.
Garion81 wrote:
After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. |
How many minor inconveniences till we lose our liberty? Precident like this is a dangerous gift to give government beaurecrats. Next thing you know you won't be able to eat the same foods (oh wait) or buy the same lightbulbs (oh wait) that you used to and it will continue like this till one day you wake up in your government approved bed, in your government approved house, in your government built Levett town, where you will sit and wait for the hour a day you'll be allowed to use the electricity required to listen to your government approved music. Why grumble when it is easier to let someone else make your decisions for you anyway? I mean their choices will always fall in line with the ones you'd have made, right?
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: April 11 2009 at 21:26 |
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar. After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience.
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 12:02 |
Being in favor of forced smoking bans on privately owned business in nothing more than selfish and flies in the face of America's founding principals. I don't smoke but I don't wish to see smokers punished by government decree (especially when its a government that wants it both ways: keep smoking and pay all our taxes but don't do it around anybody else). If the owner of the bar/restraunt/club decides to ban smoking then fine, more power to him, but the government shouldn't be forcing anything on him/her. This is another case of government not allowing citizens to make their own decisions.
By the way, do those awful TRUTH commercials make anyone else want to start smoking?
|
Time always wins.
|
|
limeyrob
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: January 15 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1402
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:51 |
Of the comments that say that it is up to smokers whether they want to endanger their own lives my response is fine by me but stay out of hospitals. When I was very poorly a year or so ago I and others had a very hard time trying to get to sleep at night for the number of other patients coughing their guts out. We had no sympathy for them as it was a self inflicted injury. And this comes from an ex-smoker. No doubt the smoking debate will continue.
I'll say no more on the subject as from my previous experiences the conversation just goes round in circles.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:48 |
Dean wrote:
^ first time I flew to San Francisco, after 13 hours without a cigarette I approached a security guard and asked him where I could smoke - he pointed east and said rather stoically "Nevada" |
hahahhahhah 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:40 |
|
^ first time I flew to San Francisco, after 13 hours without a cigarette I approached a security guard and asked him where I could smoke - he pointed east and said rather stoically "Nevada"
|
|
What?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:33 |
Dean wrote:
Heathrow is now smoke-free - you cannot even smoke on the concourse outside the main terminals, let alone inside. |
ahhh... good to know... no connecting flights to Italy through London anymore
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:31 |
^ Visiting Italy and France in the 80s & 90s was a culture shock to a Brit (when even smoking between courses was frowned upon in the UK) to see people smoking while eating - fork in one hand, cigarette in the other and it still happens when dining al fresco. In Sicily last summer I saw staff in restaurants and in the hotel smoking while on duty, so it is business as usual for some regardless.
Like Martin, I have always been a considerate smoker, I know it is a filthy habit, I know it stinks, I know the health risks, I know it affects non-smokers and asthmatics, I'm even aware that a poorly extinguished butt can start a fire and that an old ashtray smells like an old ashtray - I am an adict, but not a junkie - it is the implication that I have no consideration for others I find objectionable. I fully support non-smoking in the workplace and where food is served, I even appreciate not smoking on trains, buses and aeroplanes (even long-haul). However, I have always felt that if I am to make allowances for other people, that they should reciprocate and make allowances for me.
My only stipulation when the we chose to ban smoking in our company back in the 80s was that people didn't eat fruit in my office and that all unwanted skins, peels and cores be disposed of in the canteen, not my waste bin since I find the smell as objectionable as stale smoke. (To me orange peel smells like vomit). After a few months I had to enforce a policy on my Engineers of not eating at their desks when one of them decided to reheat a curry on a portable hotplate and then leave the dirty plate and pan festering on his desk over the weekend.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:24 |
|
Heathrow is now smoke-free - you cannot even smoke on the concourse outside the main terminals, let alone inside.
|
|
What?
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 09:21 |
|
Heathrow ??? - you can't smoke in an open-sided bus shelter here man, let alone an airport!!!
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?
