AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > July > 03 > Entry
Should smoking be prohibited in public places?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Imagine the following scenario: There’s a new product called “tobacco” that some people enjoy smoking, and government officials are considering whether and how to approve its use. It’s proven harmful to users, so some want to ban it entirely. But free choice wins the day – if people want to ruin their own health, so be it — so the officials then discuss restrictions.
In our fictional scenario, proponents admit that tobacco harms bystanders who unintentionally inhale smoke second-hand. In fact, studies show (as they do in real life) that while smoking is linked to lung cancer and heart disease, even inhaling others’ smoke increases lung cancer and heart disease risk by 20 to 30 percent. And fifteen times more “smoking bystanders” die from heart-disease-related deaths than those who die from lung cancer itself. Also, studies show that secondhand smoke exposure in young women increases breast cancer risk by between 68 and 120 percent, demonstrate that it’s especially dangerous for children, and prove that air-ventilation technology doesn’t eliminate exposure.
After about five minutes with this data, our hypothetical officials rapidly place strict restrictions on this new product. Not only can tobacco be sold only to adults; it can only be used on their own property or designated smoking areas, where it won’t inadvertently affect others.
Returning to reality, it’s clear that given the established dangers of secondhand smoke, we wouldn’t even be having this debate if we hadn’t had years of cultural desensitization to public smoking. Research conclusively demonstrates the unacceptable risk it poses for public health; the latest salvo being a June 2006 U.S. Surgeon General’s report entitled, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.
University of California medical professor Dr. Stanton Glantz is a member of the scientific committee that approved the aforementioned breast cancer study in 2005. He said in an interview, “I went into the review process with a blank slate as an outside reviewer, and it was clear this was a significant find. It’s already having significant influence; in the next few months it will become the dominant view.”
For the sake of the 55% of the population living in areas with no restrictions on public smoking, let’s hope so.
Rebuttal
Why all the hoopla?
Let’s assume for the next 350 words that smoking causes cancer. This will save me at least 40 words I can dedicate to this sentence alone and it may shed some light on all of the other things we do in the course of our lives that are just as dangerous as smoking a Marlboro Light.
It’s easy to target addicts huddled around an ashtray. It’s much harder to look at the bigger issues and the habits we don’t want to kick. There are no public bans on automobiles or the meat we eat, for example, even though both cars and meat are just as suspect as cancer-causing agents.
Health risks are far greater for people living near fossil fuel power plants, which result in premature death, asthma attacks and respiratory problems, according to a Harvard Study on the impact of pollution. Air pollution is associated with respiratory ailments in children, according to published results in a 2004 American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine study. And enough exposure to everyday radiation from dental x-rays to computer use could cause leukemia.
The human-health consequence of hormone-injected cattle is being scrutinized for possible long-term detrimental effects, and in the meantime, the European Union has banned the import of U.S. meat. Just last week, a government-appointed U.K. chemist ignored a gag order when he went public with his misgivings about hormone-laden beef because of its possible link to breast cancer and other diseases.
Eating and breathing are human health hazards that bring us closer to our death every single day. And we don’t have the option of sitting in the non-breathing section. The air we breathe is everywhere. So, if you ban smoking in public places then you have to ban all of the other disease-inducing pollutants lining our lungs or sitting undigested in our stomachs.
Second-hand smoke may be bad for you, but ignorance is far worse. This is why I don’t support witch hunts meant to divert us away from larger issues more worthy of our attention. That would be like declaring war in Iraq to divert us from seeing how our privacy rights are being chipped away by the Bush administration.
Comments
By Kaka81483
July 9, 2006 05:51 AM | Link to this
[url=http://costumes.coginfo.org]Costumes[/url] * [url=http://the-flash.ultraportal.org]The Flash[/url] * [url=http://ambien-cr.freecialis.info]Ambien Cr[/url] Costumes | The Flash | Ambien Cr http://costumes.coginfo.org http://the-flash.ultraportal.org http://ambien-cr.freecialis.info
By Kaka73946
July 9, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
[url=http://englandsoccer.flosoccer.info]England Soccer[/url] * [url=http://scotlandsoccer.flosoccer.info]Scotland Soccer[/url] * [url=http://usawomenssoccer.flosoccer.info]Usa Womens Soccer[/url] England Soccer | Scotland Soccer | Usa Womens Soccer http://englandsoccer.flosoccer.info http://scotlandsoccer.flosoccer.info http://usawomenssoccer.flosoccer.info
By Kaka28797
July 9, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this
[url=http://4-fanta.jvl.com]4-fanta[/url] * [url=http://naruto.krutanet.com]Naruto[/url] * [url=http://monterey.dimasearch.com]Monterey[/url] 4-fanta | Naruto | Monterey http://4-fanta.jvl.com http://naruto.krutanet.com http://monterey.dimasearch.com
By Aelred
July 10, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
I usually agree with Diane on most everything but this case I cannot. We do not have to assume that second-hand smoke causes cancer as that is a known fact.
I remember an incident in which I went to a restaurant and asked the server to seat me in the non-smoking section. During dinner a couple right across from lit up their cigarettes and their smoke soon invaded my space. I called the server over and asked again to be seated in the non-smoking section in which she said I was. I then asked her where is the wall that prohibits their smoke from entering my space and all she could do was look at me as though I had five heads as she couldn’t answer. I then told here that if I’m not moved from where I was sitting to an area where smoke wouldn’t bother me then this meal was not going to be paid for and I was walking out. Finally a manager moved me and my quest to another area completely away from the smokers to enjoy our meal. I’m not writing this as a non-smoker because when that happened I was a smoker.
There is a time and place for smoking and being in a closed public space is not one of those places. People should not impose their freedoms on others. Having the freedom to smoke carries with it the responsibility of knowing that what they do effects the health of those around them and should not light up.
So smokers cannot light up when they want to…well, there are many things that people can’t do when living in a civilized society. At times all people should think about others over and above their personal needs. I know that is not the American way as personal and immediate gratification is the norm, but we need to move away from a narcissist’s way of life and start thinking of the health and well-being of others. This doesn’t mean smokers cannot smoke but should consider others before they light up and to know there are places where they can light up…but in the public is not one of those places.
By Gale
July 10, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
I love the restrictions on public smoke; not because I worry about my health, but because cigarette smoke stinks! I love being able to enjoy places I used to avoid because the smell was bad and the smoke made my eyes burn. It is a smelly habit. No, I have never been a smoker. My dad smoked when I was a kid. I shared an office with two chain smokers. The smell gets into your clothes and hair. Now, all I have to do is hold my breath when I walk in and out of public places so I can avoid the smoke of the people smoking at the entrances.
By Archie
July 10, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Diane’s response to the topic was rather lame although she made some points I agree with. Shanti wins this debate and yes smoking should be prohibited in public places.
By Brian Curtis
July 10, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
I’m not getting Diane’s point on this one. Sure, there are greater hazards to public health than secondhand smoke; does that mean we should ignore this one?
I’m the first to agree that many perceived “threats” and “risks” are overly hyped and exaggerated beyond a reasonable degree. As she points out, we live with many, many risks every day.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of them, or take reasonable steps to minimize them where practical. Especially risks that affect other people, not just ourselves. Can Diane point to some downside of restricting smoking—some loss of rights, or privacy, or act of unjust discrimination?
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
I have no problem with restricted smoking in public arenas as I, as a smoker, try to be considerate of others anyway. However, I always got a big snort for anti-smoking coworkers, who would jog on the boulevard for an hour during lunch, since researchers indicated that hour probably was the equivalent of smoking a pack a day, with all the vehicle exhaust and general low-smog. At least they did not force me to jog with them. LOL
Now when smoking is prohibited in non-public OPEN spaces, as I believe Boulder CO(the oh-so-PC kind of place) has done, that is a different ballgame.
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
And let’s not consider the interior and interior-venting of most office buildings Healthy since studies have shown that most office buildings are some of the most unhealthy places to be, and we are talking the physical items used in construction, not that hostile coworker or airhead boss. LOL
Evacuate(force to move elsewhere) eveyone from Cancer Alley, that stretch from north of Baton Rouge southward to New Orleans.
By Kyle
July 10, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Diane’s response was a joke - there are worse dangers than second hand smoke so we shouldn’t pay attention to it? I agree that there should be a ban on smoking in public places, but i wonder if we should differentiate between open and enclosed public places. certianly enclosed public places such as restaurants and shops should be smoke free, but what about public places that are out in the open where the smoke cannot be trapped. there seems to be less of a danger for second-hand smoke in open public places - just a thought.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Personally, I hate cigarette smoke, and I hate the fact that smokers put others at risk all the time. Here in Vermont, smoking is not allowed in any public buildings, restaurants etc and I love it!!! Additionally, I see in the rental listings that landlords are requesting nonsmoking tenants.
While I enjoy the benefits of this, I do not agree that the government should be necessarily telling private business owners how to run their business. I do think in a restaurant situation, that the power of the dollar works. If not enough people visit because they disagree with the fact that smoking is allowed, this should be the way to change the rules, not the government telling me, that in my restaurant, I can’t allow smoking.
On the other hand, I think places where children are, even public open places do have a very good argument for restrictions. Smokers seem to only care about the fact that they want to smoke. Not caring that others don’t want to smell their smoke, or the fact that it is a very serious health risk to everyone around. They throw their cigarette butts on the ground, which should not be allowed as that is littering.
My partner has asthma pretty bad. Her mother smoked when she was pregnant with her. I don’t understand how someone could put their baby at risk like that. My mother smoked most of my life (she has quit now) but she also put me at risk. Of course, in the 70’s/80’s everything wasn’t known about second hand smoke as it is now, but still..
By GOB
July 10, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Now when smoking is prohibited in non-public OPEN spaces, as I believe Boulder CO(the oh-so-PC kind of place) has done, that is a different ballgame.
That would depend on what is considered “open.” My opinion on the whole smoking bans thing changed after I went to Europe. Just walking down the streets of Amsterdam, I felt like I had smoked an entire pack. Those were all “open” places, but there was no way to escape it.
If not enough people visit because they disagree with the fact that smoking is allowed, this should be the way to change the rules, not the government telling me, that in my restaurant, I can’t allow smoking.
This is a good point, and my major problem with the bans. In Georgia, though, you can still have a smoking section; it just has to be totally enclosed, sort of like those rooms at the airport. I have been to several big chain restaurants that have enclosed their bar area to allow smoking.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
I am for the free market on this issue. As much as I hate smelling smoke while I eat, I don’t mind it if I’m in some bar at midnight on a Friday.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that smokers have some place in which they can gather in public. I think if someone were allowed to open an openly all-smoking restaurant/bar, it would be frequented by smokers and by those who do not mind smoke. Nonsmokers wouldn’t go there.
Completely ban it in other places. Hospitals? Ban it. Schools/school functions? Ban it. Public shopping centers/malls? Ban it within the building itself, but also within, say, 100 or 150 ft of any entrance to the building. I’d rather sit in a restaurant that has separate rooms with separate ventilation for smokers and nonsmokers than to have the whole restaurant be nonsmoking, only to be forced to walk through a cloud of smoke right after exiting the place.
Let owners choose to have separate smoking sections if they’re willing to pay for a separate ventilation system for it.
By Rick
July 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
I’m glad that these smoking restrictions are becoming commonplace. I don’t want to smell smoke or pay for health care benefits of smokers.
Hopefully we can move on to other acts that should be restricted.
Those who use cell phones while driving should pay higher insurance rates. If anyone has an accident while on a cell phone, then the insurance company should not pay for damages to that person’s car and they should be barred from obtaining anything but very high cost auto insurance. I should not be paying for their risking behavior.
Although overweight myself, I would support higher health insurance rates for those who are overweight.
These are choices that are made by individuals and they should foot the bill for their behavior.
By chuck
July 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
I was recently in Alabama and didn’t realize until then how nice it was to live in a state where smoking was banned in restaurants. It was the first cigarette smoke I had smelled in months and it almost made me gag.
Renee, you almost sound like a conservative there. I like it. This issue has been a struggle for me. I am a free market kind of guy and hate the thought of the government telling a business what it can and can’t do. I prefer the use of social and economic pressure to get companies to do the right thing. The problem is that in my community, there was not a single rest. that banned smoking BEFORE it was forced. It was either put up with it or eat at home all the time. When you have a serious health issue that affects EVERYONE and especially children, I think it is okay for the government to step in and ban the offending produt or restrict its use.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
The government should not have the authority to tell a private restraunteur or bar owner what he can and can not allow in his place of business.
You are not entitled to eat at a particular restaurant. A restaurant owner, on the other hand, should be entitled to allow his patrons to smoke if he so chooses.
I have no objections to banning smoking in truly public buildings, but when it comes to a private business the government should keep its nose out of it.
By chuck
July 10, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
I think that Billy’s solution is almost a reasonable one EXCEPT, most restaurants would then go smoking as opposed to non-smoking, thinking that non-smokers would come anyway. That was the basic situation PRIOR to the ban. I would not be against the ban being lifted from bars, since I don’t go to them anyway and since you have to be 21 to enter them. I agree with the restrictions at entrances and exits of public places.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
I think the separate enclosed smoking areas are actually a good idea. This allows the smokers and the nonsmokers who don’t mind cigarette smoke an outlet. But, I still ask who regulates that they obtain these separate smoking areas? Personally, I didn’t eat out much before the bans were put into place, because I didn’t care for the smoke. I remember visiting the Applebees on Jimmy Carter and the smoking section was on the left, with the non smoking section directly next to it, no glass separation or anything. So it didn’t really make a difference where you sat, you had to smell it. But by the same token, as Billy mentioned, I knew to expect it when I go to the club. It’s ultimately up to me, if I go to the club and choose to come out smelling like I rolled in ashes. It should be up to the business itself, in my opinion, to figure out what crowd they want to cater to. Maybe they want smokers visiting their restaurant. All nonsmokers are not as offended as some.
I think it would help if smokers were courteous on their own, and I know some are, but it’s the ones that aren’t that make this hard. I think it should be banned in a car, when you have a child riding, since the child can’t speak up for themselves on whether they want cancer or not. But this is not a situation for government involvement when it comes to private businesses. Hospitals & schools like Billy said, yes, even some open spaces, but I think it gets really tricky on setting limitations on that as well.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
another boring topic that we should be able to dispatch in, oh, a day or so…
common sense seems to say that in enclosed public venues smoking should be completely prohibited. In open public venues it should be restricted to certain areas. In private businesses, the owner of the establishment should be allowed to decide if he wants to appeal to the smoking demographic or the non-smoking demographic….
By Billy
July 10, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
I have no objections to banning smoking in truly public buildings, but when it comes to a private business the government should keep its nose out of it.
Yeah. Or maybe just require a “Smoking esablihment” notification to be prominently displayed in front of the thing.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Rick - Do you support that insurance companies raise the premiums for people who are overweight due to medical abnormalities as well, or just for the people who have eaten themselves into obesity?
By RF
July 10, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Smoking hasn’t been allowed in public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.) for some time. I think it’s overstepping gov’t. authority to tell a private business how to operate. If they want to risk the business loss, let them have smoking. We need to give the economic pressure time to work. If a business chooses to allow smoking, so be it. They’ll either succeed or fail depending on the clientele in their area. Just post a sign: smoking allowed: enter at your own risk
By RF
July 10, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
The state imposed a $40 per month surcharge on insurance last year for anyone who had smoked, even if only occasionally, in the last twelve months. And they have to pay the surcharge until they have completed a certified stop-smoking class. How long do you suppose it will be until they find a way to put a surcharge on insurance for anyone 20+ pounds overweight or anyone who drinks more than one beer a day, or anyone who engages in any risky behavior?? Slowly but surely we’re giving the government more and more power to tell us how to live, and that scares me.
By GOB
July 10, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Smoking hasn’t been allowed in public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.) for some time. I think it’s overstepping gov’t. authority to tell a private business how to operate.
But the government has been telling private businesses how to operate for years. This is just another regulation in the many that they already have to deal with. How is this any different than having a public hearing in order to obtain a liquor license, or having random health inspections, or even something as simply as obtaining a business license? The government has already created numerous regulations for private companies to deal with. This is just one more.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
HI RF!!!!
Actually, they just increased the taxes here on tobacco products pretty significantly. Currently, here in VT, with taxes, a pack of cigarettes is between 6 and 7 dollars, depending on the brand, but none is under 6.
The government has been getting way too involved in private citizens lives. And it seems to be only going down from here.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
most restaurants would then go smoking as opposed to non-smoking, thinking that non-smokers would come anyway. That was the basic situation PRIOR to the ban.
I dunno. Smoking was the status quo at the time. Now, here at least, smoking is an abomination. Yes, a few places will go smoking, but they would likely be forced to consider the impact of changing. Negative publicity and all. And, like I said, if they have separate, self-contained smoking ares from which no smoke gets into the main part of the building, BFD — they wouldn’t be hurting anyone but themselves.
Having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool.
What do you mean? The entire pool is a “no peeing” section. The peeing section is called the bathroom. Or, if you like, the kiddie pool. People know that if they want to avoid pee, to stay out of both.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
How is this any different than having a public hearing in order to obtain a liquor license, or having random health inspections, or even something as simply as obtaining a business license
There ya go! Businesses can apply for smoking licenses if they want to allow smoking!
By Archie
July 10, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
This is sort of off topic but I witnessed workers at a local Bojangles here in Columbia,SC smoking reefer right at the entrance to the restaurant. When they knew that I immediately recognized the smell the young men walked to the back of the restaurant. A smoking ban might have eliminated that particular episode altogether as it seems as if some smokers of anything are insensitive to others. Let me stress that I am only referring to some smokers. Although I do support a ban I can definitely relate to attending a bar and coming home smelling like smoke as it is a weekly thing for me. As for open areas I don’t know what to think because if you can smell it you are inhaling the smoke. I think Shanti did a pretty good job with this topic.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Right. So if you are in a restaurant that has a smoking section and you want no smoke, stay out of both.
By B.S.
July 10, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I wonder if Diane would use the same argument in support of firearms. Yes they can kill, but so can knives, and rope, and axes, razors, hammers, bats, and a multitude of other items. So really, if you want to ban firearms, you must ban all these other items too.
Secondly, I agree with several of the Posters, let the establishment decide if they want to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. If you want to allow smoking and you can get enough smoking clientel to make a profit you should be allowed to. Personally, I won’t eat at an establishment that has smoking, but that doesn’t mean every business has to cater to non-smokers.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
GOB - I understand where you are coming from, but I think there is a big difference between a business license (which indicates they can legally run a business) and telling them what they can or cannot do when they open the business. A health inpsection when it comes to food, I think is both fair and necessary. I don’t buy the idea of liquor licenses, and in my opinion, it’s just another way for the government to have their hand in the pot, any way they can.
By rabblerouser
July 10, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
My topic for the week would be: “whose sperm did god use to knock up mary?”
By RF
July 10, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Hey Renee!! Y’all drying out some up there?? We just got back from a fabulous week on the beach in Florida. We had a ringside seat for the shuttle launch and fireworks exploding right off the condo balcony. Man was it hard to come back to reality after that!!
GOB- you’re right, I reckon. Here’s another way for the guvmnet to make some money- smoking licenses. That would also give the public a chance to voice their opinion, much like they do on liquor licenses. Not a bad idea.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
I spent Friday night with some friends at a Cigar/Wine bar. There were so many people crammed in by 11 that you could barely move.
How about that free market!
By Steve
July 10, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
So, Diane, are you a smoker? Your level of denial would indicate that you are. Certainly there are lots of things that we do every day that cause cancer. But all of them together don’t amount to the public health risk that smoking does. It’s the number one cause of preventable disease in the world today. Automobiles cause us lots problems but try to get anything done without one. Meat and other foods may contain carcinogens, but we have to eat. The only thing a smoker gets from a cigarette is the servicing of an addiction that they had the poor judgment to develop in the first place. Cigarettes don’t taste good, smell good or make you feel good, until you’ve developed the addiction. I defy anyone to show me even one upside to smoking. Come on, Diane. We need to eat. We need to breathe. We need someplace to live. But nobody needs to smoke. And that’s the point smokers choose to miss. Cloaking yourselves in the Bill of Rights won’t help you. Nothing in that document gives you the right to make other people sick.
By claralistensprechen
July 10, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Good question! …it remains quite the mystery. God didn’t make Jesus the same way he made Adam, and He, being non-corporal couldn’t have had his own sperm—and yet he required a Mary. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus.
By rabblersr
July 10, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
This reminds me of the Hookers prayer.
O Mary, sweet mother of Jesus who hath conceived without sinning.
Please grant me the favor of sinning without conceiving. Amen
By Peter
July 10, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
This reminds me of the Hookers prayer.
O Mary, sweet mother of Jesus who hath conceived without sinning, grant me the favor of sinning without conceiving.
By Peter
July 10, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Hit the button by mistake: This is blashemy and you people should be lined up in front of a firing squad. Someday when you’re screaming to God to stop you from burning in hell, you’ll know what sin is and what it leads to!
By Renee
July 10, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
We have dried out, finally RF. That sounds like such a nice vacation (I’m jealous!!).
By Billy
July 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
So, Diane, are you a smoker? Your level of denial would indicate that you are…But nobody needs to smoke. And that’s the point smokers choose to miss.
I’m not a smoker and I get the point about not needing to smoke, but I still agree with Diane to a point. No, there’s nothing good about smoking. But there’s nothing good about a bunch of stuff, and it’s my right to do with my body what I please. Yes, the helpless should be protected; keep it away from children. But adults who are aware of smoke and are willing to make the conscious choice to be around it should be allowed to do so without being confined to their homes or developing a new generation of speakeasies.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
This is blashemy and you people should be lined up in front of a firing squad. Someday when you’re screaming to God to stop you from burning in hell, you’ll know what sin is and what it leads to!
Gee, can I join YOUR church? Sounds like y’all are AWESOME.
By Archie
July 10, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Renee,hello, first of all I am trying to jack myself up for this debate but I am not that passionate about this issue, so I say this to Renee and others that although an adult business has a license the government or law says the ladies have to dance a certain way or wear a certain type of clothing and in Florida even the distance between the dancer and the customer is regulated. Heck here in Columbia police have conducted raids on private nightclubs so people already know they can’t do everything they want without consequence. I do stress that the government is the people, and of the people, in other words the government is us so let’s check out the true opinion of the person in the next cubicle.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Someday when you’re screaming to God to stop you from burning in hell, you’ll know what sin is and what it leads to!
There is no God, so your threats carry no weight.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
I’m amazed that people don’t understand the difference between a PRIVATE location, like a home, and privately-owned PUBLIC establishment like a bar or restaurant. Once you open your doors to the general public you forfeit the right to do whatever you would like. You couldn’t refuse to serve black people at your “private” business as you have no right to discriminate if you are public establishment.
And smokers have no rights once they infringe on my rights which they do every time they light up and I have to smell and breathe their polluted air.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
This is blashemy and you people should be lined up in front of a firing squad.
You know, in some Middle Eastern countries, people really do have horrible things done to them because of blasphemy. Perhaps you would be more comfortable living there, where you and other frothing-at-the-mouth theocrats can live and rave together!
By Toad
July 10, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Or did Diane have to come up with an argument in opposition to Shaunti? I guess she couldn’t just agree. Pot smokers can’t smoke in public so tobacco smokers should be subject to the same restrictions.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Once you open your doors to the general public you forfeit the right to do whatever you would like. You couldn’t refuse to serve black people at your “private” business as you have no right to discriminate if you are public establishment
Mmm…someone failed logic class. How, exactly, are you being discriminated against Oh…you aren’t!
And smokers have no rights once they infringe on my rights which they do every time they light up and I have to smell and breathe their polluted air.
Actually, no - you make the choice to go into an establishment that allows smoking. You choose to eat at a particular restaurant which may or may not allow smoking.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
And smokers have no rights once they infringe on my rights which they do every time they light up and I have to smell and breathe their polluted air.
I agree. But if a business can establish a truly separate section for smokers which had its own ventilation system from which no smoke was able to escape and said business is willing to take on the costs of installing and maintaining that system, then it should be allowed to do so.
By GOB
July 10, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
But if a business can establish a truly separate section for smokers which had its own ventilation system from which no smoke was able to escape and said business is willing to take on the costs of installing and maintaining that system, then it should be allowed to do so.
That is the current law in Georgia. You can also make your business 18 and older only, and the smoking restrictions no longer apply. The Friday’s in Kennesaw has a smoking section that is completly sealed off from the rest of the building. I really dont see a major problem with that solution.
In theory, sure, the free market should decide. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn’t always work that way.
By RF
July 10, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Renee- it was NICE!! We saved our pennies forEVER to afford it, but it was well worth the expense. Now I have to start saving for Disney World next year!!
Joe- I agree that indiscriminate smoking out in public is indeed an infringement of your rights, not to mention just plain inconsiderate and rude. You should be protected out on the sidewalk, in government buildings, hospitals, etc. But, if you choose to go into a restaurant,bar,or club that allows smoking, and you know upon entering that it does, then you forfeit some of your rights. You choose to go in, you choose to put up with the smoke. Those who choose to smoke and go into a private business that allows it are choosing to risk their health. You have a right NOT to join them and go to another establishment. Seems pretty simple to me.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
I didn’t say I was discriminated against. If you paid attention to logic you would understand that a PUBLIC establishment is not a “private” business like people incorrectly keep claiming. It’s a privately-OWNED public business. And being privately owned does not give you carte blance, discriminiation being an EXAMPLE - like smoking bans - of how you are regulated as a public business.
My CHOICE should not be affected by someone else’s decision to pollute their lungs. Period. I should not change my behavior because of your activities. If you want to smoke stay home. I shouldn’t have to stay home because of an unhealthy and noxious exposure from someone else.
If you are against smoking bans you should also be for getting rid of sound ordinances. If you don’t like your noisy neighbor, too bad. You choose to live there and you can always move.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
In theory, sure, the free market should decide. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn’t always work that way.
How dare you imply that Capitalism is not perfect!
j/k
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
I agree. But if a business can establish a truly separate section for smokers which had its own ventilation system from which no smoke was able to escape and said business is willing to take on the costs of installing and maintaining that system, then it should be allowed to do so.
I disagree. If a business owner wants to run a smoking establishment, he should be able to do so. Post a big sign in the front window. Keep the under 18 crowd out. But if Joe Blow wants to open up a smoking-and-suds bar and grill, the Joe Blow should have the right to do so. He shouldn’t have to put in some expensive system because some non-smokers think that their rights trump others.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Humor:
“In all those ads, I never once used my name”
Hi! I’m Kath Cox, Sec. of State…Hi! I’m Kathy Cox Sec. of State”
Hahahahahahahahaha!! You know her butt drew up when she saw that for the first time. Hahahahahahahahaha!!! As Kelso would say”BURN” hahahaha!
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
The free market is no defense for one person assaulting another person. You should be free to smoke to your heart’s content, until you infringe on my rights and personal space.
I should not be forfeiting my rights to someone else’s behavior. That’s complete bull. If this was anything but smoking no one - no one - would support someone else’s ability to infringe on the innocent party.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
If you are against smoking bans you should also be for getting rid of sound ordinances. If you don’t like your noisy neighbor, too bad. You choose to live there and you can always move.
Bad analogy. When I go to concerts, airports, or any place with a high volume of people, I will, naturally, expect there to be a similar high volume of sound. Just like when I go to a 18+ or 21+ bar at midnight I expect there to be smoking.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
My CHOICE should not be affected by someone else’s decision to pollute their lungs. Period. I should not change my behavior because of your activities. If you want to smoke stay home. I shouldn’t have to stay home because of an unhealthy and noxious exposure from someone else.
So…your choice should affect someone ELSE’S choice, is that it? Because you want to eat at said restaurant, and you don’t want to smoke, that should have precedence over both the owner’s choice and other clients?
If you are against smoking bans you should also be for getting rid of sound ordinances. If you don’t like your noisy neighbor, too bad. You choose to live there and you can always move.
Uh, no…another bad analogy. They seems to be a problem for you. Smoke does not leave a bar and invade spaces down the street. Anyone exposed to the smoke has made an active choice to be exposed.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
I should not be forfeiting my rights to someone else’s behavior. That’s complete bull. If this was anything but smoking no one - no one - would support someone else’s ability to infringe on the innocent party
This might sound less sanctimonious if you weren’t at the same time suggesting that everyone else sacrifice his rights for you.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
smokers have no rights once they infringe on my rights
Joe - smokers still have rights whether they’re infringing on your “right” to breath unscented, non-polluted air or not. Smog is a greater pollutant than cigarette smoke btw, so why aren’t you whining about your rights to breathe unpolluted air to the EPA which is, as we speak, attempting to gut the Clean Air Act? Why aren’t you beefing to the owners of coal fired power companies? Why aren’t you picketing the tractor pulls where all that exhaust is trapped in enclosed stadiums and breathed by young children?
I still have the right to tell you that you are an idiot and probably a member of the jack-booted thuggery that is intent on destroying every last vestige of personal freedom left to us…
By GOB
July 10, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
If a business owner wants to run a smoking establishment, he should be able to do so. Post a big sign in the front window. Keep the under 18 crowd out.
John - This is the current law. If you want to allow people who are under 18, you have to either have no smoking, or have them in a closed area. If you are fine without anyone under 18, you can have smoking anywhere you like in your business.
By Peachy
July 10, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Diane, I usually agree with you. But, horror of horrors (and no offense, Shaunti), today I find myself on the other side of the fence. I feel smoking should be banned altogether, as well as hormone use in animals raised for food, since you mentioned it. In fact, I think that if something is found to be hazardous for our overall health - like smoking, hormones in used-for-food-raised animals, or our dependence on fossil fuels, for examples - we need to take steps to stop it! We have to think about the future we’re creating and the example we’re setting for our children, not about ourselves.
I am an ex-smoker, and I have many loved ones that are smokers, too. What more can be done to get them to quit? I am willing to sacrifice my personal freedom, but I can’t expect everyone to feel the same.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Hey Jack…the only Kelso I’ve heard of was a racehorse. Who are you speaking of and what is he burning?
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
John - This is the current law. If you want to allow people who are under 18, you have to either have no smoking, or have them in a closed area. If you are fine without anyone under 18, you can have smoking anywhere you like in your business.
Yes, I know. Actually, where I live it’s 21. County ordinance. However, the jack-booted thuggery mentioned so poetically by Mara would just as soon eliminate that as well.
Do you know that in California the laws are so ludicrous that, according to one of my co-workers at our home office in California, there’s a cigar bar, much like the one I mentioned earlier, where because the place is a cigar-and-wine shop, it’s OK to smoke cigars but illegal to smoke cigarettes?
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
I am an ex-smoker, and I have many loved ones that are smokers, too. What more can be done to get them to quit? I am willing to sacrifice my personal freedom, but I can’t expect everyone to feel the same.
Peachey, do us all a favor and don’t reproduce, ok? We don’t need more Orwellian thought-control types believing that “the greater good” should be allowed to dictate the personal freedoms of the individual.
Ever read ANY kind of utopian fiction? Your suggestion never works out well for anyone.
By Hugh Jass
July 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Only if perfume is banned also…..People whine about the smell of cigarettes at the same time they are sting the place up with their perfume…
Hating smokers is a fad.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
72John - No I’m not making a choice. I’m commiting no actions at all, the smoker is. This sad piece of fallacious logic continues to amaze me. It’s like a robber saying the victim jumped into the path of his bullet so it’s not his fault.
Mara - No one has rights that infringe on others. If that’s “thuggery” then so is every other law. Unless you believe in anarchy (and I doubt you would make it one day on your own) you have no defense for laws that protect individuals from others actions. And I’m against all the other things you mention, who says one excludes the other. Again it’s like saying that since murder is worse we shouldn’t worry about burglary. Just because there are worse ills doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cure this one.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
72John - Your “personal” freedoms aren’t being infringed upon in the slightest. You can smoke to your hearts content, you just can’t expose me to smoke. MY rights are being infringed every day by actions of other individuals and I need and deserve to be protected from assaults. Your “personal” freedoms are no longer “personal” once they infringe upon me. What you are doing is no longer “personal”.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
kelso is the stonehead on “The 70’s Show” You know Demi’s new hubby. (I think they got married)
By Archie
July 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
72John and Joe L. I used to think just like 72John on this issue of smoking but yesterday me and my family ate a restaurant that had seperate sections for smokers and non-smokers,well, the non-smoking section was full so we ended in the smoking section where of course one of the employees was smoking. On the other hand all of the places where I shoot pool there is smoking going on and I choose to go there. I don’t see a bad guy here just differences that need to be worked on. I support a ban but it needs tweaking so that smokers have some rights and I don’t think that Joe has flawed logic but I do think it was flawed thinking at places where you have nothing to prevent smoke from flowing into the non-smoking section. Why do people smoke reefer in public???
By Hugh Jass
July 10, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
If I am smoking and you get near me…..stop breathing.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
I disagree. If a business owner wants to run a smoking establishment, he should be able to do so. Post a big sign in the front window. Keep the under 18 crowd out. But if Joe Blow wants to open up a smoking-and-suds bar and grill, the Joe Blow should have the right to do so. He shouldn’t have to put in some expensive system because some non-smokers think that their rights trump others.
OK. I’ll agree with this. But I do think some measures should be in place to ensure that there are smoke-free restaurants or truly smoke-free sections of restaurants. Because while I believe smokers should not be confined to their homes when they want to smoke, I also feel that nonsmokers have the right to not be confined to their homes when they do not want to be near smoke. And it is possible that restaurant owners given the option, would all choose to go turn their businesses into smoking establishments.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
I live in Philly and they just passed a very sensible ban here. If an establishment gets 10% or less of revenue from food (your classic corner taproom) they are exempt. In NYC wholly family owned businesses are exempt. If a bar establishes a totally separate, sealed, and ventilated to the outside (not scrubbed it doesn’t work) smoking section, then fine. Because honestly that cost won’t be worth it for most businesses. And I’m still torn on that because of the workers. If a business directly produced the air quality that smoking does they would be shutdown in a heartbeat. And again the “they can quit” argument is invalid. No worker should be forced to unduly risk their health to make a living.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
72John - No I’m not making a choice. I’m commiting no actions at all, the smoker is. This sad piece of fallacious logic continues to amaze me. It’s like a robber saying the victim jumped into the path of his bullet so it’s not his fault.
Your accusations of fallacious logic are rather ironic, given how utterly flawed your own argument is.
You are making a choice to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. You are then demanding, after making an informed choice, that others change their actions to suit you. You have no right to expect that others change their behaviors simply because you have decided to grace them with your overweeningly arrogant presence.
If you don’t like cigarette smoke, then don’t go into a restaurant that allows it. It’s very simple.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Jack - I thought they were all stoneheads on “That 70’s Show” but now I know who you mean :^)
Joe - you know nothing of me so asserting that I wouldn’t be able to survive a single day of anarchy (just because you probably couldn’t…) is dishonest. As for what is or isn’t “thuggery”, my smoking is in no way forcing you to breath what I exhale. You could walk away, like I do when I hear street preachers excoriating gays other sinners about their lifestyles. See. There’s two rights that infringe on my rights. Freedom of Christians to badmouth people on the public street. Speech and religion. I have every right to hold my beliefs, which happen to conflict with that of the Christians, but you don’t hear me whining about being verbally assaulted in the public parks. I have just as much right not to be harangued as you have not to smell cigarette smoke. So some rights do infringe on the rights of others…despite your opinion that your right to fresh air trumps my right to choose what goes into my body at any given time.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
No worker should be forced to unduly risk their health to make a living
Because, of course, they were forced to work in the bar.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
It’s like a robber saying the victim jumped into the path of his bullet so it’s not his fault.
No, it’s like an idiot running into a firing range. If you know that a restaurant allows smoking, yet you choose to patronize the place anyway, then you are making the choice to be around the smoke.
Yes, I know. Actually, where I live it’s 21. County ordinance.
In my town it’s completely banned, even in clubs/bars, regardless of age.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
No worker should be forced to unduly risk their health to make a living.
No worker is forced to “unduly risk their health”. They are not forced to work there. They can find other employment doing the same job.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Why do people smoke reefer in public???
Because they are high, and therefore stupid.
And it is possible that restaurant owners given the option, would all choose to go turn their businesses into smoking establishments.
Interestingly enough, when the ban went into effect in my home town, more restaurants than not chose to become non-smoking. ALL of the chain/franchise restaurants did, and most of the privately owned ones did as well. Most of them also established upstairs bar areas that allowed smoking, and could still be served from the kitchen.
And that was the choice of the restaurant owners, which I fully support.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
No worker is forced to “unduly risk their health”. They are not forced to work there. They can find other employment doing the same job.
I don’t think the “Help Wanted” signs are ever down at most of the places in my hometown, and from what friends who have worked in the management end of food service have told me, server positions are like a revolving door. So, yeah - I’m with you.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
No worker is forced to “unduly risk their health”. They are not forced to work there. They can find other employment doing the same job.
Well, there is a gray area here. One could make the same argument about other workplace safety issues. I wouldn’t make the argument that they aren’t forced to work there. I’d make the argument that when people are allowed to smoke after a meal they are likely to have an after dinner drink at the same time, which = a larger tab, ergo a bigger tip. Sometimes.
Plus what percentage of servers and busboys smoke? Probably about the same as the general population. The smokers can work the smoking section. If no one wants to, the restaurant can hire someone who will. Or offer more $$ to work that section. The argument against public smoking was never truly about the servers but about other patrons.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
No, it’s like an idiot running into a firing range.
I couldn’t have said it better myself!!!
By The72John
July 10, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
On a totally unrelated topic:
GOB - what about that final yesterday!
By Jack
July 10, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
I smoked for many years and it should be banned in public places. It is proven that second-hand smoke is bad for you so why should smokers be allowed to poison those who choose not to smoke? If one wishes to smoke, go somewhere where non-smokers will inhale the smoke.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
72John - Again your point is like saying a victim made a choice to walk down a dark alley and therefore deserved to be robbed. I have no choice to avoid your noxious habit other than staying home. I should in no way have to alter my behavior because you are infringing on my rights. Are you as ardent a supporter of banning sound ordinances, zoning laws, etc.? You should be if you believe that your freedoms trump everyone elses rights.
Again no person should have to change their desired behavior because of other people’s actions. You have no right to infringe on me, that’s the way civilized society works.
Mara - Your smoking isn’t FORCING me to breathe in what you exhale? What is the color of the sky in your world? How about I play loud music outside your house every night at 4AM? You don’t have to listen to the sound I am putting out. Get soundproof walls. Not my problem it’s my RIGHT to listen to music and your “thuggery” would be infringing on my personal freedoms.
Smokers act like spoiled petulant children who think their choices trump everyone else’s personal space and rights. If you want to smoke, stay home. I should not have to change where I want to be because you are committing a dangerous, noxious action that you cannot contain to your own person.
Yeah and why should there be fire exits in factories or maintained machinery? Why should coal miners have helmets or air supplies? I mean workers should just “choose” to work where they are protected. Except given the freedom people will always selfishly abuse other. Smokers were given that freedom and abused others for too long.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Mara - Your right to choose what goes into your body ends when it goes into MY body. Your right to smoke is unchanged, you just can’t expose people to a noxious and dangerous emission.
By Nikita
July 10, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
I think smoking bans are silly. Except in rock & roll clubs, where I wish they were the rule.
My reasons are not entirely logical. They are: 1. Boy, do I hate being forced to endure smokers, or worse yet drunk smokers. And while I can choose another bar, I can’t choose another venue at which the band of my choice is playing. 2. Smoking is unfair to the band, who are contractually obligated to perform in potentially adverse conditions.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Smokers act like spoiled petulant children who think their choices trump everyone else’s personal space and rights. If you want to smoke, stay home. I should not have to change where I want to be because you are committing a dangerous, noxious action that you cannot contain to your own person.
Funny, but the only person saying “ME ME ME MY WANTS MY WANTS MY WANTS” is…you.
Your alley analogy YET AGAIN is flawed. You don’t CHOOSE to be robbed. You don’t enter an alley if you KNOW that there is a burglar waiting to mug you. Once more, though I realize you lack the mental capacity to understand, you choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. You are operating with all the information.
What you are saying is that you should be able to go anywhere you want without anyone interfering with you, even if your presence interferes with EVERYONE else in whichever place you are going.
What an unmitigated a$$ you must be. But then, you ARE from Philly.
By RF
July 10, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Mara - Your right to choose what goes into your body ends when it goes into MY body. Your right to smoke is unchanged, you just can’t expose people to a noxious and dangerous emission.
Joe- HELLO!! if you go into an establishment, knowing full well that it allows smoking, then YOU are CHOOSING to risk your health. It is a CHOICE, and you could just as easily CHOOSE to walk away, just as the smokers have CHOSEN to go into the particular establishment so as not to bother people like you. It’s really that simple- you don’t like the smoke, go somewhere where smoking is not allowed. Incidentally, the vast majority of restaurants, private and chains, no longer allow smoking, so what’s your beef? I can’t think of a single one in my county (and there are quite a number of them) that allows smoking.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Joe - if you choose to stand near me while I smoke, how am I forcing you to breathe my smoke? Nobody forced you to be anywhere near me, so how is it that I am subjecting you to any kind of emission, noxious or otherwise? As for those noxious and dangerous emissions…how about them tractor pulls?
By The72John
July 10, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Joe - if you choose to stand near me while I smoke, how am I forcing you to breathe my smoke? Nobody forced you to be anywhere near me, so how is it that I am subjecting you to any kind of emission, noxious or otherwise? As for those noxious and dangerous emissions…how about them tractor pulls?
Ah, but you forget - it’s all about Joe! What Joe wants goes, and to heck with everyone else. Why, if Joe wants all the gays off his street because they are exposing their noxious lifestyle, then we should have ordinances against them, too! Or…Mexicans! Joe doesn’t like those Mexicans, so we should just make this a mexican-free zone.
Remember - what Joe wants, goes! Everyone else take the hindermost.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
My “wants”, like not being assaulted by YOUR ACTIONS. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.
And like anyone in a losing battle you turn to ad hominem attacks. If one has any mental capacity to understand that it doesn’t matter what the establishment allows, if an establishment “allowed” you to rob me doesn’t mean that you should not be legally prevented from doing so.
I have the right to enter any public place and NOT BE ASSAULTED. Only a smoker would try to say this statement is “selfish”. You have no rights to pollute my lungs and stink up my clothes and air. Period. You can’t argue that. You can only stick your fingers in your ears like a child and try to continue your selfish, self centered actions.
It’s amazing the gyrations that smokers will go through to defend their actions when any other similar action they would not defend.
And yet again you are wrong. I LIVE in Philly. I am from Georgia.
Generally you are a pretty level headed poster, but it’s funny that you know you are wrong and you are trying so hard to make a valid argument where you can’t that you are getting worked up in the process. Maybe you haven’t get your hit lately to damp down your addiction.
My “beef” is that I enjoy having a beverage or two on Friday and Sat nights and I shouldn’t have to stay home because other people are committing dangerous actions they can’t contain to their own person.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Ah what silly lengths you are going to. I am committing no actions. YOUR actions cannot be contained to you. You are emitting noxious and dangerous chemicals. I have a right to breathe and not have my person assaulted. You want to argue that fact? Funny that you keep beating the same emotional ad hominem drum and you can’t refute any of my points.
We are talking about ACTIONS that people take that adversely affect other innocent people. Not what people are. You are reaching yet again because no sane valid argument can be made for your position.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Philly is better than Hotlanta any day.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
I like both Philly and Atlanta. They each have their own pluses and minuses. Being in a truly pedestrian friendly city is nice though. I haven’t owned a car in 3 years. Housing here though, if you plan to buy, is small and expensive.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Generally you are a pretty level headed poster, but it’s funny that you know you are wrong and you are trying so hard to make a valid argument where you can’t that you are getting worked up in the process. Maybe you haven’t get your hit lately to damp down your addiction.
Hmmm…who is making ad hominem attacks now? Or, actually, I think that characterizing smokers as “spoiled, petulant children” qualifies even before this one.
In case you haven’t noticed, Joe, I’m hardly the only person criticizing your argument. You continue to assert that your desire to have a beer without smoke trumps the desire of all the people who want to smoke with their beer. It doesn’t.
That’s exactly why the free market should be allowed to handle this particular topic. I think you’ll find that some restaurants and bars will choose to go non-smoking, and others will not. Therefore, you can go have your drink or two on a Friday night without infringing on the rights of others.
It’s really very simple.
You can only stick your fingers in your ears like a child and try to continue your selfish, self centered actions.
Who is being selfish? Me, who thinks that business should be able to cater to whatever clientele they choose, or you, who thinks that all businesses should serve YOUR needs, and not the needs of anyone else?
By The72John
July 10, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Philly is better than Hotlanta any day.
I beg to differ. Philly, and PA in general, is the rudest city/state I have ever had the misfortune to spend an extended period of time in. And that includes upstate New York.
We are talking about ACTIONS that people take that adversely affect other innocent people. Not what people are. You are reaching yet again because no sane valid argument can be made for your position.
Sigh. No, we’re really not. We’re talking about YOU choosing to put yourself in a position where you can be affected by someone’s actions, and your innane belief that no one should be able to do anything that might inconvenience you.
By GOB
July 10, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
GOB - what about that final yesterday!
I thought it was a decent game. Surprisingly, it was the French taking the majority of the dives (I despise both Italy and Portugal for the way they dove in this Cup).
Zidane is a moron. He has a history of losing his temper in big games, and here he did it again. I cant imagine anything that could have been said that a) would cause that reaction at that point in one of the biggest games of his career, and b) that he hasnt heard 50 times before in the course of games.
As soon as it went to penalties, France was done. No Zidane, Henry or Vierra against Buffon means you lose.
By Netbanker
July 10, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Happy Monday and a hearty welcome back from vacation RF. I’m about ready for one of those beachy, relaxing kind of vacations, but the next one is set to be of the action/adventure variety that includes white water rafting through the Grand Canyon and some desert hiking near Sedona. Does anyone have any recommendations for a raft tour operator in the Arizona part of the canyon? We’re going in September.
Mara has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this topic with her first post. I find the conservative position interesting in light of their usual deference to the market place, but that propensity to restrict or control personal behaviors apparently over rules the free market concept. I have no problem with banning smoking in enclosed public buildings, but think that businesses should have the right to cater to whomever they wish and people have the right not to go there…even if that means having to drive to another town because all the eating establishments in your town allow smoking. There is no guarantee of not being inconvenienced in life. So either drive farther or start a petition or protest of the business to get the business owner to change their policy instead of whining that the government needs to do so something. (Yet another conservative anomaly…they want the government to stop helping poor people because they’re poor by their own choice, but they DO want the government to make sure people can’t smoke or to decide what people should be allowed to do in their own bedrooms).
I think Diane’s point is that people (and even some posters here) are making a big deal out of maybe encountering several seconds’ worth of second hand smoke in an outside area, but they don’t protest or complain about car exhaust that they absolutely encounter all the time just walking through a parking lot or while in their own yard at home. The pollution from industry (from which our fabulous administration is removing environmental restrictions as fast as they can) and auto emissions are also proven harmful to health. Remember that we’re in SMOG Season and that every day has a smog alert level with warnings about not letting kids with asthma go outside? No one is protesting the fact that the combustion engine poisons our air and that our government hasn’t had an energy policy in 30+ years to promote the development of commercially viable alternatives as a matter of national security….they’re just wailing about the cost of gas and worrying about an infinitesimal amount (in relative terms) of second hand smoke.
By Netbanker
July 10, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Hey Joe! What part of Philly? Former 3rd and Bainbridge, then 10th and Fitzwater (near the Italian Market) resident here. I loved parking the car for the entire weekend in Philly, but the city can live up to it’s reputation as Filthydelphia sometimes in the summer. Like Summer of 1994 during the garbage strike…yikes!!
By Renee
July 10, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Like I said before, and the point has been reitterated several times, a business owner should be able to make the call on whether his business will be smoking or nonsmoking, just as he is able to make the call on whether loud music will be played, and what genre of music it will be. For arguments sake, let’s say said business owner chooses Big Band as the music genre. Do I have the right to go into this business and complain that no rap or r & b us being played, when I walked in hearing the music, possibly saw a sign on the door, and continued to order my food. Can I complain about the noise level?
Yes, second hand smoke causes health problems. Which is why, (like Mara pointed out) I would not stand next to a person who is smoking. I have friends at work, that ask me to come out with them while they take a smoke break. I politely decline, but I guess, with your logic, I could go out on smoke break with them, and then complain about the smoke. I do not eat anywhere, where smoking is allowed, because I won’t enjoy my meal. I do however, frequent bars/clubs every blue moon or so, and I do expect the smoke and while I may personally abhor it, there’s not much I can say. All of these are choices I make.
A restaurant owner can choose to have smoking, I can choose whether I am a patron in his establishment. It’s really very cut and dry.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
A restaurant owner can choose to have smoking, I can choose whether I am a patron in his establishment. It’s really very cut and dry.
Unless you believe that you have some divine right to enter ever establishment and have it conform to your wishes. Then anyone who dares stand in your way is petulant and selfish.
Hmm…
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Actually my right to not breathe polluted air trumps your right to POLLUTE MY AIR. You can’t dispute this argument. Your rights end when they infringe on others. You can smoke to your heart’s content, I don’t care what you do to yourself. You have no right to pollute the air the I have equal rights to.
And actually I complimented you and attacked your argument, not your person. You start throwing around the insults, not me. And actually smokers are behaving like spoiled petulant children. It’s a description of their behavior not a personal attack.
PUBLIC businesses cannot just cater to whoever they want. If they want to become PRIVATE clubs they should be allowed to have as many smokers as they want. Hell they can ban gays, jews, and blacks while they are at it. But once they are a public space, you have no right to pollute the air I have equal rights to.
It’s a PUBLIC PLACE. I have every right to be there, I am not banning you from smoking in your home because I might visit there. There your argument has weight. But in public you have no right to infringe on my person or space.
Here’s the fallacy people continue to miss, a bar or restaurant IS a public enclosed building. Just because it’s privately owned, doesn’t change the fact it’s a public establishment. Unless as I raised earlier, it’s a private, members only establishment. People continue to contradict themselves by not understanding this fact.
By RF
July 10, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Joe- it’s about CHOICE. You CHOOSE to go into a bar that allows smoking, then so be it. If not, go to Applebee’s or any chain location and you’ll probably be smoke free. Smokers have a right to have a restaurant that caters to them as much as you have a right to one that doesn’t. There isn’t any middle ground. If you smoke, go where it’s allowed. If you don’t, then go where it isn’t. Seems simple, unless you enjoy goading John and Mara, which is evidently the case.
Net- rafting in the canyon sounds WAY cool! I could live without the hiking though. Too much work for me!
Having kids with asthma, I find the smog levels much more of a problem than cigarette smoke. Yet again today, I have to limit their outdoor time because of code orange smog alerts (been that way practically alllll summer). Maybe if a few people took the train or carpooled, it wouldn’t be so bad. Cigarette smoke poses a mighty small threat in our smoke-free house, but the smog we can’t help. That makes us more imprisoned in our home that a few folks wanting to puff away in the Waffle House.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Actually if it’s a public place I have every right to enter and not be assaulted. Your continued insistence to the opposite amazes.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
NB - I live at 8th and Walnut now. Right by Washington Square. I have several friends who live in the Bella Vista area though (not that it’s far from me or anything). Despite many people’s insistence, Philly is as friendly as Atlanta. People are just honest here and you don’t get the faked niceness. And they are a bit more…rough around the edges.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
A bar and restaurant is an eating and drinking establishment, NOT a smoking establishment. I already raised the point earlier that any place that gets a small amount of revenue from food should be exempt from a ban. And of course anywhere that is clearly a smoking establishment (cigar bars for instance).
But sorry, smokers can CHOOSE to stay home since they are participating in an activity that is dangerous and noxious to others. I am doing nothing. I am taking no action. I am not infringing on your space or person.
And I’m goading no one. This is my honest opinion on this issue.
Again if this was ANYTHING but smoking that functioned the same people would not be defending it.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
I was born in Upper Darby. They don’t have bread here like they do in Philly. Must be the water. The sports fans can be rude but at least they are not fair weather fans.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!!!
By The72John
July 10, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
It’s a PUBLIC PLACE. I have every right to be there, I am not banning you from smoking in your home because I might visit there. There your argument has weight. But in public you have no right to infringe on my person or space.
And you are not barred from entering. As much as you would like to hysterically claim otherwise, being exposed to second-hand smoke does not constitute assault.
Some people are deeply bothered by loud noise. Does that mean that they have the right to make a bar hosting a band playing in a sound-proof venue turn down the music because they want to come in? No.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
I already raised the point earlier that any place that gets a small amount of revenue from food should be exempt from a ban. And of course anywhere that is clearly a smoking establishment (cigar bars for instance).
What? Clearly a smoking establishment? So if a local restaurant decided to cater to smokers and clearly labeled their restaurant to indicate that, then it’s OK for people to smoke there? Thank you. I knew we could agree.
By OBSERVER
July 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Joe L. Okay, alright, already. We get it. You sound like a broken record. If you are not obnoxious, then neither is cigarette smoke.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Again if this was ANYTHING but smoking that functioned the same people would not be defending it.
Like what? You keep making this assertion, but I doubt you can actually come up with an example that is truly valid.
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Joe L - most of the people here defending smoking outside the home are in fact non-smokers. I think they are just more concerned about any specific government regulations for the current hot-topic issue.
today smoking, tomorrow those over-eaters. (for example)
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
anybody see that PBS Antiques Roadshow recently where they had samples of cigar box art from the late 1800s? Seems in the US there used to be around 350,000 (that’s right, 350 THOUSAND) cigar brands and in fact New Orleans was a major cigar-rolling hub.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Like what? You keep making this assertion, but I doubt you can actually come up with an example that is truly valid.
How about nudity? I have the right to not see naked women when I eat. If I go for the Diamond Club’s $4.25 lunch buffet (the price when I was at Tech — according to the sign outside, anyway) then there had better not be any nudity.
How’s that?
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
cigars probably went out when the automated cigarette rolling machine was invented. Anyone ever see/use one of those little ones for home use? to roll tobacco(of COURSE!!) in, they were actually pretty neat.
By Renee
July 10, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
I missed that one Chilao. I’m surprised because I absolutely love “Antiques Roadshow”.
Chilao - your 2:41 hit it on the head!!
By Jack
July 10, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Yadda, yadda, yad.
By Toad
July 10, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
I remember going to Ybor City in Florida in the 1960’s and old Cuban men were on the streets rolling cigars.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
How about nudity? I have the right to not see naked women when I eat. If I go for the Diamond Club’s $4.25 lunch buffet (the price when I was at Tech — according to the sign outside, anyway) then there had better not be any nudity
Uh huh. The price on the sign. Right.
Yeah, I definitely don’t want to see any naked women, but I have a strange compulsion to go to strip clubs. Therefore, there should be a law.
All strippers must be male. It’s obvious.
By Archie
July 10, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
I want opinions on this scenario: When I went to the Piccadilly’s restaurant yesterday there was no place to sit in the non-smoking section and as many here know about the setup in that particular restaurant I already had my food so my question is did we choose to be near the smoke or was it forced upon us by circumstance? This is the reason why I support a ban although if I had been asked this question last month I would have been arguing just like John and giving hi-fives at every opportunity, but now I am sort of like GOB and Joe L.
By Mara
July 10, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Joe says - You are emitting noxious and dangerous chemicals. I have a right to breathe and not have my person assaulted
coming soon - The fart police. Protecting you from noxious and dangerous vapors everywhere!
RF - it isn’t that I’m “goaded”, I’m merely pointing out the fallacies in his argument that HIS rights trump MY rights (not to mention the rights of the business owner who wants me to come in and have a couple beers with my smoke..stay a while, y’know?)
It is also interesting, don’t you think, that he hasn’t addressed the questions on why he’s so intent on banning smokers when everyone knows that the more pervasive smog (and other particulate laden pollutants) are a much greater health hazard than a moment or two of second hand smoke. It’s his insistance of his own rightousness that grates…
By Jack
July 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Oh yes. Nice tight roll, even burning.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Uh huh. The price on the sign. Right.
Seriously, John. Never been to a strip club in my life. The closest was when some hallmates and I were making a midnight jaunt to Waffle House there on Northside Dr near I-75. I missed the entrance so I turned around in the next parking lot. We saw the sign as I pulled in. You guessed it: Swinging Richards.
By Zack
July 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
This question is a fine example of how liberals don’t “get it.” Before you get mad at me for wording it like that, please hear me out.
Have you heard the saying, “Your rights end where my nose begins.”? That very statement sums up a lot. By definition, we all have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In reality, unfortunately, Christians have sat back while non-Christians have imposed their tyrannical agendas on everyone else.
You don’t have the right to interfere with someone else’s pursuits. If someone is walking down the road, you don’t have the right to punch that person in the face. You don’t have the right to play music at night and keep your neighbors up. You don’t have the right to vandalize another’s property. You don’t have the right to an abortion, because it’s murder. You don’t have the right to smoke in public because it leads to lung cancer for others.
Why don’t we stand up against what is obviously wrong? Obviously, something doesn’t become moral just because it’s legal.
If you’d like some good reading, I recommend some of Hank Goldberg’s works. Aside from his endorsement of the world’s Ann Coulters, he writes well. Here’s a liberal who himself can’t stand the poison that is the liberal agenda. Of course, CBS blackballed him for his truthful tales. Indeed, one of the scariest, sorriest things in the world is the liberal agenda, and even some liberals will admit to it.
By Hugh Jass
July 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
I’m thinking Joe L is a sissy grily man.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I thought it was a decent game. Surprisingly, it was the French taking the majority of the dives (I despise both Italy and Portugal for the way they dove in this Cup).
I really don’t like Camoranesi, but I didn’t notice the Italians taking more dives than anyone else. Heck, the dive-taking can be one of the most entertaining parts of an international soccer game (ONE of - the gameplay is stil the best) and I really like watching Cannavaro play.
Was really surpised by Zidane, though, past temper aside. If it were my last game and I was playing the the World Cup final in front of a couple of billion viewers, I think I would hold my temper better.
By RF
July 10, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
From my own experience, and this is just an opinion based on what I’ve observed, most smokers have become fairly courteous to nonsmokers. They have willingly been banished to dark alleys and sealed-off rooms out of public view. Most are even dealing with the ban in restaurants. The rest of us just have to learn where those places are that allow smoking and avoid them.
What about the vegetarians? What about their decision not to eat meat when they enter a steak house? They order a salad and put up with it. Or how about someone on a diet? They either eat a salad at McDonald’s or drink a Diet Coke at Dairy Queen. They just have to learn to avoid those places if it offends them. So it is for nonsmokers. Avoid those places that don’t support your lifestyle. Simple as that. There are more places that don’t allow it nowadays.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Indeed, one of the scariest, sorriest things in the world is the liberal agenda, and even some liberals will admit to it
It’s a little-known fact that ZACK is actually the scariest, sorriest thing in the world, even though he won’t admit to it.
By RF
July 10, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Archie- I think there needs to be some sort of way of notifying you before you get in line that the nonsmoking section is full before you get the tray. I think most smokers would agree to have a smaller area and have to possibly wait to smoke when a table is available in their section.
By Zack
July 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
John,
You’re more than welcome to put aside your adolescent comments and take life seriously.
By RF
July 10, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Mara- noone wants to admit that auto emissions are killing them faster than second-hand smoke. It’s easier to ban smoking and make people feel better than it is to actually demand alternative, non-polluting fuel sources that just might save us all from extinction. It’s the typical hyper-focus on one tiny speck of dirt so you don’t notice the avalanche falling all around you.
By Toad
July 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Here’s an analogy — airplanes banning cellphones. Sitting next to someone blabbing all during the flight is annoying but not dangerous to your health. Do you all think it’s right to ban cell phones on planes?
By GOB
July 10, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
If you’d like some good reading, I recommend some of Hank Goldberg’s works.
Yeah, especially if you like the NFL, seeing as Hank Goldberg is a reporter for ESPN…
By The72John
July 10, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
You’re more than welcome to put aside your adolescent comments and take life seriously.
Hmm…I think I take life pretty seriously. Just because I’m unable to resist making fun of someone so obviously mentally and emotionally disabled doesn’t mean I don’t take life seriously.
Really, sociopath, get a grip.
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Nope a RESTAURANT is not a business that functions around and for smoking. It exists to serve food and drink. A cigar bar exists to SELL smoking materials. HUGE difference.
Dangerous and noxious chemicals do indeed constitute assault. If I mixed up a similar chemical concoction and sprayed it on people on the street I could and would be arrested for assault.
A car is a useful device that happens to have a side effect of dangerous emissions. Smoking is not useful in any manner or form. The attempt to draw parallels between the two are poor at best. You don’t have rights to assault me. Your rights end where mine begin. So you have every right to smoke, you have NO RIGHT to expose me to dangerous smoke. If not “infringing” on your rights, you are infringing on MINE! And finally I am getting due protection.
By Toad
July 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Christians have sat back??? The moral majority? Focus on Family? Sadie Fields? Ralph Reed? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson running for President? The Religious Right influencing the entire Republican party up to the presidency? Doesn’t sound like sitting back to me.
By GOB
July 10, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
John - I agree about watching Cannavaro play. He is one of the top defenders in the world. Being a former keeper, I also really enjoy Buffon. How about that save on Zidane late in the game? That was amazing.
I hate the diving though, and it seemed especially bad this year. The Italians and the Portuguese (and Ghana was really bad against the US) were the worst, in my opinion. I must admit to enjoying watching Christiano Ronaldo crying a little too much. At 21, he has the potential to be one of the top 5 players in the world, but instead of just playing the game, cries and flops more that anyone. There are some good videos of him on Youtube. I particulalrly like the one titled “Deco is a dirty cheat.”
By Joe L.
July 10, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
Cellphones are banned as a hazard to equipment, not as a nuisance. And regardless we aren’t talking about businesses banning an item, we’re talking about the opposite - government banning a dangerous, intrusive, and annoying activity.
By GOB
July 10, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
John - I was like the crowd in Rocky 4 while watching the game yesterday. I went in hoping the French destroyed the Italians, but after that sketchy PK 5 minutes in, I started to switch (especially considering how arrogantly Zidane took that PK)…By the end, I was actively routing for Italy. Something about the French just bothered me…
“If I can change, and you can change…then everybody can change!!!!”
By Zack
July 10, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
John—As I said, grow up. “Sociopath”? Ha. More of that sissified name-calling, an attempt to be a man through hiding-behind-the-tree name-calling as opposed to face-to-face communication. How typical of you and those like you.
Toad—Pat Robertson isn’t a Christian. You’ve got a clique of people out there, like him, Falwell, Robert Schuler, etc. who are hurting the Christian community.
Back to John, people like yourself really should be isolated from others.
Have a good day. I’m out of here.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
John—As I said, grow up. “Sociopath”? Ha. More of that sissified name-calling, an attempt to be a man through hiding-behind-the-tree name-calling as opposed to face-to-face communication. How typical of you and those like you.
This doesn’t even make sense, nutjob.
By Toad
July 10, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Joe L, I’m just trying to come up with an analogy that someone had asked for, since society is not about to ban autos. (Although if we had seriously looked at alternative sources of energy in the 1970s we may not be in the fix we’re in today, but that’s another topic.)
I agree with you about smoking in restaurants and don’t believe you deserve the beating you’ve received today. I’m sorry I can’t take my 8-year-old nephew to that burger place with the skull (sorry, can’t remember the name) because they’ve restricted their customer base to the over-18 crowd. They make his favorite burger.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
John - I was like the crowd in Rocky 4 while watching the game yesterday. I went in hoping the French destroyed the Italians, but after that sketchy PK 5 minutes in, I started to switch (especially considering how arrogantly Zidane took that PK)…By the end, I was actively routing for Italy. Something about the French just bothered me…
Yeah, because of some family ties in France, etc. I was rooting for Les Bleus, but by the end of the game I was rooting for Italy, too.
That save on the header was amazing.
By Archie
July 10, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Wow Zack finally said something I agree with that Falwell and Pat Robertson are hurting the christian community.
Thanks RF, but my scenario is what we have to deal with especially on Sundays when people attend cafeteria/family style restaurants in droves, although I support a ban it would be hypocritical of me to be upset with John’s opinion since it was my exact opinion until recently. That reefer smoking affected my thinking as well,since I just don’t get the thrill of smoking anything.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Thanks RF, but my scenario is what we have to deal with especially on Sundays when people attend cafeteria/family style restaurants in droves, although I support a ban it would be hypocritical of me to be upset with John’s opinion since it was my exact opinion until recently. That reefer smoking affected my thinking as well,since I just don’t get the thrill of smoking anything.
So, Archie, what you’re saying is - because you had a bad experience where you couldn’t get a table as fast as you want, you now support banning smoking because you were inconvenienced. Is that it?
That’s not selfish at all, now is it.
By Toad
July 10, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Archie,
Explain please, about Falwell and Robertson.
By Chilao
July 10, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Perhaps Piccadilly’s has determined they would rather have a larger area available for their SMOKING customers than for their NON-smoking customers. Perhaps they know their target demographic best?
I really have no idea, but it would seem a place as widespread as Piccadilly’s would have something called a marketing department.
By Archie
July 10, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
72John of course I am being selfish, no doubt about it. I should have said so earlier but keep in mind John that I am not nearly as passionate as Joe L. Heck remember I do visit bars where the smoke flows freely but John the setup in Piccadillys has nothing to do with me getting a table as fast as I wanted to. It’s a cafeteria style restaurant where you sit after you already have your tray. RF and others know the setup. John I have relatives that smoke but I basically don’t want to smell smoke while I am eating and some smokers are so impolite and then secondhand smoke is a health hazard.
Toad, I am trying to leave but Robertson and Falwell has said off-the-wall things about gays and the 9/11 situation. They implied that America lost it’s divine protection because gays exist here. You have to look up the exact quote but I am sure someone knows what I am getting at. Pat Robertson lied about the timing of his marriage because his wife conceived out-of-wedlock.
By Billy
July 10, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Pat Robertson lied about the timing of his marriage because his wife conceived out-of-wedlock.
Not to mention that he has also claimed he can leg press 2000 pounds…
By Toad
July 10, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Archie,
I know the quotes you’re talking about re: 9/11 and gays and feminists, etc. I was unclear about the reasons you felt Falwell and Robertson hurt the Christian cause.
By The72John
July 10, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
John I have relatives that smoke but I basically don’t want to smell smoke while I am eating and some smokers are so impolite and then secondhand smoke is a health hazard.
So…what’s keeping you from going to a restaurant where they don’t allow smoking? You choose to go to Picadilly which is set up in this fashion, and then get angry when the world conspires not to go exactly your way?
This is the point I’m trying to make. You have a choice. You can patronize an establishment that caters to you, or you can patronize an establishment that doesn’t.
Contrary to what Joe is ranting about, in any other situation the logical thing that a person would when a place of business does not satisfy them is go to another establishment. If a store has rude salespeople, you stop going there. If a store doesn’t carry the brand you like anymore, you stop going there.
However, in this case, instead of aknowledging the basic principal of “I’m taking my business elsewhere”, some people have decided the solution is to make businesses conform to their desires. That’s why I call you (in this instance) selfish - because you are saying that YOUR desire not to be around smoke should supercede everyone else.
By Jack
July 10, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Children, children watch where you go….and don’t you eat that yellow snow.
By Kyle
July 10, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
hmmmmmmmm, at the begining of the day i have to say that i saw this issue as pretty one-sided (i was totaly in favor of smoking bans). but after reading some of your posts, i see that there are valid arguments against smoking bans. although i generally agree with joe l. and the points he has made, i’ll probably be reserved to playing devil’s advocate and questioning both sides this week.
-please stop comparing smoking bans to noise ordinances, nudity, steak houses for vegans, mcdonald’s for fat people on a diet, etc… - the difference is that smoke can cause physical harm to others, not merely irritate or offend them
-also, it’d be nice if everyone could stop reiterating diane’s ridiculous argument. you know, the “there are a lot more harmful things out there than smoking so why are we complaining about that” argument - that’s of the point and just stupid
By Kaka84060
July 10, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this
[url=http://linguist.vastlong.com/sitemap.htm]Relevant information on Linguist[/url] * [url=http://games-ringtones.hd-phones.org/sitemap.htm]This web site contains information about Games ringtones[/url] * [url=http://dog.vitmes.com/sitemap.htm]All about Dog[/url] Relevant information on Linguist | This web site contains information about Games ringtones | All about Dog http://linguist.vastlong.com/sitemap.htm http://games-ringtones.hd-phones.org/sitemap.htm http://dog.vitmes.com/sitemap.htm
By Kaka52657
July 10, 2006 09:25 PM | Link to this
[url=http://ultramforpain.tramadolxs.info]Ultram For Pain[/url] * [url=http://purses.koolshop.be]Purses[/url] * [url=http://ultramisa.tramadolxs.info]Ultram Is A[/url] Ultram For Pain | Purses | Ultram Is A http://ultramforpain.tramadolxs.info http://purses.koolshop.be http://ultramisa.tramadolxs.info
By Archie
July 11, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
72John there are many other instances that have caused me to want a smoking ban. As for Piccadilly’s I went there with my family and 90 percent of the time we don’t have to deal with smoke. It’s a very good restaurant and I have nothing bad to say about it. Also keep in mind I do have relatives that smoke,however, those relatives go inside without prompting to smoke. Of course I don’t have any ashtrays in my house but I have never asked any relative to take their smoke outside, they automatically did it. Smokers desire to smoke should not supercede everyone else.
By Brian Curtis
July 11, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
I can’t go with you on this one, John. As much as I disdain the “irritating behavior should be outlawed” perspective, secondhand smoke is a genuine health hazard to others.
And as far as businesses and other private-enterprises-open-to-the-public are concerned… I don’t favor allowing them ANY rights whatsoever. They should be bound by whatever laws We the People choose to pass, and forced to operate on our terms, or not at all. Business owners are permitted to operate by the grace of the public, and they’re not allowed to discriminate in the patrons they serve, the people they hire and fire, or the health conditions they have to follow.
If a business wants to have clouds of toxic fumes swirling around to cater to the cancer-stick crowd… I say a health inspector should shut ‘em down just like any other public-endangerment violator.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
They should be bound by whatever laws We the People choose to pass, and forced to operate on our terms, or not at all.
I agree with this, but I also believe in the whole “tyranny of the majority” thing. If 80% of the public are anti-smoking, I don’t feel that we should mandate that smoking be outlawed. If businesses want to cater to the cancer stick crowd, let them. Just make sure they let me know before I walk in there with my family. As long as I have some smoke-free place I can go, I don’t care if there are smokers somewhere else.
And you could use economic measures — tax breaks for smoke-free restaurants, smoking licenses with fees for smoking establishments — to ensure that nonsmokers wiill have several options for dinner.
By Lyrazel
July 11, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Should tobacco consumption be made illegal for health reasons? Isnt this the reason marijuana is illegal? Both are additive, both drugs, but only one one is legal, why? Could it be the tobacco lobby and special interests groups did not want competition from a product that requires 90% less labor and can be grown anywhere whereas tobacco still has a limited range? Should liquor be made illegal now that we are well versed in the problems of alcoholism and its legacy of destruction both mental and physical as well as genetic? One argues about second-hand smoke in bars and clubs well what about bars themselves? How is it people can drive to a bar and drive home and this is still respectable behavior? Alcohol and driving dont mix: so what the bartender is doing is illegal because if she knows someone is driving home he should not serve them liquor! Do we ban all liquor because we know drunk driving kills and alcoholism is a disease brought by consumption? What about at sports events? Should beer be banned at stadiums because there are children at sport events? Smoking was banned why not cups of beer? How many people have been drenched by someone cup? What about the stink after a game that permeates clothing or all the drunk fans driving home?
First we ban smoking in public buildings, then insurance companies decide they dont have to insure smokers and corporations decide they dont want the liabilities of smokers on their payrolls. So let all the smokers switch to chew—and patrons in restaurants/bars have that delicious entertainment of watching spitters. Would chew be more acceptable to the general public, the office and insurance companies?
Legislation to ban vices for the good of the public are usually selective and more for politics than the health of the public.
By Renee
July 11, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
excellent comment Billy. I think the whole “tyranny of the majority” is a problem this country has now. If 60% of citizens don’t believe in something, then the other 40% are SOL. Or at least that’s the desired effect.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Billy good comments but smoking will not be outlawed and we’re not even on that slippery slope and Lyrazel insurance companies have long discriminated via rates for smokers on life insurance premiums. I listen to people much older than I am and they talk about what they had to put up with from smokers years ago,well, maybe it’s time for smokers to put up with non-smokers but I am not for terrorizing smokers and I am not upset with John’s opinion at all. It is not a bad opinion but maybe,maybe it’s time for a change in the way things are done with respect to this smoking habit. Also I think this movement against smoking started under the Clinton administration so it’s not conservative vs. liberal thing. I do agree that legislation to ban most vices is more political than health-related but sometimes some good does come from things political whether we like it or not.
By chuck
July 11, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
So RF, you said:
Smoking hasn’t been allowed in public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.) for some time. I think it’s overstepping gov’t. authority to tell a private business how to operate. If they want to risk the business loss, let them have smoking.
Would you extend this idea to a private business that decides it doesn’t want to serve Blacks, or homosexuals, or handicapped people (See the Americans with Disabilities Act)?
By Jack
July 11, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Are you saying the majority should not rule?
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Morning! A couple of quick comments before the meeting marathon begins….
Kyle…sound ordinances just might the most valid comparison because loud sound can result in permanent hearing loss. That’s what ticks me off about the knuckleheads in their cars with music so loud everyone can hear it…it’s just a matter of time before they’re classified as handicapped for being deaf when their hearing loss is their own darn fault.
Billy and Renee…very on target about the tyranny of the majority. This is the very situation occurring now for in the gay marriage debates. Suddenly letting the people decide who should have rights and who should be excluded is a good idea when that same concept was tossed out in relation to Women’s Suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and Discrimination law, but quite a few conservatives won’t acknowledge the fact that none of the rights above would exist if the ‘will of the people’ had been the measuring stick.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Smokers desire to smoke should not supercede everyone else.
But your desires should supercede others? That’s what you are saying. To heck with everyone else - ARCHIE had a problem with smokers in a restaurant, so we should ban it.
Yet again, Archie - you have the choice to go elsewhere.
They should be bound by whatever laws We the People choose to pass, and forced to operate on our terms, or not at all. Business owners are permitted to operate by the grace of the public, and they’re not allowed to discriminate in the patrons they serve, the people they hire and fire, or the health conditions they have to follow
I didn’t expect such specious reasoning from you, Brian. Smoking establishments don’t discriminate in hiring or serving, and health laws are meant to protect unsuspecting patrons from unhealthy conditions of which they would have no way to be aware.
Plenty of restaurants serve grossly unhealthy meals and beverages to customers, but because they willingly partake of them, there is no conflict. Why should this be any different?
Understand that I have no objections to laws that regulate how businesses must operate in order to allow smoking. I only object to those who seek outright bans with no room for compromise.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Are you saying the majority should not rule?
Basically. As Net just pointed out, if the majority had total control, we might still have slavery, women probably wouldnt be voting, blacks would still be considered second-class citizens, and many more.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Would you extend this idea to a private business that decides it doesn’t want to serve Blacks, or homosexuals, or handicapped people (See the Americans with Disabilities Act)?
I would not, because that practice would be exclusionary.
By Renee
July 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Jack - the majority should not have control just because it is the majority.
Net - the gay marriage debate was a direct example I was thinking of in reference to the “tyranny of the majority”.
By chuck
July 11, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
72john, you are once again arguing illogically and can’t even see it. You said:
You are making a choice to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. You are then demanding, after making an informed choice, that others change their actions to suit you. You have no right to expect that others change their behaviors simply because you have decided to grace them with your overweeningly arrogant presence.
Joe L is exactly right. IF BOTH OF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, and you do, then the rights of the non-smoker have to prevail. When he exercises his right to be there, he in NO WAY HARMS YOU. If you exercise YOUR RIGHT TO BE THERE and then SMOKE, you harm him. The basic rule of constitutional law is the old analogy, “My right to swing my fist ENDS at the tip of your nose.”
By Jack
July 11, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
If the majority cannot have control, who then?
By Billy
July 11, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Kyle…sound ordinances just might the most valid comparison because loud sound can result in permanent hearing loss. That’s what ticks me off about the knuckleheads in their cars with music so loud everyone can hear it…it’s just a matter of time before they’re classified as handicapped for being deaf when their hearing loss is their own darn fault.
I disagree. Sound ordinances work as a comparison if we limit it to open areas, but we’re talking about smoking inside public buildings. I’ve been in restaurants in which the music was so loud that it would no doubt have violated sound ordinances. But that restaurant is not next to someone’s house while they’re trying to sleep. It’s not in the middle of the road, blasting music next to a fellow motorist. It’s contained, enclosed in a building that people choose to enter. And if I go in and hear the loud music, much like I could go in and see/smell the smoke, I can turn right around and leave, never to return.
And what about concert venues? We know that music is going to be outrageously loud, but no one gets ticketed for violating any sound ordinances. That’s the comparison — there are places in which we expect to be deluged by loud noise. I don’t feel that it’s unreasonable that there be places where we expect there to be smoke. Provided your patronage of such places is optional, of course.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
72john, you are once again arguing illogically and can’t even see it. You said:
Once again, Chuck, your criticism of anyone’s logic carries little weight. Religious fanatics are hardly logical.
Joe L is exactly right. IF BOTH OF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, and you do, then the rights of the non-smoker have to prevail. When he exercises his right to be there, he in NO WAY HARMS YOU. If you exercise YOUR RIGHT TO BE THERE and then SMOKE, you harm him. The basic rule of constitutional law is the old analogy, “My right to swing my fist ENDS at the tip of your nose.”
Not if you step in front of my fist. Then you are willingly placing yourself in front of it. Smoking in no way prevents Joe from being there, particularly if it is made patently obvious that smoking is taking place within.
Your loyalty to free market forces, as always, ends as soon as it comes to controlling other peoples lives. How typical of religious facists.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
If the majority cannot have control, who then?
Maybe I should have worded my response better. The majority will always have more control than the minority, but they should not be able to do whatever they please, simply because they are the majority. That’s why we have (well, at least we used to have) checks and balances in government.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Why can’t that smoker choose to go somewhere else? My desires are already being superceded by people smoking. There’s no restaurant that I know of that’s entirely smoke-free. Why can’t we non-smokers get years and years of smoke-free restaurants and why can’t we non-smokers get years of walking into the entrances of buildings without breathing cigarette smoke? Non-smokers have to go to work and for years non-smokers would inhale secondhand smoke inside of the building and it has only been in recent years that smokers at my workplace were told to move so many feet from the building. The point is if non-smokers can be inconvienced why can’t smokers?
By Brian Curtis
July 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Like I said, John: Businesses that operate in a way that endangers the health of their patrons need correction. Serving unhealthy meals affects only one person, the specific patron who chooses to buy it. Permitting secondhand smoke to waft around endangers ALL your customers. That’s a distinct difference. And no, saying “They chose to come here” doesn’t carry any more weight than saying “You chose to go to our bathrooms, even though you KNEW we never clean ‘em.”
And any business that’s open to the entire public has an obligation to consider and protect the health of all possible consumers who may enter. And I have no loyalty to free market forces to violate, so there’s no hypocrisy there either.
The scary part in this discussion is that, for the first (and probably last) time, chuck is right and you are wrong. Smokers have NO right to endanger the health of others in any public setting, including businesses that serve the public. Zero. Nada.
I’m really not seeing imposing health standards on businesses constitutes “tyranny.” If you want to endanger your own life and health with a broad range of activities, from smoking to skydiving, go for it. But there’s no reason to permit you to endanger OTHERS in the process.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
There’s no restaurant that I know of that’s entirely smoke-free. Why can’t we non-smokers get years and years of smoke-free restaurants and why can’t we non-smokers get years of walking into the entrances of buildings without breathing cigarette smoke?
You’re kidding, right? Every restaurant where I live is non-smoking. Several of them have detached bars that serve from the kitchen and allow smoking, because they only admit people over 21, but that’s it.
In fact, Archie, it’s state law that a restaurant can only have smoking if A) It only admits people over 18, or B) It has a completely self-contained and independently ventilated smoking area. So…where are all these smoking restaurants you’re talking about?
Non-smokers have to go to work and for years non-smokers would inhale secondhand smoke inside of the building and it has only been in recent years that smokers at my workplace were told to move so many feet from the building. The point is if non-smokers can be inconvienced why can’t smokers?
So…it’s supposed to be about revenge for you, is that it? I don’t smoke at work because I’m just a light social smoker and that keeps me from becoming a heavy smoker, but my co-workers who DO smoke have to do so in a tiny little smoking area on one corner of the outdoor patio behind the company cafeteria. So…they aren’t bothering anyone.
No one questions that people shouldn’t be exposed to smoke when they can’t escape from it.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
The scary part in this discussion is that, for the first (and probably last) time, chuck is right and you are wrong. Smokers have NO right to endanger the health of others in any public setting, including businesses that serve the public. Zero. Nada
I’m sorry, but I disagree with you entirely. You are suggesting that a business that establishes itself for the purpose of catering to smokers should have no right to do so? So…a cigar shop should be banned because it caters to smokers and may endanger the health of someone who enters, even knowing that it’s a cigar shop?
I guess I just have a little more respect for personal freedom and responsibility.
By lozen
July 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Just quickly skimmed thru yesterday and today - catch up. Zack with his usual nonsense: You don’t have the right to an abortion, because it’s murder. Ha, ha, ha. Abortion has been legal for how many years now? Anyone who wants one can get one (it’s more difficult now thanks to zealots like Zack and you might have to travel to some other part of the country but you can get a legal abortion Zack) because abortion is NOT murder! And the statement about christians have sat back? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. What an idiot!
By Billy
July 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Why can’t that smoker choose to go somewhere else?
BECAUSE THERE’S A BAN. That’s the point…
The point is if non-smokers can be inconvienced why can’t smokers?
Smokers can be incovenienced. Right now there are far more smokers inconvenienced by smoking bans in this state than there are nonsmokers inconvenienced by smoking areas. If anything I am inconvenienced more now that there are smoking bans because smokers have to go outside to smoke. Then they stand at the entrance to a building, the only way I have of getting inside. I was far less inconvenienced when they were stuck in the corner of a restaurant or whatever.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
“Not if you step in front of my fist. Then you are willingly placing yourself in front of it.”
Wow what a mature argument. Isn’t this what 7 yr olds do? I’m just going to swing my arms and if you happen to be there too bad. If you walk through a crowded room swinging and kicking all those people are responsible right? You shouldn’t be arrested for assault. No it’s THEIR fault they didn’t move.
As I said you are generally pretty rational, but you are sinking to some seriously illogical depths to pursue a clearly losing argument.
By Jack
July 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
And I believe we have already pointed out if a business exists for the purpose of smoking (cigar bar) they should not be part of the ban. But bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments NOT smoking establishments. The patrons smoke while they are there but it’s not a fundamental role of the business itself. So your argument (which you are now shifting again) doesn’t bear weight.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Wow smokers are “inconvenienced” by having to go outside to smoke, but I am not inconvenienced by OTHERS ACTIONS by having to inhale dangerous fumes and stink all night. Wow, that makes sense. If your actions affect others adversely you have no right to continue them. Period. That’s the basic rule of law.
By lozen
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
I’m with 72john on this one. Non-smokers have the right to breathe air that’s not polluted. Smokers have the right to breathe air that is polluted. We need bars/restaurants that cater to smokers and bars/restaurants that cater to non-smokers. This is focusing on one thing and making addicted individuals the focus of our anger instead of companies that pollute the air we all breathe, the water we all drink, the food we all eat, etc. I cannot believe how rude some people are to smokers these days.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Wow what a mature argument. Isn’t this what 7 yr olds do? I’m just going to swing my arms and if you happen to be there too bad. If you walk through a crowded room swinging and kicking all those people are responsible right? You shouldn’t be arrested for assault. No it’s THEIR fault they didn’t move.
Obviously, this isn’t what I meant. If I am standing in the center of a room swinging my arms (I represent the restaurant with the BIG Smoking Allowed sign) and you (you represent the CUSTOMER) SEE me swinging my arms, and then JUMP IN FRONT OF ME (That’s YOU, as the CUSTOMER choosing to go into the RESTAURANT) then YOU chose to get hit.
It’s not a difficult analogy. Perhaps I should have made it simpler for you.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
But bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments NOT smoking establishments.
Restaurants also aren’t music establishments. Would you advocate banning them from playing music at any particular volume?
By The72John
July 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
So your argument (which you are now shifting again) doesn’t bear weight
I have never shifted my argument, sir. I say, and still say, that if a business owner wishes to open a restaurant or bar that allows its patrons to smoke, then he should have the right to do so. Period.
I merely use the example of a cigar store to emphasize the point.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Wow what a mature argument. Isn’t this what 7 yr olds do? I’m just going to swing my arms and if you happen to be there too bad. If you walk through a crowded room swinging and kicking all those people are responsible right? You shouldn’t be arrested for assault. No it’s THEIR fault they didn’t move.
As I said you are generally pretty rational, but you are sinking to some seriously illogical depths to pursue a clearly losing argument.
Yes, that’s what seven year-old do. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about designated, self-contained areas clearly labeled “Swinging fist area: enter at your own risk”. I know not to go into the mosh pit unless I want to put up with moshing. I know not to go into the smoking section unless I want to put up with smoke.
I think a lot of people would see your argument as being the loser here. It is based on the assumption that adults cannot think for themselves.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
At a DANGEROUS volume, yes. Smoke is dangerous. And I’m sure if you could prove that a bar or restaurant constantly exposed patrons to dangerous sound levels you would have a case.
It doesn’t matter if I see you swinging your arms or not. It’s like saying if you are target shooting in the middle of the street and I don’t duck and cover I’m responsible if I get shot. You can’t commit any action you like if it puts someone else in a danger. Which swinging your arms and kicking in a crowded place does and which smoking does. And of course it’s the non smokers who are selfish and self centered right? Which argument here is selfish?
The analogy isn’t difficult, just wrong.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
No many of us have said that there are certainly allowable exemptions. Since you can’t win your case in the general sense you are focusing on the narrow cases that we have already admitted deserve exemption. So yes, your argument is shifting.
By Brian Curtis
July 11, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
“I guess I just have a little more respect for personal freedom and responsibility.”
Okay, just a little back-patting going on there, don’t you think?
Personal freedom does NOT include the right to expose others to the dangers of your own actions. There’s nothing of “personal freedom” about this issue… just a question of whether businesses have the right to cater to smokers despite the risk to other customers’ health. I say no—an easy call for me, since I don’t recognize businesses as having any rights whatsoever.
By chuck
July 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
The big difference here is that while EVERYBODY makes choices, some choices have a detrimental impact on others or on society as a whole. Smoking is one of those. It makes more sense to restrict the choices of the person that causes HARM to others rather than that of the person whose choices only affect himself. It makes no sense to argue otherwise. People who smoke don’t HAve to smoke during the meal. THEY CHOOSE TO BECAUSE THEY FIND IT PLEASUREABLE.
72john, you just don’t get the concept of deferred gratification. It show up weekly in your petulant posts. You want what YOU want and you want it NOW. You are the walking definition of the term “spoiled brat”.
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. I believe that the prohibition against harming others is pretty high up on the moral absolutes list. Smoking is a stinking, nasty habit that kills more people than most other health related causes of death combined. SMOKERS are not rational people USUALLY, when it comes to smoking itself. They become almost rabid when there is any threat to their “habit”. They exhibit nearly the same characteristics as drug addicts. I can’t believe that even you see any BENEFIT of smoking that comes near to overriding the detriments…but then, you’ve surprised me before.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
I have never smoked cigarettes in my life, and I am inconvenienced by smokers having to go outside to smoke. Let’s say I’m going to the mall. We’ll say Ruby Tuesday’s at the Mall of Georgia so most people know what I’m talking about. The restaurant is right inside the main mall entrance. Now, it used to be that if I wanted to eat at Ruby Tuesday I could walk in, request a table in non-smoking, eat my meal, then leave, all without ever smelling smoke. Now, since people cannot smoke in the restaurant, they loiter around the entrance to the mall. Smoking.
Now, I believe they should be restricted from smoking within a given distance from the entrances. Say, 100 ft. But still — if they didn’t have to leave the restaurant to begin with, they wouldn’t be smoking near there anyway.
Smoking in restaurants does not inherently affect other patrons. Separate rooms with separate ventilation prevents smoke from getting into the rest of the restaurant.
By Chilao
July 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
That’s why we have (well, at least we used to have) checks and balances in government.
Yeah, those were the good ole days and not that far away in the past even. LOL
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Smoking “section”. Go to most place I frequent on a Fri or Sat night and the entire place is smoky. And I have just as much right as a smoker to be there and enjoy a nice beer. They have no right to assault my person in the process. Again I find it hilarious that smokers are saying we are forcing anything on them when they have been forcing a dangerous and noxious substance into my body against my will for years. You have no rights to do anything when once it negatively impacts another person. You want to refute this basic point? You dance around it all you want but if you can disprove this you have an argument. But you know you can’t. So bring it on, what right do you have to negatively impact my health and person?
And John you are wrong. If you did windmill your arms in a crowded place you couldn’t argue that I had a chance to avoid you. You committed a dangerous, intentional, and negligent act. You could be arrested if the person chose to and rightfully so.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
72John I don’t live where you live!!! I live in Columbia,SC. You’re talking about revenge and that’s a bit extreme to use that word. You’re a smoker so you’re not being a bit selfish?
“Then they stand at the entrance to a building, the only way I have of getting inside. I was far less inconvenienced when they were stuck in the corner of a restaurant or whatever.”
Billy that’s the behavior I have a problem with. Here at state government offices in South Carolina smokers have to be so many feet from the buildings period. There was a time when they could smoke at their desks and that’s what I was referring to when I said why can’t they,smokers, be inconvienced by having to go outside and away from the entrance of the building. I have already stated that I have relatives that smoke so there’s no revenge factor. Also Brian made some good points at 11:05
By The72John
July 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter if I see you swinging your arms or not. It’s like saying if you are target shooting in the middle of the street and I don’t duck and cover I’m responsible if I get shot. You can’t commit any action you like if it puts someone else in a danger. Which swinging your arms and kicking in a crowded place does and which smoking does. And of course it’s the non smokers who are selfish and self centered right? Which argument here is selfish?
Yours, since it leaves no room for compromise.
And for the hundreth time, your analogy is WRONG. Someone shooting on a public street is simply not akin to smoking in a contained building that advertises that people are smoking inside. As someone pointed out yesterday, a more suitable analogy would be running onto a target range.
You are truly irrational about this issue.
Since you can’t win your case in the general sense you are focusing on the narrow cases that we have already admitted deserve exemption. So yes, your argument is shifting.
Um, I’m pretty sure I never said that I didn’t believe that all restaurants and establishments should allow smoking, only that businesses that choose to do so should be allowed to, even if it means meeting additional guidelines. So…yet again…you are flat-out wrong.
I say no—an easy call for me, since I don’t recognize businesses as having any rights whatsoever.
You know, not all businesses are monolithic organizations bent on manipulating and built on dishonesty. Most of them are run by individuals just trying to make a living.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
“Separate rooms with separate ventilation prevents smoke from getting into the rest of the restaurant.”
Provided the air is pumped outside the building (the surgeon general report showed “scrubbed” air was still unsafe) and the area is SEALED and all services are equally available in both areas, okay. For all intents and purposes this is the same as a ban though as the cost of such a setup would not be worth it for a business in all honestly.
Brian - I totally agree with you when we are talking about PUBLIC businesses. If bars/restaurants want to go private to allow smoking, feel free. I won’t join a club that allows smoking and the smokers can.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Archie — Beef O’Brady’s is a completely smoke-free shain, I believe. And most people on here either live in or have some times to the Atlanta area, so we tend to frame our discussions as such. Georgia has a statewide ban in restaurants, I think. I know Gwinnett and Hall counties do.
By Jack
July 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
“You know, not all businesses are monolithic organizations bent on manipulating and built on dishonesty. Most of them are run by individuals just trying to make a living.”
Agree. Too bad the tabacco companies fit into the first category.
By Jack
July 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Darn. “A” isn’t anywhere near “O”. Sorry..
George is finally going to veto something. The bill to spend federal money on stem-cell research. He’s just getting better every day.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
72john, you just don’t get the concept of deferred gratification. It show up weekly in your petulant posts. You want what YOU want and you want it NOW. You are the walking definition of the term “spoiled brat”.
This discussion has nothing to do with deffered gratification or your rather inconsequential opinion of me. You are attempting to divert this topic with personal attacks.
It has everything to do with the freedom of a business owner to run a smoking or a non-smoking establishment should he so choose. For someone who claims to believe in the free market, when push comes to shove you always prove yourself a liar.
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. I believe that the prohibition against harming others is pretty high up on the moral absolutes list. Smoking is a stinking, nasty habit that kills more people than most other health related causes of death combined. SMOKERS are not rational people USUALLY, when it comes to smoking itself. They become almost rabid when there is any threat to their “habit”.
Oh look, Chuck brings God into it again. Apparently he still doesn’t realize we don’t live in the theocracy he so desperately yearns for. I wonder how many Christians smoke…probably a lot.
By Brian Curtis
July 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
See, I knew I’d regret agreeing with Chuck. And now that he’s blowing off about the evils of sinful instant-gratification, I feel so… dirty. Yuck.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Archie — Beef O’Brady’s is a completely smoke-free shain, I believe. And most people on here either live in or have some times to the Atlanta area, so we tend to frame our discussions as such. Georgia has a statewide ban in restaurants, I think. I know Gwinnett and Hall counties do.”
Billy I am not upset with you or John. Thanks for the information, that’s why I like this blog.
“if they didn’t have to leave the restaurant to begin with, they wouldn’t be smoking near there anyway.”
Billy if it were banned off the property you would not be inconvienced at all. The University of SC has now supposedly become a smoke-free campus. This whole smoke-free/smoke-ban thing may be a fad but hey, give us non-smokers a few years of the conveniences smokers used to have. I don’t have the same intensity that Joe L and Brian Curtis have but since I am living in SC we don’t have the laws such as they are in Georgia but if our current governor gets reelected I am sure he will get around to pushing some cigarette laws.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
See, I knew I’d regret agreeing with Chuck. And now that he’s blowing off about the evils of sinful instant-gratification, I feel so… dirty. Yuck.
See what you get for agreeing with the crazy fanatic?
By Jack
July 11, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
BC. You know Chuck adds balance to the blog.
I sure miss Sweet Thing & Julia! Smooch! :)
By Billy
July 11, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
I’d like to know how Chuck’s rights always trump those of the person with whom he disagrees. If someone’s a smoker, Chuck’s right to not smell smoke trumps the other’s right to smoke. That I don’t so much have a problem with. But why is it my right to freedom from religion is trumped by Chuck’s right to freedom to practice his religion?
By The72John
July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
But why is it my right to freedom from religion is trumped by Chuck’s right to freedom to practice his religion
Well, because by Chuck’s reckoning he’s absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. He isn’t interested in you living your life as you see fit. Check out the literature on Christian Reconstructionism, and I think you’ll find out where Chuck is coming from.
A fanatic like Chuck doesn’t acknowledge that other people have a right to exist without God, because he is convinced utterly that God exists exactly as Chuck believes he exists.
It’s the kind of insanity and rigidity that allows suicide bombers to kill innocent people. The only thing that has kept Chuck from murdering thousands is the environment he grew up in.
It’s why Chuck is evil incarnate.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Archie, what you might find should a blanket ban get passed is that it really doesn’t make a whole lot of difference in your life. How has my life been affected by the smoking ban? Sure, I like not having the occasional wisp of smoke travel into the non-smoking section. But I don’t like the increase in number of people smoking outside of entrances. I also don’t like the fact that smoking sections, which were largely first-come first served (i.e.: no wait) are now regular, nonsmoking, wait-in-line sections.
More important than banning smoking from restaurants, I feel, is banning it within a given area around entrances to public buildings. And despite others’ claims that we’re shifting the argument, auto exhaust and factory/plant emissions are every bit the health threat smoking is.
By Lyrazel
July 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
I do not like bans made by government but I do like a clean and smoking free government building. Smokers plague city parks with butts, streets fill with butts from smokers in cars dumping out their ashtrays. I have the same complaint about gum chewers who spit gobs everywhere they go and leave unsanitary gobs behind. I find the smell of tobacco quite nice and have enjoyed a good cigar/pipe and a cigarette too. I am not a smoker but I have consumed tobacco but when someone starts talking with a wad of gum in their mouth, or snapping it, or that constant chewing like bovines…I am so completely grossed out…but would I enact a law against gum, no.
If you dont want to smell smoke you can go to restaurants that does not have smoking. Consumers usually make changes occur faster than all the House! Our government representatives and lobbyists wish they had such power that is a consumer’s money. Its these laws that are for the common good that end up multiplying into laws about decency and moral behavior.
I had a boss who smoked and when the GA law was passed he put his ashtray inside his desk drawer…needless to say one day his desk drawer caught fire…
By Billy
July 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Well, John, that was my guess. Thanks for confirming things.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Would you extend this idea to a private business that decides it doesn’t want to serve Blacks, or homosexuals, or handicapped people (See the Americans with Disabilities Act)? Chuck…of the 3 groups you listed above only ONE has absolutely no legal protections against discrimination and also has active legislative proposals in both Federal and State Legislatures that will ensure they will not be afforded equal access under the law…that’s right…it’s the dreaded homosexuals.
Jack…the reason the majority shouldn’t rule is because we aren’t a democracy. We are a democratic REPUBLIC. We elect officials who represent us in the decision making processes of government. We tend to make election decisions for people we think have roughly the same belief and value system as our own, but also need to recognize that our representatives will make decisions that sometimes will not be the one we would have made. Our system is designed to place our trust in those people to discuss issues and sometimes make hard decisions which aren’t necessarily popular, but ARE the right thing to do. In our current “No accountability/responsibilty” society of today even our legislators are abdicating their responsibilities on the hard questions to the “will of the people” or the will of whoever has the biggest check instead of deciding ‘what is the RIGHT thing to do and what BEST lives up to our ideals of ‘with liberty and justice for ALL.’
By Jack
July 11, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Chuck is not evil. I would trust him with my children. (and I am not being sarcastic)
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
More important than that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Which means our government is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. But really neither enter into this discussion. Majority or minority, your rights end when they infringe on my rights. I have a right to prevent unhealthy substances from entering my body against my will. Your right to put whatever you want in your body - and in my view it should really be anything - ends as soon as it also enters my body.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Chuck is not evil. I would trust him with my children. (and I am not being sarcastic)
Chuck is no different than a member of the Taliban. He is evil. He believes that anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as he does should be punished by the law. He hates everyone who is different from him, and you would trust him with your children?
When have you ever heard him speak with compassion or concern or caring about anyone or anything?
God help you if you would trust filth like Chuck with your children.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. I believe that the prohibition against harming others is pretty high up on the moral absolutes list.
Unless of course they are sinners. Then it is ok, right?
Smoking is a stinking, nasty habit that kills more people than most other health related causes of death combined.
Do you have anything to back that claim up? Isnt heart disease the top killer in this country? Surely the majority of heart disease is caused by poor eating and excercise habits, not smoking.
By OBSERVER
July 11, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Jack would trust Chuck with his children? What have your children done to you to deserve that? I wouldn’t trust him with a dog that was bound for the pound.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
SMOKERS are not rational people USUALLY, when it comes to smoking itself. They become almost rabid when there is any threat to their “habit”. They exhibit nearly the same characteristics as drug addicts. That’s because they ARE addicts…they’re addicted to nicotine.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
“Sure, I like not having the occasional wisp of smoke travel into the non-smoking section. But I don’t like the increase in number of people smoking outside of entrances.”
Billy you miss the point, I don’t want people smoking outside of entrances. You say you like not having the occassional wisp of smoke well I would like to have that feeling. Let the pendulum swing the other way if not just for a little while. I don’t want to punish smokers because some smokers are considerate kind of people outside of their smoking. I don’t want revenge,death,bad health or anything to go wrong with smokers just give me some of the physical comforts that have been enjoyed for years by smokers.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
“Isnt heart disease the top killer in this country? Surely the majority of heart disease is caused by poor eating and excercise habits, not smoking”
Possibly a majority, but not by much. And it’s hard to single out one cause when it many of the cases you find all three. When you have overtaxed vessels because of bad eating and exercise habits and constrict them and accelerate your heart rate with smoking, well that’s a recipe for disaster.
And still if you want to kill yourself in any way you chose, go right ahead. Overeating doesn’t clog my arteries, smoking in an enclosed area does affect my health.
By Kyle
July 11, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
i have heard the free-market argument that if a person wants to start a restaurant or bar to cater to smokers then they should be able to do so, and its the non-smokers’ choice if they want to subject themselves to that smoke. then the other side comes back with the question of how much freedom should the owner be given (i.e. would you support racial discrimination). this question is quickly discarded by the people against smoking bans by saying they wouldn’t support racial discrimination because its exclusionary. well, just a thought here, but isn’t allowing smoking in restaurants and bars exclusionary in a way. yeah sure, non-smokers still have a choice of attending the establishment, but what kind of a choice is:(a)i can go into this place and inhale smoke all night long, or (b) i can stay out of the place altogether. doesn’t seem like much of a choice. it seems like allowing smoking in a place could effectively “exclude” non-smokers. it seems like with smoking bans at least all people will still be able to frequent all establishments (unless you want to argue that smokers can’t wait until after the meal/drink to smoke a stick), but without them non-smokers are limited in their choice. what right do smokers have to effectively limit the choices of non-smokers? smoking bans will not limit these choices for smokers, they will just have to wait a few mins. to smoke - and if you can’t wait a few mins to smoke, then you have bigger problems than a possible smoking ban
-i also keep hearing people accusing those who are in favor of smoking bans of believing that there rights are more important than the rights of the smoker. that since the non-smoker is present his right to be free of smoke supercedes the rights of the smoker to smoke. couldn’t the same argument be made against the smoker? the smoker’s stance being that since he is there his right to smoke supercedes the non-smoker’s right to be free of smoke in that particular establishment - that since the smoker is present and wants to smoke, he effectively has the right to exclude non-smokers from the establishment.
By RF
July 11, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Would you extend this idea to a private business that decides it doesn’t want to serve Blacks, or homosexuals, or handicapped people (See the Americans with Disabilities Act)?
so this is a rhetorical question, right? DUH- You know the answer to that one. Smoking is a bad choice of habit. The comparisons you offer are physical conditions one doesn’t choose. I see no point in that comparison, and since there are laws to protect 2 of the 3 groups you mentioned, we’ll move on.
If a business doesn’t allow smoking, one waits or goes outside—big deal, right? So the converse of that legally should also be true. If a business can CHOOSE to NOT allow smoking, then a business should have the right to CHOOSE to allow it. The patrons, knowing this going in the door, can either deal with it or go somewhere else. Free enterprise, right? With the plethora of businesses which cater to certain groups in this city, I don’t see what all the guff is about having places that cater to smokers. If you don’t like strippers, you avoid the strip clubs. If you don’t like alcohol, you avoid the bars. If you don’t like gays, you avoid the gay clubs. You CHOOSE the places you go to based on whether or not they meet your needs/desires. Okay, seems really simple to me.
As I said to Mara, we’re being forced into hyper-focusing on what is really a miniscule issue while our air becomes more and more toxic every day. Deal with that issue successfully and you’ll solve a major health problem that affects us all.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Archie, I’m not missing the point. I’m saying that the ban here has, at least in my personal observations, led to an increase in the number of people smoking at entrances. Given the choice between the two, I’d rather have smoking sections in restaurants than clouds of smoke blanketing the entrances.
I understand about the pendulum swinging. The pendulum has swung. At one point you could smoke whenever and wherever you liked. Then they started restricting it. I just see these blanket bans as swinging too far, almost a fundamentalist reaction. I know the Carolinas aren’t at our level of anti-smoking furor. I think there’s probably a middle ground, however, that is ideal, one which would appease the most people.
By Renee
July 11, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
just give me some of the physical comforts that have been enjoyed for years by smokers.
LOL, what physical comforts Archie?? Hacking uncontrollably every two seconds, speaking in a raspy voice, smelly clothes??? Which one of those physical comforts are you speaking of??…Actually I understood your point, I just had to make some fun.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
isn’t allowing smoking in restaurants and bars exclusionary in a way. yeah sure, non-smokers still have a choice of attending the establishment, but what kind of a choice is:(a)i can go into this place and inhale smoke all night long, or (b) i can stay out of the place altogether. doesn’t seem like much of a choice. it seems like allowing smoking in a place could effectively “exclude” non-smokers.
No. I am a nonsmoker. As in never smoked a cigarette. But I have frequently eaten in restaurants in the smoking section. Sometimes it was with a smoker who would smoke after the meal. Other times it was because you could get a table much more quickly. Regardless, i made the choice to sit there.
By RF
July 11, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
SMOKERS are not rational people USUALLY, when it comes to smoking itself. They become almost rabid when there is any threat to their “habit”. They exhibit nearly the same characteristics as drug addicts.
There are some like this, no doubt. But I just made a quick list of a bunch I know who smoke, and they’re actually pretty courteous to non-smokers. Like my aunt, who’s 75, smokes like a chimney when she’s by herself, and has an ashtray in every room of her house. Now, when company comes over or we go out, she simply does without for a while. Most, and I say most smokers can wait a while if necessary. It’s not like they all spend the entire day puffing away. I work with a lady who only allows herself to smoke at home after the kids are in bed. She says it’s hard some days, but she has that rule and sticks to it. My mother works all day without smoking (nonsmoking building) and waits until she is home. She has smoked for forty years. This is just my opinion, based on those people I know.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Your right to put whatever you want in your body - and in my view it should really be anything - ends as soon as it also enters my body. Careful what you say or how you say it…one could interpret the ‘it’ in this sentence to mean the ‘your body’ initially referenced…which means you should have the right to control what someone else puts in their body when that someone or part of that someone enters yours body. Really now, if we’re going to be that intimate we should probably discuss these things, but this relationship won’t last long if you’re going to tell me what to do. ;)
BTW…what are these UNIVERSAL TRUTHS and where are they established? If they are established in a particular faith’s religious texts, but not in the religious texts of ALL faiths then they are not universal. If they are truly universal because they are in all religious texts regardless of religion, then the God referenced as the establisher of these truths is the same God for ALL religions. If that is true, then Chuck’s God is the same God as everyone else’s God. Since most of us don’t have the same stringent religious beliefs as Chuck his faith is wrong or his God truly does appear to different peoples in meaningful ways…which means that the whole “my way or you’re going to hell” belief Chuck ascibes to must be completely false. In conclusion either the Truths are universal and Chuck’s religion is wrong or these truths are NOT universal which makes his claim false which would also make his religious belief incorrect since it teaches that there ARE universal truths.
By Renee
July 11, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
I don’t see the comparison between black people, jewish, gay or disabled etc. being able to attend a restaurant, while non smokers (smokers) cannot. How can being black, or any other race for that matter, or disabled, be compared with being a smoker (which I might add is a choice, whereas nobody chose to be black, Jewish, gay or disabled) (I know Chuck will insert something here). There is no collation between the two.
Secondly if we recognize that ridiculous comparison, here’s the comeback. Let’s say we have a nonsmoking restaurant. Who can attend? Only nonsmokers? No, anyone can attend. Smokers and nonsmokers, the only difference is the act of smoking is not allowed. It’s like we are all adults, and we can use foul language should we so choose, but it’s not allowed in the workplace. Same thing if it’s a smoking establishment. Can a nonsmoker attend? Certainly, but don’t complain about the smoke.
RF put it best in laymans terms at 2:09. And I totally understand your argument regarding air quality. I think the problem comes in that air quality in certain areas has been so poor for so long, people have gotten complacent with it, so to speak. So cigarette smoke bothers their immediate air, while the other issue is a bigger problem.
By Tom
July 11, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Should smoking be prohibited in public places?
Darn Skippy it should!! I cannot fathom the smokers argument that “it’s my right” to smoke. Since when is it “your right” to infringe on “my right” to be a healthy non smoker? Now, I don’t mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I sure consider it rude and disprespectful me to and every other non smoker when a smoker gripes and complains that they are being discriminated against when we pass laws about smoking in public places. How ridiculous. I am not stopping you from smoking, that’s your choice, however I DO have the right to keep myself AND my children healthy and free from your unhealthy and extremely disgusting habit. What are the “good” thhings about smoking? Could someone name any at all? just one, that’s all I ask. While you think, I can name a few “bad” things. Hmmmm, let’s see… 1. it causes lung cancer 2. it kills you from lung cancer 3. It causes lung cancer in second hand smoke 4. It stinks 5. It smells up your clothes 6. smells up your house/car 7. It stains your teeth. 8. scars your lungs PERMANENTLY. 9. you now have to smoke mostly outside in the rain or cold because of the new laws. 10. Causes emphesema after years of use and you die from it a painful death. 11. Causes those around you(your spouse/children/friends) to develop respiratory problems such as asthma. 12. It harms a LIVING fetus. 13. It kills brain cells 14. It slows down the body’s natural metabolism
Yeah, I can see the attraction. Forgive me, but I have absolutly no pity for smokers. They chose to light up the first cigarette, probably because they thought it was “cool.” Guess what? It’s not! and you can quit anytime you choose to. It is possible to quit, plus you will live a few years longer. Wow! what a concept! Sorry, but no smoker has the right to infringe upon MY health or the health of my family. But, oh yeah, it “makes me feel good” and “relaxes me”. I guess all the “bad” stuff mentioned above is all worth it then huh?
By Archie
July 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
“LOL, what physical comforts Archie?? Hacking uncontrollably every two seconds, speaking in a raspy voice, smelly clothes??? Which one of those physical comforts are you speaking of??…Actually I understood your point, I just had to make some fun.”
Renee I suspect other people are having fun at my expense as well. That was a funny response and I chuckled when I read it.(laughing)
“Archie, I’m not missing the point. I’m saying that the ban here has, at least in my personal observations, led to an increase in the number of people smoking at entrances. Given the choice between the two, I’d rather have smoking sections in restaurants than clouds of smoke blanketing the entrances.”
I understand you better now Billy,well, it seems those places need to ban smoking at the entrances and have a designated smoking area. Like I said earlier this week some tweaking may have to be done as nothing’s perfect.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Tom, did you even read any of the blog leading up to your post?
1,2, and 3 are the same reason. 4, 5, and 6 are the same reason.
By Tom
July 11, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Billy, why or course I did. Do I not have the right to state my opinion too? And there are cause and effects stated, they are not the same thing, but thanks for playing.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
At one point you could smoke whenever and wherever you liked. Then they started restricting it. I just see these blanket bans as swinging too far, almost a fundamentalist reaction. Billy, I have to agree with you. We’re missing some fine distinctions in the progression that made sense at one point, but when given the choices those who are arguing against a smoking ban (regardless of their smoking status) are making it would appear that bans have gone too far. I think the filter missing here is whether or not one would be required to remain inside an establishment or area to complete one’s business. Some examples from reality…smoking was banned in government offices because those employees who choose not to smoke were exposed to the smoke of those who did because non-smokers were required to stay at their desk in order to do their job. They couldn’t do their job AND choose not be exposed to smoke. Smokers on the other hand could smoke, but with a reasonable restriction of doing so outside on a break. A non-smoking citizen would be in the same situation as a non-smoking employee since they must be in the gov’t building in order to conduct business. Smoking on airplanes was stopped because those inside it are captive until the plane lands…there was no choice available.
Now since we keep focusing eating establishments in general we could easily see how the requirement of being in a particular establishment or not being able to leave for a certain period of time as noted in the 2 examples above just don’t apply. When it comes to eating out one has a choice go somewhere else as in to a restaurant that caters to non-smokers.
All that said, as someone who sometimes lights up when having cocktails I have no problem with not smoking in an indoor restaurant because I find the smell of smoke when I’m eating my meal takes away from the experience. None of the people I know who smoke complain about going outside to smoke either. When it comes to outdoor smoking bans I really do think that is going too far. When outdoors one has no control over the amount of any other pollutant, but you’ll bi tch about a minute amount of tobacco smoke while breathing greater concentrations of particulate matter, pollen, fungus spores, dust, CO2, and ozone without addressing those too? Is there a single study that shows it’s possible to have any adverse health affects from being exposed to smoke given the lack of concentration due to not being in an enclosed space with recycled air? How frequently does this really occur? Personally, when it comes down to imposing outdoor smoking bans I think they cater to the human ‘need’ for superiority over another group.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Apparently Tom thinks the topic is “Why I hate smokers” rather than the actual topic. Apparently, editorializing about the various ills of smoking substitutes for an actual argument.
Ah well.
By RF
July 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
All that said, as someone who sometimes lights up when having cocktails I have no problem with not smoking in an indoor restaurant because I find the smell of smoke when I’m eating my meal takes away from the experience.
I do the same thing, and everyone I know who smokes would agree about the meal. I’m sure there are some out there with a fork in one hand and a Marlboro in the other, but I don’t know any nor have I seen any in my eating out experiences. Degrees of habit I guess…
By Billy
July 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Billy, why or course I did. Do I not have the right to state my opinion too? And there are cause and effects stated, they are not the same thing, but thanks for playing.
What? You see “Smoking causes lung cancer” and “Lung cancer will kill you” as two different reasons smoke is bad? “It stinks”, “it smells up your clothes” and “it smells up your car/house” are three different reasons? Really? Amazing.
“Thanks for playing”? Really? Do you think that in any way validates what you are trying to say?
For the record, I know you can voice your opinion, but you asked, “Since when is it ‘your right’ to infringe on ‘my right’ to be a healthy non smoker?” If you really read the rest of the blog, you would’ve seen this question asked and answered several times over.
By Tom
July 11, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
The72John
It’s very sad that your life is pretty much filled with your time consuming spew in this and other blogs. It says something about your life. Get one k? I believe the title to this blog is “Should smoking be banned in public places?” and this IS an opinion blog is it not? So, please take your self-righteous spew somewhere else ok? This is reserved for the serious people who actually want a forum on an important topic.
Billy,
Again, I do not have time to read all 200 plus blogs on here. Again we have someone like you that just likes to spew thier self-righteus trash and attempt (however feeble) to degrade others opinions. Grow up guys!! We are adults here with real opinions about real problems. And I don’t care how many times the question has been asked/answered or argued. I have the right to state my OPINION to this OPINION blog! do I not? Grow up, for cryin out loud!
By Chilao
July 11, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
9. you now have to smoke mostly outside in the rain or cold because of the new laws.
ain’t life a drag sometimes. LOL what is funny is when I started here, two other smokers always smoked in the lunch/break room but I always went outside since most here did not smoke anyway. However, a few years after I started, the company eliminated all indoor smoking, so I just continued to do what I had always done, go outside, getting my serious winter coat when needed before exiting.
By Archie
July 11, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
“When it comes to outdoor smoking bans I really do think that is going too far.”
Netbanker there are someplaces that don’t allow any smoking on their property and that is too harsh.
By chuck
July 11, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jack. So far the state has entrusted me with over 2500 children and I’ve protected EVERYONE of them. Haven’t lost one yet.
Observer…what’s your wife got to do with this?
NetB, my point is that several people have said they don’t want government telling ANY business what they can and can’t do. That it should be decided by the market place. I’m just wondering if they think that extends to businesses choosing wether or not to serve OTHER groups. It could just as easily been bikers, purple-haired old ladies and pet owners. You can’t have it both ways. As I recall we had a similar discussion in which I stated that business owners should be able to hire anyone that they wanted to and I was eviscerated for it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.
By Joe L.
July 11, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
” “Since when is it ‘your right’ to infringe on ‘my right’ to be a healthy non smoker?” If you really read the rest of the blog, you would’ve seen this question asked and answered several times over.”
Actually untrue. The question is brought up over and over and those against the ban continue to dodge it. Because they know they can’t answer it and it removes any chance of arguing they have.
By Tom
July 11, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Thank you Joe L.
Guess Billy really does just like to spew out meaningless dribble for the sake of arguing. Apparently he didn’t read them but wants to degrade me for not reading every single blog. What a guy!
By The72John
July 11, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Again, I do not have time to read all 200 plus blogs on here. Again we have someone like you that just likes to spew thier self-righteus trash and attempt (however feeble) to degrade others opinions. Grow up guys!! We are adults here with real opinions about real problems. And I don’t care how many times the question has been asked/answered or argued. I have the right to state my OPINION to this OPINION blog! do I not? Grow up, for cryin out loud!
Seriously, it’s entertaining when someone devotes an entire post to telling two people that they are just spewing trash by…spewing trash.
Also, maybe if you offered something new and original, you wouldn’t have been ridiculed quite so much. You could at least try to bring something new to the conversation.
It’s very sad that your life is pretty much filled with your time consuming spew in this and other blogs. It says something about your life. Get one k? I believe the title to this blog is “Should smoking be banned in public places?” and this IS an opinion blog is it not? So, please take your self-righteous spew somewhere else ok? This is reserved for the serious people who actually want a forum on an important topic.
Almost as funny as the first are people posting on blogs who insult other people for…posting on blogs. Bonus points are added for every incorrectly spelled word and for every bit of bad grammar or usage.
And truly - we’ve been discussing this important topic in detail, without your very inadequate assistance for two days now. You are still at “square one” of the discussion. If you would advance to “square now”, assuming you have the intellectual chops for it, then possibly we might take you just a teeny bit seriously.
But I doubt it.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Joe — I have answered it. A smoker doesn’t have the right to infringe on a nonsmoker’s right to not inhale smoke. However, if a smoking facility is clearly designated and labeled as such, then the nonsmoker is waiving his or her right to not smell smoke by entering. I could give a rat’s a**e about Philly’s smoking situation, but the vast majority of places here are smoke-free. Completely. My point is that if the smoking section can truly be separate from the nonsmoking, then no harm, no foul. A complete ban is not necessary. Or if an establishment has a big sign indicating that inside is a smoke-filled environment, then puff away since anyone can tell what is going on inside.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
As I recall we had a similar discussion in which I stated that business owners should be able to hire anyone that they wanted to and I was eviscerated for it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy
It’s not hypocrisy, trash. One practice is exclusionary and the other is not. We have laws against exclusionary practices in this country. No one is excluded by force of law from a smoking establishment.
If anything, that which might keep a non-smoker from going into a smoking establishment, a sense of revulsion at being around smokers, is similar to that which, of a certain, would keep any self-respecting gay person from trying to apply to your precious Christer school - a sense of revulsion at being around a bunch of self-righteous hate-mongers.
By chuck
July 11, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
RF’s exact words were: I think it’s overstepping gov’t. authority to tell a private business how to operate. If they want to risk the business loss, let them have smoking.
Renee, your exact words were: While I enjoy the benefits of this, I do not agree that the government should be necessarily telling private business owners how to run their business.
These statements are against forcing businesses to serve a certain constituency at least in the way that constituency wants to be served.
Don’t you think that the market would determine the best interests of the business owner in those other cases as well? Just seems hypocritical to me to “let the market decide” in one case but not any other.
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. NetB, you are starting to think like 72john…illogically. Just because someone does not ASCRIBE to those universal truths, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Your rights end when they infringe on mine…I think we should just let the free marktet decide…
oh wait, have those been suggested 10,000 times already in the last two days? My bad…
By Tom
July 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
The72John..
Pretty much what I expected from you so you can add yourself to that list to make it 3. But I doubt that you care about that. You apparently have nothing better to do than to waste an entire day insulting people on a computer screen. I wonder if you have the “intellectual chops” to do that in person with anybody. Probably not. People who spew out dribble like you are most always cowards when it comes down to it, anyway. However, I don’t need to be here for the previous two days in order to state my opinion. It’s absurd to state that one needs to be. But, since you pretty much represent all things absurd, that really doesn’t matter. So, I’ll, once again just answer the question “should smoking be banned in public places?” By all means YES!
By The72John
July 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. NetB, you are starting to think like 72john…illogically. Just because someone does not ASCRIBE to those universal truths, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Actually, just because you ascribe to the belief that some Deity created these universal truths doesn’t make that so, either.
Seriously, does anyone else think it’s as funny as I do when Chuck, the young-earth Reconstructionist Christian lunatic who believes that not only did the Flood really happen but that Noah was schleping a whole bunch of dinosaur eggs, accuses ANYONE else of thinking illogicaly?
It’s like having a Nazi call someone else anti-Semitic.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
There are UNIVERSAL TRUTHS that are established by GOD. There are MORAL ABSOLUTES. NetB, you are starting to think like 72john…illogically. Just because someone does not ASCRIBE to those universal truths, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Yeah John and Net…Dont you know that all of the UNIVERSAL TRUTHS and MORAL ABSOLUTES have been revealed by GOD to Chuck of Tarsus?
By GOB
July 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
So, I’ll, once again just answer the question “should smoking be banned in public places?” By all means YES!
Well, since Tom has settled this debate for us, would the last person out turn out the lights?
By Gary I.
July 11, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Normally, I agree with Shaunti on most points. However, I cannot on this subject and I find myself in the interesting position of agreeing with Diane to some degree.
The issue of second-hand smoke is about as scientific as whether human activity actually causes global warming. ALL smoke is caustic to human breathing. It does not matter if the smoke comes from a MARTA bus, your barbeque pit, the beans you burn on your kitchen range, or a person’s cigarette. There are too many products in our environment that create smoke. Therefore, there are too many variables to determine whether the smoke that may cause lung cancer comes from cigarettes.
Yet, we are told that smoking is a significant health threat and should be banned. If smoking is such a significant health threat, why has not the Federal Government should ban tobacco for public sale? As the readership is aware, this has not occurred. The only actions taken against smoking have occurred at the local and state level. Even though these elected officials may feel justified in their actions, their motives are not based on science. Therefore, one must conclude that smoking is not quite the public enemy #1 we have been led to believe.
By The72John
July 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Pretty much what I expected from you so you can add yourself to that list to make it 3. But I doubt that you care about that. You apparently have nothing better to do than to waste an entire day insulting people on a computer screen. I wonder if you have the “intellectual chops” to do that in person with anybody. Probably not. People who spew out dribble like you are most always cowards when it comes down to it, anyway.
Actually, you’ll find that my razor wit is as present in real life as on the blog. You know what they say about assuming, don’t you, Tommy?
However, I don’t need to be here for the previous two days in order to state my opinion. It’s absurd to state that one needs to be. But, since you pretty much represent all things absurd, that really doesn’t matter. So, I’ll, once again just answer the question “should smoking be banned in public places?” By all means YES!
Yeah, the thing is, we understand your opinion, but you’re just reiterating other arguments that have already been discussed over and over and over ad nauseum. You’re just not adding anything. At all. Really.
And it’s Drivel. Not dribble.
By Tom
July 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
The 72John
Drivel, dribble…who cares?
and once again, I came here to state an OPINION. Something you seem to have a problem understanding. All you want to do is argue. If these opinions, including mine, are nausiating to you, then LEAVE. No one is keeping you here. And I didn’t say anything about you having any “razor wit”. Whatever you call it, it is mean-spirited and ohh so unnecessary. I dobut you would last in a real live face-to-face debate of any type. You have no real merit or argument, all you like to do is argue and insult. That does not make a debate.
By GOB
July 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Yet, we are told that smoking is a significant health threat and should be banned. If smoking is such a significant health threat, why has not the Federal Government should ban tobacco for public sale? As the readership is aware, this has not occurred. The only actions taken against smoking have occurred at the local and state level. Even though these elected officials may feel justified in their actions, their motives are not based on science. Therefore, one must conclude that smoking is not quite the public enemy #1 we have been led to believe.
So Gary, are you saying that smoking really isnt that bad for you, and that the science stating otherwise is flawed in some way? I just want to make sure I am understanding your point.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Chuck…I understand what you’re trying to say, but I really do think Renee (tiara point to you, dear!) summed it up quite well and in a reasonable way. ”Let’s say we have a nonsmoking restaurant. Who can attend? Only nonsmokers? No, anyone can attend. Smokers and nonsmokers, the only difference is the act of smoking is not allowed. … Same thing if it’s a smoking establishment. Can a nonsmoker attend? Certainly, but don’t complain about the smoke.”
What I think some of this comes down to is how broadly or narrowly one defines the term ‘public’ and in how much of a nanny state we should live given reasonable alternatives. I don’t view a non-government owned business as public space and especially not if that business hold title to the land on which it sits. I also don’t think there should be a government imposed blanket ban on smoking when we claim to live in a capitalistic society that can reasonably offer smoke-free establishments, smoke in a separate area if you choose establishments, smoke in any area if you choose establishments, and even smoking required establishments. It is not the government’s role to protect one from one’s self.
One observation of smoking ban supporters is the consistent and frequent use of MY. MY air, MY health, etc. What about the right of a business owner to attempt to service a particular population? Why not let business survival and market forces determine whether or not smoking is allowed in any particular business? Since the number of smokers is declining especially due to the now known hazards isn’t much of this debate a big to do about nothing?
RF…if I ever find myself suddenly single I might just have to ask you to ‘marry’ me.
By RF
July 11, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
These statements are against forcing businesses to serve a certain constituency at least in the way that constituency wants to be served.
Since we’re talking about smoking, then yes, that’s what many here are saying. Would we support a business that refused to serve a group based on gender, race, or sexual orientation? NO, of course not. Happens that there are laws against that kind of discrimination. I don’t see the comparison to smoking though.
Now if you think about it, the fact is that businesses are, by legal definition, allowed to favor a certain crowd. Strip clubs with one gender stripping favor a crowd drawn to that sort of thing. Clubs may favor a largely gay or straight population. There are clubs that have clientele of largely one ethnic group. They can’t refuse any patron, but certain groups dominate the clientele. Is that legal? Yes, so long as they don’t stop you at the door and refuse entry. If an establishment chooses to cater to smokers, so be it. It is illogical to expect that establishment to suddenly ban smoking because someone, who chooses to enter it doesn’t smoke. Just like it would be laughable to suddenly clothe the naked bodies in a strip club because someone might be offended. If you go in and don’t like it, you leave and go to a place that caters to your likes/dislikes. That seems very simple to me.
By RF
July 11, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
That it should be decided by the market place. I’m just wondering if they think that extends to businesses choosing wether or not to serve OTHER groups.
Actually, that happens every day. If I open a business in a certain part of town, my merchandise will reflect the wishes of the dominant population (cultural and/or economic) in that area. I can favor any group I wish, so long as I don’t refuse service to anyone. Go to a department store at Lenox, and then go to one say at Greenbriar Mall. You’ll see some similar merchandise, but much of it will be different because the demographics of those areas are different. So how is it different for a business to focus on smokers? They’re just tailoring a business to a certain crowd. They can’t refuse to serve nonsmokers, but they can’t be expected to suddenly reorganize the business because someone might come in who doesn’t smoke. One chooses to go where the clientele is comfortable or the merchandise/service is what you want. I drive across town to shop if I want a certain brand of clothing. There’s not a Ralph Lauren shop on my side of town for a reason—not enough clientele. I can’t demand someone to suddenly stock something just because I expect the convenience. I go where I have to to get what I want. If you don’t smoke, go to another place. There are far, far more that don’t allow smoking than do anyway.
By Renee
July 11, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
I am so glad that some of the people on this blog are not elected officials, what a dictatorship they would be aiming for. Like Gob pointed out, YOUR rights end when they infringe on MINE!!!! That’s just crazy.
Thanks for the tiara point, Net!!!
RF - I guarantee you, there is an activist group out there, attempting to clothe the strip club entertainers.
On another note, there is only one strip club in this entire state. Glad I’m not a “strip club addict”, I would be going through major withdrawal.
By RF
July 11, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Net- blushing you sweet talker! Just help me find a nice one that’s available and has a clue about reality. Those are few and far between!
By Kaka90239
July 11, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
[url=http://espresso.mlmen.com/sitemap.htm]Latest news about Espresso[/url] * [url=http://arizona-mortgage.info-mortgage-loan.com/sitemap.htm]Relevant information on Arizona mortgage[/url] * [url=http://m1592.dd3.info/sitemap.htm]Very best of Hotel rooms[/url] Latest news about Espresso | Relevant information on Arizona mortgage | Very best of Hotel rooms http://espresso.mlmen.com/sitemap.htm http://arizona-mortgage.info-mortgage-loan.com/sitemap.htm http://m1592.dd3.info/sitemap.htm
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Chuck…can you point out the specific flaw in my logic because I never said there weren’t universal truths? However, in order for something to be a universal truth it must apply to everyone and it must be able to be proved through non-biased validation. A religious ‘truth’ can not be validated as true through non-biased testing because by it’s very nature it requires a belief in the religion claiming to know said truth and saying it is universal doesn’t make it so. You might as well just say “My God can beat up Your God so I’m right, nyah, nyah, nyah!”
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
And it’s Drivel. Not dribble. I think depends on whose mouth it’s coming from. hehehehe
By RF
July 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Renee- my idea has always been “why pay to watch and not touch when I can get it for free and grope all I want?” hehehe!!! Well, it usually costs at least a dinner- no fun if it’s toooo easy!
By MrDrivel
July 11, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
I know my kids will beat up any kid who calls them ‘Dribble’, that’s why I named one of the boys SUE and the other ELLEN. Plus when I have to call the both of them, it is simply “SueEllen”.
By Sharron
July 11, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
I was thrilled when Georgia took a stand and prohibited smoking in public buildings. I wish this standard would be made Nationwide in every state. I went to Alabama to visit friends and was quickly reminded of how awful breathing smoke while you are trying to eat really is. Alabama does not have a smoking ban yet. I gagged through my meal and when we left, I could still smell stale smoke in my clothes.
I don’t see the government’s stand on this as “taking my rights” away. I am glad that our government has recognized the potential hazards and health risks and have done something to protect the people that do not smoke. If someone wants to smoke on their own turf, so be it. I would just hope that these people would be considerate enough not to expose their other family members, especially children.
By Billy
July 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Nationwide in every state
It can be overseen by the Department of Redundancy Department.
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Anyone else noticing a similar trend regardless of topic? It appears to be the ‘damn libruls’ that are consistently defending constitutional rights and making allowances for differing belief systems to live together while the ‘wrap ourselves in a flag, we’re a Christian nation conservatives’ seem to want to impose their belief system and definitions of appropriate personal, private behaviors on everyone.
By RF
July 11, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Sharron- did they wait until after you came in to light up or did you notice the smoke haze on the way in? If you didn’t then you should have. All anyone is saying is that if you willingly walk into a place knowing there will be smoking, then you are CHOOSING to enter the place and can’t expect it to conform to your wishes. I’ve driven out of restaurants and gone miles down the road to find one that was clear of smoke for my kids. While it wasn’t fun, I certainly didn’t expect the entire restaurant to suddenly change for my kids’ sake. I simply went somewhere else. Is that so hard to do?
By Kyle
July 11, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
“Therefore, there are too many variables to determine whether the smoke that may cause lung cancer comes from cigarettes.”
Gary…..are you saying that all the long-time smokers that die of lung and throat cancer just happen to be a smoker and that there is no corelation between their sickness and their smoking? you don’t by chance work for a tobacco company do you?
By Kaka31672
July 11, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this
[url=http://comply.meet-russian.com/find-comply.htm]Find Comply[/url] * [url=http://comply.meet-russian.com/impressive-comply.htm]Impressive Comply[/url] * [url=http://comply.meet-russian.com/buy-comply.htm]Buy Comply[/url] Find Comply | Impressive Comply | Buy Comply http://comply.meet-russian.com/find-comply.htm http://comply.meet-russian.com/impressive-comply.htm http://comply.meet-russian.com/buy-comply.htm
By Netbanker
July 11, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this
RF and Renee, I’m with you on the strip clubs. Why get all hot ‘n bothered over what you’re not going to get? RF…I’m not getting the connection between easiness and buying dinner. I’ve had dinner bought for me and believe you me there wasn’t going to be any quid pro quo involving nekkidness going on. Maybe it’s just because I define ‘making it too easy’ as not wearing a belt, or a shirt with too many buttons, or underwear. grin
By Kaka76853
July 11, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this
[url=http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/steroid-fact.htm]Steroid Fact[/url] * [url=http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/bonds-steroid.htm]Bonds Steroid[/url] * [url=http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/steroid-and-sports.htm]Steroid And Sports[/url] Steroid Fact | Bonds Steroid | Steroid And Sports http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/steroid-fact.htm http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/bonds-steroid.htm http://steroid.iptvhosting.tv/steroid-and-sports.htm
By Lyrazel
July 12, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
So what about drivers with cellphones? Should there be government bans on use of cell phone while driving being they are the single largest killer and creator of accidents on roadways? Cellphone accidents have long ago passed the drunk driver for amount of accidents…and deaths…so isnt legislation needed to curtail the use of phones while on public roadways? Why is it with so many more traffic fatalities linked to such devices that the bans on vices (marriage amendments, public smoking, nudity clubs, bars open till 4) get more legislations? Could it be this smoking ban was another political hoodwink to take voters off real issues to trivial ones so predominant in GA politics today?
My second irrelevant question would be: are we becoming a nation shifting toward government policing our lives? Think of all the things government is putting itself into: wars on (fill-in-blank) obesity epidemics, NCLB, bans on vices, bans on marriage and what it is left to the ruin: FDA… USDA inspections…Natl Park resources sold…pension funding…
By GOB
July 12, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
So what about drivers with cellphones? Should there be government bans on use of cell phone while driving being they are the single largest killer and creator of accidents on roadways?
Many places have already instituted restrictions on cell phone use while driving (handsfree).
By Jack
July 12, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
Here at the office, smokers get to go out and light up about once every hour. Do non-smokers get that many breaks? Hell no.
By Renee
July 12, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
New York for one allows no cell phone usage while driving, even handsfree I think. Although you still see a lot of people using them both upstate and in the city. I do think, Lyrazel, that you do make some excellent points, however.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Here at the office, smokers get to go out and light up about once every hour. Do non-smokers get that many breaks? Hell no.
Jack - You could do what I do and just extend your lunch or leave a bit early. At my old company, there were tons of smokers, so I made sure to make up for their smoke break time. At the job I am at now though, there are almost none, so I have to be a little more careful.
By RF
July 12, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
GOB- problem there is enforcement of the law. I am amazed sometimes by all the people I see on the cell phone every time I get on the road. I’ve yet to see anyone get pulled over for it. And the folks who don’t put their kids in proper seats/restraints. Don’t get me started on that one!
By Archie
July 12, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel we definitely need to ban cellphone use while driving. Lyrazel so many people have phones on their desks at work so if a person needs,needs to make child pickup arrangements or appointments many people can do so at work. I see so many people get on the phone getting into a car although they have a phone at their desk and they talk about nothing because I have had someone call me about nothing on their cellphone from a grocery store. Cellphone drivers drive slow then they speed up, then they slow down, then slightly swerve into another lane, and they don’t use turn signals. Yes cellphone use on roadways needs to be curtailed.
By Renee
July 12, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Jack - I agree with you, although at the company I am at now, there’s not that problem. When I worked at my prior company in ATL, smoke breaks were constant for the smokers.
By Renee
July 12, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
I’m definitely for curtailing cell phone use on the road, keeping everything handsfree. Although, Archie, if I’m following you correctly, your argument seems to be more about the content of the conversation, rather than the act of talking. If someone is talking about nothing, it seems like their attention would be better than if they were in a deep, thoughtful conversation.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
I see so many people get on the phone getting into a car although they have a phone at their desk and they talk about nothing because I have had someone call me about nothing on their cellphone from a grocery store.
My wife uses her cellphone everyday driving home. I am all for it though because I would rather her have her daily conversation with her mother then, instead of when she gets home and I have to hear it…
By RF
July 12, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Jack/Renee- it’s those who abuse the privilege that give the whole group a bad name. I can see why you’d support a smoking ban if you have to watch that every day. It only takes a few abusing the privilege to cause problems for everyone. I’ve never understood why someone can’t wait a few hours. Even when I smoked fairly regularly, I didn’t even think about it while I was working (didn’t have time to anyway). It wasn’t impossible to do without for 8 hours or so. Those people who constantly walk out there are just doing it because they can, and they will lose that privilege soon.
By Kyle
July 12, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
“Should there be government bans on use of cell phone while driving being they are the single largest killer and creator of accidents on roadways?”
Lyrazel….i don’t really have the stats to back this up, but almost every other time i go to trivia night at some bar we get the question of “what is the single largest cause of auto accidents?” - and everytime the answer is not cell phones, but rubbernecking. everybody has go to see the train wreck that caused all the traffic, which in turn causes another wreck.
-also, again, its true there are probably more pressing issues out there than smoking in public places, but that doesn’t mean that public smoking isn’t a legitimate social issue that should be addressed - this seemed to be diane’s argument and everybody’s first few post all agreed that it was a very weak agrument, can we stop with it now?
By Kyle
July 12, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
…..but since we started talking about cell phones and driving, i guess i’ll throw in my two cents. in my opinion, the effect cell phone use has on driving has nothing to do with the content of the conversation. only when a person is finding a number in their phone, finding the phone itself, or (and this is the worst) text messaging someone while driving does cell phone use actually have a significant effect on driving - and a bad one at that. once on the cell phone, i don’t see the conversation affecting the driver anymore than if they were speaking to someone in the car. a hands-free requirement would seem to solve most of the problem.
By chuck
July 12, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, I can’t believe that you would ever accuse me of anything after this statement:
Cellphone accidents have long ago passed the drunk driver for amount of accidents…and deaths…so isnt legislation needed to curtail the use of phones while on public roadways? Why is it with so many more traffic fatalities linked to such devices that the bans on vices (marriage amendments, public smoking, nudity clubs, bars open till 4) get more legislations?
That is BLATANTLY false. Alcohol related auto accidents caused nearly 18,000 deaths according to the most recent statistics from the NTSB while cell phone related death were about 2600. The analogy between smoking bans and cell phones in cars is also a false one. People who cause an accident by driving carelessly can be charged and prosecuted. The second hand smoke issue is a little different because the effects aren’t immediate. They are cumulative over time. I don’t often use my phone while driving, but then people in my age group aren’t the real problem. Most cell phone related accidents are caused by people in the 18-25 age group and this is primarily because of their lack of experience in driving COUPLED with the distraction of the cell phone. The second highest group was the 66-75 group and this was caused primarily by slowed reaction time that comes with aging. I think that it would be fine to ban cell phone use by drivers under 25 and couple this with an increase in penalties for causing accidents through distracted driving. I would not object to a hands free requirement, though that really does not seem to change the statistics according to some recent studies.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Those people who constantly walk out there are just doing it because they can, and they will lose that privilege soon.
I dont think that smoke breaks are going anywhere, even for those who abuse them. In the 5 years I was at my last job (and this was a huge telecom company), they got worse over time, not better. Most companies arent willing to risk any kind of lawsuit, so they just look the other way.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
I think that it would be fine to ban cell phone use by drivers under 25 and couple this with an increase in penalties for causing accidents through distracted driving.
Yeah, but what would be considered “distracted?” Is talking to a passanger a distraction? Having kids in the backseat yelling? Not a bad idea, but I dont know if there is a practical way to implement it.
By chuck
July 12, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Those who have a long distance commute to work become very experienced drivers. They are able to handle multi-tasking better than the person who doesn’t drive much. I think using those commutes productively is not a bad thing.
When I was younger I had about a 70 mile one-way commute to work for about 6 months. After a month or so, I started using the commute to do a variety of tasks to make the commute less boring. We didn’t have the option of low cost cell phones like we do now. Sometimes I read novels or the newspaper. The paper was fun at 70 miles an hour. That was probably a pretty dangerous thing to do. I know the cell phone is not nearly as distracting as that or eating/drinking, putting on make-up, or arguing with a kid in the back seat. It really is about common sense and accountability.
By chuck
July 12, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Distracted driving is sort of like art. A police officer may not be able to define it but he knows it when he sees it.
By Billy
July 12, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
I can be adjusting the radio and talking on my cell phone while driving with one eye closed and be safer than plenty of people who are driving by themselves with no phone.
By chuck
July 12, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
I was reading the paper at 70 in a 55 going down I-85 at about 10:30 one night on the way home from work. A state trooper that I had seen many times on my commute, pulled up beside me and blasted his siren. Almost scared me to death. He mouthed the words “slow down” and went on past without pulling me over. I didn’t read for a while after that. This was back in 1985-86 when the speed limits were a lot slower. I think I probably would have deserved a ticket for distracted driving AND speeding.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Sometimes I read novels or the newspaper. The paper was fun at 70 miles an hour.
I have had an hour commute each way for the past 6 years, and have spent almost all of that time listening to Teaching Company Lectures and NPR programs I ripped from the web. I dont know what I would have done without an MP3 player in my car.
By chuck
July 12, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
I love my wife’s Montana van. All of the radio/cd player controls are on the steering wheel. That is so convenient.
By RF
July 12, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
What gets me are the folks who talk with their hands while driving. Cell phone in one hand, gesturing with the other. Driving with the knees at 80mph. Now that’s dangerous! I found the best solution for kids in the backseat while driving. I finally gave in and bought a portable DVD player. Didn’t hear a peep for two hours on the way to Florida last week. I forgot what it was like to have an entire conversation up front without the obligatory “are we there YET?” LOLOL
I saw a guy one day on the cell phone, and writing notes on a legal pad while in the left lane of traffic!!! Needless to say, he let his foot off the gas and I nearly rear-ended him. I got him though when I blasted the horn. The poor dolt dropped the phone and almost ran off the road. I realize you gotta do business when you gotta do business, but I’ve been known to pull over if the conversation was that important.
chuck- how did we ever survive without cell phones? I drove 45 miles one way for years to school without one, and now I’ll turn around and go back if I forget the doggone thing. And I rarely turn it on. I have my dad’s “just in case” mentality, I guess.
By Archie
July 12, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Renee my argument was not about content but I was implying that the person didn’t need to be on the cellphone in the first place. We all survived before cellphones were created but it seems as if it’s a habit to be on the cellphone while taking a walk or while driving. Also RF is right to point out people that don’t use seat belts or restraints for their children even though we have been constantly told about the safety of such devices. You can’t seperate age groups driving and cell phone use because although people over 25 have less accidents suppose a person is 26 and driving while on the cellphone.
By Knibb High Principal
July 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Also RF is right to point out people that don’t use seat belts or restraints for their children even though we have been constantly told about the safety of such devices. You can’t seperate age groups driving and cell phone use because although people over 25 have less accidents suppose a person is 26 and driving while on the cellphone.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
By Danny McGrath
July 12, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I’ll try not to shoot you…
By O'Doyle
July 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
O’Doyle Rules!!!
By Renee
July 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Reading a novel or newspaper while driving. How stupid not to mention dangerous, not just for you, but for the others who are driving on the road with you. Thank goodness you haven’t killed anyone. When you are operating a vehicle, your entire attention should be on what you are doing.
I am teaching my daughter to drive now and the main thing I am trying to get across, is this is a 2 ton vehicle, not a toy. Your life, your passengers lives, other people driving next to you, lives can be snuffed out in a minute for one stupid mistake.
By Netbanker
July 12, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
the folks who don’t put their kids in proper seats/restraints is Darwinism at work. One outgrowth of child seats/restraints I’ve noticed is the slow death of the ‘Soccer Mom Save.’
I don’t want to see kids hurt needlessly, but with the numbers of safety devices and warnings you’d think the human race was outrageously fragile and on the verge of extinction. I’m just waiting for Jr. Space Suits with air filtration packs so that your kids will always have fresh air and no risk of harm should they fall down because they’ll just bounce. As a species we’ve managed to survive for thousands of years without all that stuff and in far less sanitary conditions. How much is really needed and how much is about selling products?
On the cell phone topic, I think they should be banned in the car unless on a hands-free device. I see far too many idiotic moves on the road while people are driving with a phone pressed against their ear. Personally, unless I’m stuck in traffic I only use the phone in the car to obtain directions or to tell someone that I’m running late. Otherwise there isn’t anything THAT important that I need to be talking about.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
There have been a number of recent studies showing that people using cell phones are more impaired in their abilities to drive than people at the legal limit for alcohol.
Obviously, these studies weren’t conducted by religious organizations, so they are suspect to some. However, the non-religious world seems to believe they hold some validity.
I wonder what the absolute moral truths handed down by God say about endangering many people’s lives by reading the newspaper.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
I wonder what the absolute moral truths handed down by God say about endangering many people’s lives by reading the newspaper.
Uh, John, I believe you meant, “I wonder what the ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTHS handed down by GOD say…”
By Jack
July 12, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Hell, a lot of people cannot chew gum and drive much less use a cell phone. IMO anyone under 21 who uses a cell phone while driving should be ticketed.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Uh, John, I believe you meant, “I wonder what the ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTHS handed down by GOD say…”
My bad. I left my stentorian, bombastic, self-righteous voice at home this morning.
By Renee
July 12, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Ok, maybe it’s just me, but I am still COMPLETELY DUMBFOUNDED at reading a newspaper/novel while driving. I mean, that just tops the cake. Anyone who does this, should have their license immediately revoked. Chuck’s only commment was “this was probably a very dangerous thing to do”. YOU THINK???? And the sad thing is I have seen idiots doing things like this every day on Atlanta Expressways. Putting on makeup, I did see one idiot reading, people trying to write, there’s no friggin excuse. Pull the dayum car over.
By Mike
July 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
SMOKING IS A DYING HABIT! Imagine a non-urinating section in a swimming pool. That’s is how much sense non-smoking sections make in public places. The passing of smoking restrictions by the Legislature is the best thing that ever happened in Georgia. Prior to that you simply could not go out to dinner or a drink without breathing smoke-laden air. Non-smoking bars and restaurant are thriving! Why? Because most Georgians do not smoke. Even the smokers don’t seem to mind stepping outside for a smoke. All hail common sense and reason!
By The72John
July 12, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Mike - Monday called. It wants its posts back!
By Jack
July 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
In the “old” days a skilled driver could drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, smoke a doobie & eat peanuts while looking at the passenger while tooling through the city streets. (at night in the rain)
By Archie
July 12, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
The problem with ticketing anyone under 21 for driving while on the cellphone is that you may not know that they are under 21. I can remember the days when you could have an open container of beer and drive. Atlanta is dangerous enough as it is on the highway without any distractions. Man, do you guys down there drive fast and wild. Heck, man I have seen people speeding in the emergency lane. We’re(south carolinians) are not better because we don’t like turn signals and we speed to go 200 feet…
By Mara
July 12, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
72John - Hey Mike - Monday called. It wants its posts back!
Renee - Chuck’s only commment was “this was probably a very dangerous thing to do”. YOU THINK????
so far y’all are tied for the funniest post today…LOL!
By Chilao
July 12, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
*Imagine a non-urinating section in a swimming pool. *
now that is a good next-step legislative effort.(write your representative now) Don’t create ‘urinating’ and ‘non-urinating’ sections in swimming pools(we talking public or private?), just have a law to eliminate ALL ‘urinating’(love that polite speak.) in swimming pools.
the important (new) issue for the day. and you heard it here first. LMAO
By The72John
July 12, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
I’m in favor of non-urinating pools. Of course, should someone want to have a non-non-urinating pool, then I support his decision to do so should he publicly post that his pool is of the peeing variety.
I mean, a peeing pool is kind of wierd, but then…so is snake handling.
hey - how about THAT for a paralell. What if you want to go to a church that practices snake handling…snakes pose a hazard to your health. Do you have a right to make those freaks stop handling snakes?
By RF
July 12, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
But how does one know that someone is urinating in the pool unless you hit the “warm spot”? hehehe!! What’s really gross is the kids in the pool in diapers. Like that Pampers is really going to keep the poop and pee from getting in the pool-RRRRIIGHT!!
By RF
July 12, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
john- you can only complain if they’re smoking while handling the snakes…then you got yourself an issue.
And speaking of churches, since they’re exempt from taxes and most government regulations, what if a church for some unbeknownst reason decided to become a smoking church. I mean, if Hosea could get his house tax exempted because his “church” met in the living room, then one should be able to have a church for any old reason. People could smoke, worship, and be tax exempt! I would go if they served Corona and lime for the communion, but I digress…
By The72John
July 12, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
woops, parallel.
By RF
July 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Net- the “soccer mom save” is alive and well, let me assure you. My mother still does it from the passenger seat (I don’t let her drive when we go out because it takes her forever to get anywhere sightseeing, talking, and smoking all at the same time!!). I do the save with my boys, even with the little buggers in their safety booster seats. One can get scared to leave home if you listen to all the Nader warnings. We have to face the fact though that cars aren’t the 6000 pound steel monsters that they were when we were kids.
By Billy
July 12, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Imagine a non-urinating section in a swimming pool. That’s is how much sense non-smoking sections make in public places.
Swimming pools are all non-urinating, but they do provide places for people to urinate.
Prior to that you simply could not go out to dinner or a drink without breathing smoke-laden air.
Sure you could. You just had to go to one of the nonsmoking establishments or one where the smoking section was comletely separate.
Non-smoking bars and restaurant are thriving! Why?
Because those are they only kind that are allowed in many places?
Even the smokers don’t seem to mind stepping outside for a smoke.
I mind when they step out into the doorway, forcing me to walk through their toxiic clouds when I had much rather them stay in a secluded corner of the building where they didn’t affect me.
By Mara
July 12, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
RF - john- you can only complain if they’re smoking while handling the snakes…then you got yourself an issue.
*People could smoke, worship, and be tax exempt! I would go if they served Corona and lime for the communion*RF is now in the running for funniest post with these two zingers :^)
By Jack
July 12, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Off the subject. I read with disgust the article about how many schools failed the federally mandated standards. It is not the teacher’s fault. It is the apathetic parents who use the school system as a babysitter and obviously don’t care if their children succeed in life. people scream at the teachers, I subbed for a short time and they do not get paid enough. How can they teach when parents won’t make their kids study? It cannot be done.
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest. Good luck GOB, you’ll need it.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
People could smoke, worship, and be tax exempt! I would go if they served Corona and lime for the communion
If Scientologists can pull of their scam, I am confident we could make this work.
By Chilao
July 12, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Think I said this once before here, but what is the difference between a cult and an organized religion?
10,000 members.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Either everyone died, the topic is dead, or the site is broken again.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
I believe this topic was officially dead right around lunchtime today…
By Zack
July 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Did you all know that secondhand smoke is actually worse than direct smoke, because cigarettes do have a filter? There is no excuse for smoking in public places, and all the nagging and whining and excuse-making in the world won’t change that fact.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Yeah, they’ve not had much of a lasting-topic track record lately.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Did you all know that secondhand smoke is actually worse than direct smoke, because cigarettes do have a filter? There is no excuse for smoking in public places, and all the nagging and whining and excuse-making in the world won’t change that fact
Gosh, what would we do without a wet-behind-the-ears, never-been-in-a-bar, probably-never-been-outside-his-home-county 19-year-old boy to tell us how the world works.
By Billy
July 12, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Did you all know that secondhand smoke is actually worse than direct smoke, because cigarettes do have a filter?
Please explain further, seeing as how the smoker inhales the secondhand smoke as well…
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
John,
As for your comments the other day, you can get mad all you want, but what I said is true. The gay community is full of people who use outlandish, sorry insults in an attempt to get attention and demean others, and yes, I called you on it. As opposed to confronting someone face-to-face, you and your type like to, in a sissy way, make a passing comment and call people the names you do——and then you talk about how you RECEIVE hatred. If you’d calmly express your concerns to another and in a mature way, you might be surprised what the result would be. As I said, the gay community is full of hatred toward those who don’t accept its perverse lifestyle and agenda, and then it talks about how gays receive hatred. My, what a contradiction.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Billy—
Please re-read your question.
By GOB
July 12, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
As opposed to confronting someone face-to-face, you and your type like to, in a sissy way, make a passing comment and call people the names you do——and then you talk about how you RECEIVE hatred.
Yeah, John, why dont you blog face-to-face??
By Chilao
July 12, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
And second-hand smoke has not only been filtered thru a filter pre-original-inhale, it has been filtered thru a lung pre-original-exhale. So I would have to consider it quite filtered.
geeeeeeeeeez. LOL
Just don’t go camping and gather around the ole campfire.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
As for your comments the other day, you can get mad all you want, but what I said is true. The gay community is full of people who use outlandish, sorry insults in an attempt to get attention and demean others, and yes, I called you on it. As opposed to confronting someone face-to-face, you and your type like to, in a sissy way, make a passing comment and call people the names you do——and then you talk about how you RECEIVE hatred. If you’d calmly express your concerns to another and in a mature way, you might be surprised what the result would be. As I said, the gay community is full of hatred toward those who don’t accept its perverse lifestyle and agenda, and then it talks about how gays receive hatred. My, what a contradiction.
Zack, I wonder if you have any idea how prissy you actually sound every time you post?
See, this post makes even less sense, and it’s really just a string of baseless accusations and mischaracterizations strung together in an attempt to sound intelligent.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Of course, whether secondhand smoke is as strong as firsthand smoke is beside the point. What John and those like him refuse to admit is that constitutionally, person A doesn’t have the right to hurt person B’s lungs.
That’s it. Case closed.
By RF
July 12, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Jack- they also started new curricula standards this year, which they trained us to use while we were using it, renormed the dang tests (without any preview available), and tested kids on new curricula the teachers weren’t fully trained in yet. Bad parents are partly to blame too, but I thought you might want to know, as Paul Harvey puts it,”the rest of the story”.
By RF
July 12, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
As I said, the gay community is full of hatred toward those who don’t accept its perverse lifestyle and agenda
Nah, we save the hatred for the bible-thumping, trailer park, beat-the-dog and the wife kind who sit in the la-z-boy watching the 700 club and believing those checks you send them actually feed those starving kids in Guatemala.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
That’s it. Case closed.
Well, there you have it. Zack answered the question with his characteristic “It is because I say it is.”
We can all just stop posting now.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
John—
You calling ME a prissy is like, well,………………,well…………………….the gay community talking about the “hatred” it receives. Obviously, hatred is something you have no lack of. Folks, it sure would be nice if the Johns of the world would show a little objectivity every once in a while.
By Billy
July 12, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Zack, my point was that, as Chilao pointed out, most smoke goes through a filter, through the lungs, then out into the air. Only a small amount burns off the end of the cigarette and goes into the air. And the smoker gets every bit as much of that as anyone else does.
So, while I hate smoking, I feel it is intellectually dishonest for the anti-smoking crowd to parrot the “Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking” line” because it’s not true.
By RF
July 12, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
person A doesn’t have the right to hurt person B’s lungs.
If person A is in a room with hundreds of other person A’s where smoking is allowed and person B decides to walk into the room where all the person A’s are smoking, knowing they’re all smoking, and that it’s allowed in the person A room, then person B has no right to complain and the guvment has no right to tell all the person A’s that they can’t smoke because one person B just might show up and not realize they’re smoking and thus be terribly incovenienced and compromised. Of course, person B is just as likely to get lung cancer from working downtown and driving his Suburban out to the boonies in all the gridlock, snorting CO2 all the while. But hey, let’s don’t subject person B too all that nasty smoke, now.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
RF—You sound as ignorant and as wrongfully-presumptious as John, and that’s saying something.
By the way, beating one’s wife isn’t a Christian act, so get your facts straight. Take your animosity out on those who abort their childen, which you support. Quit being a hypocrite.
By Billy
July 12, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
…constitutionally, person A doesn’t have the right to hurt person B’s lungs.
Person A does, IMO, have the right to hurt his own lungs, however, and if he does so in a clarly-marked “Lung damaging area”, and if person B chooses to enter said area, then that’s OK.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Billy—I’m just going by what I heard. As I said, the news has been wrong plenty of times, usually willfully. However, constitutionally, my point is still true that harming another through secondhand smoke is wrong. I like how you actually speak as a mature human being and not a desperate troublemaker.
RF—You still don’t get it. Smoking isn’t constitutional in ANY public building.
By The72John
July 12, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
You calling ME a prissy is like, well,………………,well…………………….the gay community talking about the “hatred” it receives. Obviously, hatred is something you have no lack of. Folks, it sure would be nice if the Johns of the world would show a little objectivity every once in a while.
No, seriously. You sound like a 85-year-old school marm who has been forced into talking about S-E-X against her will.
Normal people don’t say things like “My, what a contradiction” or “sissified”. You sound like exactly what you are - an inexperienced, rather naive, opinionated child with very little if any real-world experience.
Your only excuse for calling me “sissified” is the fact that I happen to be gay. You’ve never met me, so you have no idea how I act. Everything in your life seems to be based on labels that you have assigned based on what you’ve been taught. Whether it be women, Catholics, Jews, liberals, or atheists, or gays, or agnostics, you characterize people by these labels. For whatever reason, you’ve decided that you are the ultimate authority on…everything, without realizing that you have very little idea about anything.
Do us all a favor, Zack. Maybe if you tried to be a little more objective from time to time, and actually attempted to discuss a topic rather than dropping in, declaiming the absolute truth you believe has been revealed to you be God, dismissing everyone with a different opinion as a godless gay liberal, and then disappearing again, you might find that you get a better response.
You may have missed out on the fact that everyone, with the exception of the other two religious loons, despises and ridicules everything you say. We think you are a laughable joke and treat you as such.
Talk about self-delusion.
By RF
July 12, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Quit being a hypocrite.
I will if you will. By the way, did you check the definition of that word before you used it? You know, the dictionary, or does your church allow you to use one?
By RF
July 12, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
RF—You still don’t get it. Smoking isn’t constitutional in ANY public building.
DUUUUUHHHHH- we weren’t talking about public buildings. We were talking about privately-owned businesses that may, or may not, choose to allow smoking in or around their privately owned premises. Do you ever read the posts, or do you just enjoy spouting your ignorance anytime the blog gets slow? Seriously, you need to get out of the trailer park more.
By Zack
July 12, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
John—
Don’t worry about me. I’m not the one who comes on here stereotyping and bashing those who refuse to accept his biases and propaganda. You tell me I sound 19 and then 85. Age aside, you sound like someone whe simply refuses to listen to truth and therefore attacks verbally anyone who speaks it. You’re very comfortable in your wrongful worldview, and you don’t want to accept the fact that change is needed. Why do you hate Christians? Why do you attack Christians? Why are you so full of hatred? You would love for people to believe that my opposing your lifestyle means that I hate you, but thankfully, few people actually believe that way. Of course, many of the ones who don’t like to pretend that that’s true, as it gives them an assist in their social agendas. I oppose you because of how you carry yourself on here from a character standpoint. You act childish and immature, and then you unload your insults on those who differ with you. Oh, I know plenty about you from what you type. Your lack of character isn’t hidden. You’re in your mid-thirties, so it’s time you really considered putting aside your adolescent behavior and pursuing civility.
By Chilao
July 12, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
I would think that Constitutionally, our Fouding Fathers (FF) would be very pro-tobacco, after it, tobacco as a product, was one of the biggest things coming out of ole Virginia. If you wanted to go back to that revisionist ‘original intent’ concept which seems to be real popular in some circles.
In fact many FF would probably argue “It’s a great product”. LOL
Anyone read the news item today or yesterday, do not remember the site, (CSM maybe), that indicated one BILLION people would probably die from tobacco the next(I think it was) century.
By rob
July 13, 2006 07:53 AM | Link to this
Smoking in public should always be allowed as long as untamed, screaming, wild animals are allowed. How else can you get the ignorance which breeds like flies to move AWAY. You don’t even have to inhale, just use it like pest repellant. The stinkier the cigarette the quicker it works.
By Renee
July 13, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
I was catching up on the blog last night and reading all the ignorant comments by Zack. There was so much I wanted to say….but….why even bother????
Ignorance knows no bounds!
By RF
July 13, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Renee- as my sweet mama would say (cigarette and coffee cup in hand), “well, bless his heart…he just doesn’t know any better”. Or my favorite- “if you can’t say something nice, well, it’ll just be a quiet day ‘round here.”
By WHAT THE HECK
July 13, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Rob, what in the hell are you talking about?
By Renee
July 13, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
RF - well your Mama said it best!!!
What the heck? - I was wondering the same thing!
By GOB
July 13, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
So…anyone have any suggestions for a decent topic? It seems this one has completly run its course.
By Archie
July 13, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
On topic http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/15010233.htm
You can read it and comment as you please. In South Carolina: “USC students returning to campus this fall will find a new, more restrictive smoking ban that includes all buildings and any outdoor space within 25 feet of a building.
Beginning Aug. 1, the prohibition against tobacco products also will include university-owned vehicles.”
By Kyle
July 13, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
“Don’t worry about me. I’m not the one who comes on here stereotyping and bashing those who refuse to accept his biases and propaganda.”
-Zach…uhhhhh, that seems to describe you perfectly. how ‘bout you go back and read yesterdays posts, OBJECTIVELY, and then you tell me who fits into this category. its fine to have religious beliefs (i have my own set of religious beliefs myself), but you have to understand that that’s all they are, beliefs - and in a blog like this you can’t state something as fact just ‘cause you believe it to be so, your gonna have to back stuff up with facts here.
-ok, this may be a weak attempt to re-hash this subject, but here goes. i understand the argument that a business should be able to cater to smokers if they choose. but by lighting up a cig, the smoker effectively takes away a large amount of peoples opportunity to go to that establishment (while the smoking population can still frequent the non-smoking establishments if they just hold off on smoking for a few mins). true, the non-smoker can still choose to go in, but its not much of a choice for MOST non-smokers between breathing in second-hand smoke the whole time or not going in at all. i know i already put this point out there, and one of you said you were a non-smoker and still go into smoking establishments - but just because you choose to put up with it doesn’t mean that the majority of non-smokers see this as a legitimate choice. i smoked half of high school, all through college, and i quit 6 months ago while in grad school. it doesn’t really bother me that much when someone else is smoking, but i can understand that many of those who have never smoked simply cannot tolerate it. it just seems to me that without smoking bans the smokers are able to go to any bar/restaurant they want and the majority of non-smokers are limited to non-smoking establishments, whereas if there were smoking bans everyone would be able to go to all the bars/restaurants. it doesn’t seem fair that one person’s choice to smoke can effectively limit anothers person’s choice of where to have a drink or eat a meal.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Kyle, I don’t feel that it does limit people’s choices. If Chuck believes the argument that “gays can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex” ,then I definintely don’t see the problem with arguing that nonsomkers can choose to eat anywhere they like, they just have to do it where smoking is allowed.
And regardless, haven’t non-smoking sections been required for a long time in Georgia? Sure, sometimes the smoke will drift over there, but in my experience it’s only a minor nuisance. Some restaurants have an ideal layout, with full partitions between the smoking and nonsmoking sections, and the latter closer to the entrance while the smokers are in the back of the building.
By RF
July 13, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Kyle- the smoker’s rights are already limited in most places in this state, and most smokers haven’t had a problem with that. If a business chooses to cater to them, then that business is making a decision to limit it’s clientele, much like a women’s clothing store limits its attracted clientele to women. Noone is excluded from entering, but they enter knowing that smoking will be going on. It’s about CHOICE. Smokers have to choose to go outside or to the VERY few places that allow them to smoke as they wish. You make it sound like there are almost no places that have banned smoking, when just the opposite is true. There is not one single restaurant, bar, or club where I live that allows smoking inside the building. If anyone is compromised here, it’s the smokers who have to huddle out back somewhere to light one up. Every smoker I know has dealt with that and not complained. It’s getting to be an old argument that the nonsmoker is being compromised. Where in this great city of Atlanta is the nonsmoker completely, utterly, totally suffering?
By RF
July 13, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Billy- most cities in the metro area have passed similar ordinances against smoking. There really aren’t any “smoking sections” that I’ve seen in any place I frequent in the suburbs. The “smoking section” is either outside or nonexistent entirely, even in Waffle House if you can believe that. And they’re still doing brisk business in spite of it.
By Archie
July 13, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
“Some restaurants have an ideal layout, with full partitions between the smoking and nonsmoking sections, and the latter closer to the entrance while the smokers are in the back of the building.”
Billy I hope we can get that here in South Carolina as that would have solved my problem when we went to Lizard’s Thicket years ago. It seems as if you guys in Georgia have already made some moves on this issue so we,South Carolinians will probably copy your policies within the next year or so because there seems to be a big demand here in South Carolina for smokefree restaurants. Follow the money!!
By Kyle
July 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
“Kyle, I don’t feel that it does limit people’s choices. If Chuck believes the argument that “gays can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex” ,then I definintely don’t see the problem with arguing that nonsomkers can choose to eat anywhere they like, they just have to do it where smoking is allowed.”
Billy….just to make things clear, i think this argument put forth by chuck is completely bogus.
-also, i didn’t mean to imply that non-smokers around atlanta were suffering. i’m well aware that smoking in bars and restaurants in this city have largely been outlawed - and as you guys pointed out, not many smokers are complaining. i thought we were talking about the validity of smoking bans in general. there are many states/cities that aren’t even close to being as strict as georgia on smoking (those are the situations i was talking about)
-on a side note; no smoking in waffle house just sounds weird. i think it was dennis leary who said, “why do people want to ban smoking in bars? because secondhand smoke is harmful? people, your going into a bar and drinking what basically amounts to POISON - and your complaining about secondhand smoke? f you, order a water at the bar and then we’ll talk.” as i said before, i can see both sides of this issue and am basically just throuwing out arguments.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Billy- most cities in the metro area have passed similar ordinances against smoking. There really aren’t any “smoking sections” that I’ve seen in any place I frequent in the suburbs. The “smoking section” is either outside or nonexistent entirely, even in Waffle House if you can believe that. And they’re still doing brisk business in spite of it.
I know. And Waffle House, like many bars, is a place where I really never minded smoke as long as it wasn’t coming from the people that were actually handling my food. It’s part of the, well, atmosphere of the place. Waffle House is a late night (early morning) haunt. You go there with other drunk/stoned/hungover/deaf from that night’s concert people to get full, have a cup of coffee, and hang out for a few minutes. It’s just one of those places you expect people to smoke. And while there isn’t really a good setup for smoking & nonsmoking there since they’re so small, they can be found at almost every exit on the Interstate around here, so you can pretty much always find another if one doesn’t suit you for whatever reasons.
Archie — Follow the money? That’s what we’re trying to say. South Carolina’s restaurant owners should follow the money and go non-smoking or at least better cater to nonsmokers. Georgia restaurant owners should be allowed to follow the money and cater to smokers if they so desire.
By RF
July 13, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
It does kinda change the ambiance of Waffle House (if you could call the late-night drunk atmosphere of the place ambiance—LOL) not to have a bunch of folks puffing away. Man those hash browns (scattered, smothered, and topped) sure are good after a night of pitchers in the Highlands!
I suspect most states will end up with a smoking ban at some point. They’re too popular right now. It’s the 21st century’s version of prohibition.
By Archie
July 13, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Since we’re off topic anyway, I have ordered water, cranberry juice, grapefruit juice, and plain tonic water at a bar. Just going to a bar doesn’t mean you forget your health completely.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Billy….just to make things clear, i think this argument put forth by chuck is completely bogus.
I know, Kyle. It’s because you’re rational.
As to the general validity of smoking bans: Yes, they are valid, but no moreso than a smoker wanting a cigarette after his meal, and no moreso than a restaurant owner wanting to cater to that desire. Archie mentioned the pendulum swinging back to the nonsmokers’ side. Well, that shouldn’t be the desire. We should want the pendulum to be plumb — the rights of those on both sides balanced as best can be.
This is why I am against reparations for slavery. I recognize the damage done to Blacks in this country by the institution of slavery. Blacks are poorer and less educated than whites. Blacks are less likely to be in stable families. More likely to be incarcerated. And anyone who believes that slavery (and Jim Crow) had no part in this is an idiot. Slavery was a blight that put blacks at a disadvantage in the past and in some ways will do so for years to come.
That said, the pendulum has swung in blacks’ favor. Sure, things aren’t perfect, but the pendulum is fairly close to plumb now. Reparations would be pushing it way toward blacks and away from whites who did nothing wrong. Granting reparations would lead to the pendulum swinging back to whites, and the cycle would continue.
My point is that clearly designating certain establishments as smoking locations and separating smoking sections from nonsmoking should be enough for nonsmokers. Demanding the complete ban of smoking is just shoving the pendulum one way. It will eventually create a backlash and swing back. We need to reach out and stop the thing from swinging. Provided everyone has places they can go to eat/drink and not be subjected to the actions or mandates of others, who gives a rat’s a**e who does what?
By HelloGod
July 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Prayer by Elie Wiesel
I no longer ask you for either happiness or paradise; all I ask of You is to listen and let me be aware of Your listening.
I no longer ask You to resolve my questions, only to receive them and make them part of You.
I no longer ask You for either rest or wisdom, I only ask You not to close me to gratitude, be it of the most trivial kind, or to surprise and friendship. Love? Love is not Yours to give.
As for my enemies, I do not ask You to punish them or even to enlighten them; I only ask You not to lend them Your mask and Your powers. If You must relinquish one or the other, give them Your powers. But not Your countenance. (?)
They are modest, my requests, and humble. I ask You what I might ask a stranger met by chance at twilight in a barren land.
I ask you, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to enable me to pronounce these words without betraying the child that transmitted them to me: God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, enable me to forgive You and enable the child I once was to forgive me too.
I no longer ask You for the life of that child, nor even for his faith. I only beg You to listen to him and act in such a way that You and I can listen to him together.
By RF
July 13, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
It’s getting to be a sssslllloooowwww day on the blog when you can go from smoking bans to slavery reparations and back to smoking bans in the same post. That was quite a stretch there Billy, but you did it fairly seamlessly!! LOL . Kinda reminds me of some dates I’ve had where the conversation just isn’t happening. You try and try and just…nothing works. I hate when there’s nothing to talk about and you’re just passing time until the check comes. Okay, time for me to find something to do with the afternoon. There’s always laundry-and I hate folding clothes!
By God
July 13, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Hmm…No.
By Lyrazel
July 13, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck—Sorry I cant get back to you as quick as the others to lambast your opinions on such irrelevant ludicrous topics such as this. On Monday I had jury duty where the judge made comments about cellphone use in traffic and the risks of moving attention from the road to a phone conversation at 70mph. According to him the majority of cases coming into his court were accidents caused by negligent cellphone using drivers. So, I quoted a source who deals with the problem not a web-site. My bad. His comment brought me back to this topic looking at how much money we taxpayers waste on policing (other peoples, of course) vices. I feel any health-responsible citizen would not patronize a restaurant that has a disagreeable atmosphere. I do not feel there had to be a law to protect people from legal vices and that is all the ban smoking in bars/restaurants laws amount to. Having government protection is great but the government should not be put into the role of policing personal vices especially when they are LEGAL.
Now when gum spitting is illegal I will be happy, chuck. Of course, it would be stupid to have an anti-spitting out chewing gum in public bill be legislated because some old lady is grossed out every time she enters a grocery! Yes, its a really bad sign that politicians concentrate on a trivial issues to be legislated…not the issues that are important to an everyday workers/savers/taxpayers.
PS I do not drive so I tend to see drivers in a far different light. Most ignore me in the crosswalk while making important calls…then stare at me in anger when I pull my body out from their grill in an attempt trying to not be a new hood ornament on a 2 ton SUV…where did I get the idea drivers should watch their driving while driving? Stupid me. Ought to be a law.
By God
July 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
It’s getting to be a sssslllloooowwww day on the blog when you can go from smoking bans to slavery reparations and back to smoking bans in the same post.
Thanks, RF, I do what I can…
:-)
By HelloGod
July 13, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
No, what?
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Howdy! Well I see Zack dropped in to make a few pronoucements (“That’s it. Case closed.”) and an toss out some anti-gay remarks mainly targeted at John. Why on earth does anyone bother to respond to his posts? It only encourages him.
I can’t believe how much Waffle House has changed in the last few years. First they have to ban smoking and now they take credit cards!! BTW, some of us do actually go in there during the daytime and sober…provided that recovering from a hangover counts as sober. I’m a scattered well, covered type in general.
Kinda reminds me of some dates I’ve had where the conversation just isn’t happening. I think the worst first date I ever had was like that before we even made it to dinner. I was honestly thinking of bailing when the guy mentions that he was going to take me to a restaurant that I knew had the BEST ribs. Now ribs are really not a good first date food if you think there might be some potential future, but since I knew this was a one time deal I could care less what I looked like gnawing meat off a bone and then tossing it into a metal pail hung off the end of the table…THUNK.
RF…don’t do the laundry!! It’s hot out…why not grab the boys and wash the truck instead? That way y’all can have some fun throwing sponges and squirting each other with the hose. Then it’s time for an ice pop on the steps while drying out a little bit.
By God
July 13, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
No, what?
No to all of your requests. Ask me again and I’ll do the exact opposite…
By Billy
July 13, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Oops…
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel…I swear that in Atlanta pedestrians in crosswalks are thought of as targets. When I worked in Midtown I frequently used my lunch hour to go running from my office near the High Museum down to Piedmont park. At least once a week I ‘surprised’ some cell phone chatting driver by running through the intersection in the crosswalk when the signal indicated I should proceed while they were making a right turn on red. About once a month some idiot would actually have the audacity to either honk, cuss at me, and/or make a rude hand gesture after almost hitting me.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
“I suspect most states will end up with a smoking ban at some point. They’re too popular right now. It’s the 21st century’s version of prohibition.”
RF - No see Prohibition is about someone else telling me what I can do with my body. Smoking bans are telling YOU that you can’t adversely affect MY body.
And if you could get a grasp that we are talking about PUBLIC establishments that are privately-owned you might understand the argument better. Once you open your doors to the general public you are not a “private” business. You are a privately-OWNED business. There’s a huge difference between the two. And once you are a public business everyone has equal rights to be there. And once we have equal rights to be there, you don’t have a right to assault my person and environment.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Joe L — It’s not assault if the business declares itself a moking venue.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
And if you could get a grasp that we are talking about PUBLIC establishments that are privately-owned you might understand the argument better. Once you open your doors to the general public you are not a “private” business. You are a privately-OWNED business. There’s a huge difference between the two. And once you are a public business everyone has equal rights to be there. And once we have equal rights to be there, you don’t have a right to assault my person and environment.
Did I fall into a timewarp and end up back at Monday afternoon???
By Renee
July 13, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
I hope not GOB. This week has been long enough. I’m ready for tomorrow!!
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Billy - So if I put up a sign that says “Murder Establishment” murder is allowed? If the business is a PUBLIC business then it doesn’t matter.
What about if it put up a WHITE ONLY sign? Or a NO CRIPPLES sign?
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
GOB - Well if people understood clear facts laid out on Monday we wouldn’t have to re-visit them. Arguments continue to be made on false assumptions.
By HelloGod
July 13, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Typical! One hour I’m your favorite and the next hour you deny me. Tell me, God, what do you base your decisions upon?
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
GOB - Well if people understood clear facts laid out on Monday we wouldn’t have to re-visit them. Arguments continue to be made on false assumptions.
Joe - there are many here that would agree with your statement, but would disagree with exactly who it is that can’t seem to understand the clear facts.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Billy - So if I put up a sign that says “Murder Establishment” murder is allowed? If the business is a PUBLIC business then it doesn’t matter.
What about if it put up a WHITE ONLY sign? Or a NO CRIPPLES sign?
Joe - I will assume that you know that murder, along with discrimination based on race are illegal. So is dicriminating against the handicapped.
Smoking is allowed (and this is just for you) in privatly-owned public buildings under specific circumstances. IF you still choose to go to one of those establishments, you have forfeited your right to b***h and moan about the smoke. When all smoking is made illegal, or when smoking anywhere but in your own home is illegal, you might be able to make the comparison you did.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Typical! One hour I’m your favorite and the next hour you deny me. Tell me, God, what do you base your decisions upon?
I tend to use the magic 8-ball…Oh you said God, not Gob…my bad.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Joe L — Come down off the cross. I have plans for it.
By Renee
July 13, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
What is the comparison to a “smoking” establishment and a….what did you call it again???? A “murder” establishment (if those words can be placed together). Smoking is legal, murder is illegal. I’m trying but I’m not getting it.
With the “Whites Only” or “No Cripples” sign, I thought we covered that. Smokers can enter, as can nonsmokers. Smoking is an ACT, so the ACT may or may not be allowed, but if you don’t like the ACT, then don’t go anywhere where the ACT is taking place. Saying no blacks or no cripples is not a comparison, since those are not ACTS, or CHOSEN BEHAVIORS. Get it??? I’m sure you don’t.
Damn, I think I’m at Monday too. Except I can’t get out!!
By Billy
July 13, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Joe, we’ve been through this. Ethnicities, the disabled — according to our laws they are protected from exclusionary polices. A better analogy using race would be if a white restaurant owner wanted to serve black people back during segregation, but the government told him he couldn’t.
And seriously, get over yourself. Murder? You need to really put things into perspective.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Typical! One hour I’m your favorite and the next hour you deny me. Tell me, God, what do you base your decisions upon?
I base them upon however I feel at the moment. I have Bipolar Disorder, didn’t you know? Read the Bible; the signs are all there…
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Discrimination based on race is not against the law for individuals. Or “private” entities if you will. But PUBLIC establishments cannot discriminate, which is the whole point here. To provide clarity as to the difference between a private business and a privately-OWNED business.
Right now it’s allowed, but so were WHITE ONLY signs once. Once you enter a place where I have a RIGHT to be, you forfeit the ability to pollute my lungs. THAT’s the fundamental point. It’s not smoking that’s illegal, it’s exposing me to smoke that’s illegal. Smoke all you want, but your right to do so ends when it infringes on my rights. Like all other things in our society.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
No I’m merely pointing out the fact that a PUBLIC establishment does not have the right to determine what is right and wrong. It’s not a fundamental right of said business. If the public determines rightfully that one party is infringing on another, then the public has a right to pass regulations to prevent such actions. Regardless of it the business is privately-owned.
If businesses feel the smoker segment is a strong enough base, go private and you can do whatever you want.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
“Smoking is an ACT, so the ACT may or may not be allowed, but if you don’t like the ACT, then don’t go anywhere where the ACT is taking place. Saying no blacks or no cripples is not a comparison, since those are not ACTS, or CHOSEN BEHAVIORS. Get it??? I’m sure you don’t.”
EXACTLY. And if your CHOSEN behavior affects others adversely you have no right to said behavior. And because it’s a CHOICE you have no “smoker rights” either because it’s a choice and behavior. Funny that you undercut your own argument so well.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
“Smoking is an ACT, so the ACT may or may not be allowed, but if you don’t like the ACT, then don’t go anywhere where the ACT is taking place. Saying no blacks or no cripples is not a comparison, since those are not ACTS, or CHOSEN BEHAVIORS. Get it??? I’m sure you don’t.”
EXACTLY. And if your CHOSEN behavior affects others adversely you have no right to said behavior. And because it’s a CHOICE you have no “smoker rights” either because it’s a choice and behavior. Funny that you undercut your own argument so well.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Once you enter a place where I have a RIGHT to be, you forfeit the ability to pollute my lungs. THAT’s the fundamental point. It’s not smoking that’s illegal, it’s exposing me to smoke that’s illegal. Smoke all you want, but your right to do so ends when it infringes on my rights. Like all other things in our society.
So, back to it — Do you tell drivers they don’t have the right to drive their cars since their exhaust spews into the air? I’d rather sit in a smoking section for 45 minutes than stand next to the interstate for ten. Smog and the general air quality are far worse than secondhand smoke. And no, that’s not a different subject. It’s exactly the same thing. What gives you the right to drive around, spewing your fumes into the air, which may lead to my son getting athsma? You’re polluting air he ahs the right to breathe! You don’t have the right to attack him like that!
I repeat: Get over yourself.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
And if your CHOSEN behavior affects others adversely you have no right to said behavior.
Unless others are accepting of said behavior. Were all places that allow smoking required to plainly indicate so, then no one would be in any way forced to endure it.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
oops again…
By Renee
July 13, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Even if your argument held water Joe, a private business can say what ACTS they will or won’t allow an individual to do in their business (provided they are LEGAL). i.e. smoking, dancing, pornography, etc. Now being white, black, gay, disabled, Catholic etc..is not an ACT, therefore, by law, private and/or public business have to abide by the law and allow these individuals to enter their place of business. Now, there are ACTS, which are also illegal, and a private or public business cannot allow these ACTS to take place, ie. beastiality, child pornography, murder, guillotines, disemboweling etc…’
I hate, absolutely hate, abhor…whatever, cigarette smoke. But tell me how I can go into an Applebees which allows smoking, and begin to complain to the manager that I smell smoke, and it’s bothering me?????????? Maybe I should have went to the Chili’s next door that doesn’t allow smoking, or if I just have to have Applebees, then I have to put up with the smoke.
Just like an old friend of mine absolutely loved the wings from Strokers (popular strip club in Clarkston..if you can put popular and Clarkston in the same sentence). She also hated strip clubs, women dancing etc… (she tasted the wings because someone had brought some home one day from the strip club). She would order wings to go from there, hating the strip club, knowing that women would be dancing in there, but that was a price to pay for what she wanted.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Joe - So what would happen if I were at a public park where smoking is allowed. I am sitting down having a nice picnic lunch, smoking away. You come to the park and sit near me, even though you have seen me smoking. Do I no longer have the right to smoke? Because smoking is a legal act, your rights do not automatically trump those of the smoker.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
It is different because a car serves a useful and fundamentally necessary purpose. Smoking does not - smoking is an unnecessary, unhealthy indulgence. If a city had a public transit system that was fully capable of transporting all citizens quickly and efficiently, then you could argue a car is a choice. But that is by no means the case in 99% of America.
Yeah I’ll spray you with smelly noxious and dangerous chemicals and then tell you to get over yourself. Can’t argue so go to the personal “attacks” (I use that term loosely for such an ineffective insult).
And with a screen name like “God” I think we see how worthwhile of conservation you will be.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
I must say children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I am very, very disappointed! You, my chosen people, have allowed those Christians to take over. If you had stopped Paul, you could have stopped them. To think, their master Jesus was Jewish and never intended his new ideas (pearls) to be cast before swine (gentiles). And look what they’ve done with those ideas! I should go back to visiting floods, famine, enslavement, etc. on you people. As for my enemies, I do not ask You to punish them or even to enlighten them; I only ask You not to lend them Your mask and Your powers. It’s a little too late for that Elie. Ha, ha. They’ve had my mask for a long, long time now. They can actually seriously claim women cannot be priests because Jesus was male! Now does that make any sense? Jesus was Jewish! Have you ever met a jewish priest of the catholic church? Ha, Ha. Ha.
By Renee
July 13, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
And if your CHOSEN behavior affects others adversely you have no right to said behavior. And because it’s a CHOICE you have no “smoker rights” either because it’s a choice and behavior.
Are you serious??? So let’s say I enjoy eating peanuts. It’s a choice, and I enjoy the ACT of eating peanuts. Now as you know, some people are highly allergic to peanuts. So if I am eating a peanut butter sandwich in the breakrook, when the peanut allergy person comes in, should I put my sandwich up, or should the peanut allergy person not come sit with me, if they notice I’m eating the sandwich. People have the RIGHT to CHOOSE their behavior and engage in said behavior anywhere unless it’s prohibited by law, or by a business regulation.
By WHAT THE HECK
July 13, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
OMG Please make Joe L. go away.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
A business can PROHIBIT any behaviors it likes but it cannot ignore regulations or allow prohibited behavior. Just like it couldn’t let it’s employees spit in the food. It’s not illegal to spit in food. But it’s against health regulations. And we are talking about regulations here.
Actually you should not have to change your behavior or where you want to go because someone else is assaulting your person. It’s there problem, not yours. They are commiting an act they can’t limit to themselves.
It’s the actually BEING THERE that’s the product I care about so you can’t get it “to go”. So once I have a right to be there you have no right to assault my person. And as far as those who say it’s a “choice” well it’s no different than me standing in a doorway saying you can come into the bar but I will punch you in the face if you do. I’m still guilty of assault even if you “choose” to step inside.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
I am the REAL God. Don’t listen to those false Gods or you’ll be in danger of hell fire!
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
It is different because a car serves a useful and fundamentally necessary purpose.
It is only fundementally necessary because you are choosing to live somewhere without mass transit, or you choose to visit places that arent within walking distance. Society was able to survive for centuries without cars or planes, so to argue that it serves a necessary purpose is flawed from the start. It is you making a choice, just like you walking into a resturaunt that you know allows smoking is a choice.
By God
July 13, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Poof! JoeL is gone! Oh, no. Satan is sending him back. Sh-t! I am all powerful and all knowing and I can do anything. Except, except …. control Satan.
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Dear GOB…I’m barely managing to hang on to my sanity to the end of today let alone all the way until the weekend. I do not have the strength to deal with Monday all over again this afternoon. Please make it stop!
Amen
By GOB
July 13, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
And as far as those who say it’s a “choice” well it’s no different than me standing in a doorway saying you can come into the bar but I will punch you in the face if you do. I’m still guilty of assault even if you “choose” to step inside.
Again Joe, the difference is that punching you in the face is illegal (as sad as that may be), but smoking is not. If a business says that it will only allow patrons over the age of 18 and will allow smoking, your person isnt being assaulted if you choose to go inside.
If we are talking about regulations and the law, the above is it. Smoking has been made completly avoidable for non-smokers in privatly-owned public buildings unless you make a choice to deal with it. Really, what is the problem here?
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
So what would happen if I were at a public park where smoking is allowed. I am sitting down having a nice picnic lunch, smoking away. You come to the park and sit near me, even though you have seen me smoking. Do I no longer have the right to smoke? Because smoking is a legal act, your rights do not automatically trump those of the smoker.
We have clearly been discussing smoking in enclosed areas, no one has advocated banning smoking in open spaces. From a personal and emotional standpoint, I would be happy to see smoking banned in all public spaces. But that would be wrong because it would be about banning a minor and fleeting personal annoyance. However in an enclosed space, even a space I “chose” to enter, where I will be unavoidably exposed to large and continuous amounts of noxious emissions, you have no right to pollute my lungs. We are talking about places where there is NO avoiding the smoke.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Are you serious??? So let’s say I enjoy eating peanuts. It’s a choice, and I enjoy the ACT of eating peanuts. Now as you know, some people are highly allergic to peanuts. So if I am eating a peanut butter sandwich in the breakrook, when the peanut allergy person comes in, should I put my sandwich up, or should the peanut allergy person not come sit with me, if they notice I’m eating the sandwich. People have the RIGHT to CHOOSE their behavior and engage in said behavior anywhere unless it’s prohibited by law, or by a business regulation.
Your eating doesn’t affect MY body. How can you compare the two? I think you should be able to inject heroin if you want. But that doesn’t mean you should be allowed to inject ME with heroin. When you smoke in an enclosed space you are exposing me to your dangerous habit. Now if you held down said person and forced them to eat your sandwich knowing it was dangerous to them, we would have the parallel situation to smoking. And I don’t think you would say that was okay.
And that’s why we are passing a business regulation. Which is the whole point of this discussion.
By Renee
July 13, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
But Joe, assault is illegal, smoking is not.
Also, this is the real world, and while it would be ideal that a nonsmoker would never be faced with the smell or toxins of second hand smoke, it’s not realistic. I do as much as I can for myself, but there are times when I do come across it. I think it’s stretching it a little bit to say a smoker is assaulting you, by smoking near you, but I understand what you are trying to say. If a smoker comes and blows smoke in your face against your will, then that could be an “assault” of sorts, but you happening to walk in the path of a smoker, is not. Whatever dangers you feel (or know) smoking posesses, people have the right to smoke. And if you walk into any establishment that you know smoking is allowed, you have lost a voice in it. And to say that NO private business ever, anywhere, should allow smoking, because of YOUR lungs is well…just a little far fetched. What makes YOUR lungs more important than the next persons?
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
We are talking about places where there is NO avoiding the smoke.
Can you please give us one example of such a place in the state of Georgia?
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Dear GOB…I’m barely managing to hang on to my sanity to the end of today let alone all the way until the weekend. I do not have the strength to deal with Monday all over again this afternoon. Please make it stop!
Amen
Ask, and I shall make it so…
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
It is different because a car serves a useful and fundamentally necessary purpose. Smoking does not - smoking is an unnecessary, unhealthy indulgence. If a city had a public transit system that was fully capable of transporting all citizens quickly and efficiently, then you could argue a car is a choice. But that is by no means the case in 99% of America.
That 99% of America is land mass. Many urban areas have millions of people who get around with public transit, only rarely using cars.
Anyway, what about diamonds? They are by no means a necessity, yet everyone buys them if they can afford to. Some even if they can’t…Diamonds have been the source of plenty of strife for people in Africa…
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
And in older societies people died because you couldn’t get them to treatment fast enough. Cars certainly serve a fundamentally purpose and to argue otherwise shows how deep your argument is sinking.
Smoking isn’t illegal, assaulting my lungs with your smoke is illegal. Just like swinging my arm isn’t illegal, but it’s illegal is said arm makes contact with your face. I can swing my arms all I want, if I’m not affecting another person. Once it harms another person it’s illegal. Same with smoking. Smoke all you want, it’s illegal to expose me to your smoke.
If said business is public and accepts all patrons it has no right to ALLOW assault. Smoking is not completely avoidable. Far from it. I can’t remember the last time I went out on a weekend and there wasn’t smoke at every establishment. If a business opens it’s doors to the public it CANNOT allow patrons to participate in activities that directly harm other patrons.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
And that’s why we are passing a business regulation. Which is the whole point of this discussion.
I am assuming by passing you actually meant passed?? The statewide ban for Georgia was passed in March of 2005…
By Archie
July 13, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Billy I like what you have to say except this statement.
“That said, the pendulum has swung in blacks’ favor. Sure, things aren’t perfect, but the pendulum is fairly close to plumb now.”
Not yet or even close but things are better. Remember your perception maybe reality to you but it’s not reality to me. You are in your 20’s so there are some things yet to learn and that applies to myself as well.
I can’t help but dreaming of a time when I can go to a restaurant week after week and not smell smoke,because remember here in South Carolina things have not changed
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
And as far as those who say it’s a “choice” well it’s no different than me standing in a doorway saying you can come into the bar but I will punch you in the face if you do. I’m still guilty of assault even if you “choose” to step inside.
If you’re the bouncer, and the person trying to come in has repeatedly been warned, then no, it’s not assault.
By Chilao
July 13, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
I got assaulted by a big ole 14-wheel dumptruck when I pulled up alongside it at a traffic light since it had a low-level exhaust pipe. And I had to roll up my window. gasp
By Renee
July 13, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
maybe the peanut butter sandwich was a bad example, but I know the peanut allergy people can’t touch the peanut, or I guess it’s depending on the extent of the allergy. But I’ll chalk it up as a bad example on my part.
But I think the point has been made, if not from me, then from everyone else. I say we agree to disagree, because the dead horse is having the hell beat out of it.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
And in older societies people died because you couldn’t get them to treatment fast enough.
Joe - I agree and I think your point proves what I have been saying for years. The Amish hate the sick and injured!
I can’t remember the last time I went out on a weekend and there wasn’t smoke at every establishment.
Have you actually gone out in the last year and a half??
I know what you could do…You could actually wear a gas mask at all times. That way you can go anywhere you want, and you wont have to worry about being…ahem…assaulted.
By Renee
July 13, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
LOL Chilao…too funny!!!! hahahahaha
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
If a smoker comes and blows smoke in your face against your will, then that could be an “assault” of sorts, but you happening to walk in the path of a smoker, is not. Whatever dangers you feel (or know) smoking posesses, people have the right to smoke. And if you walk into any establishment that you know smoking is allowed, you have lost a voice in it. And to say that NO private business ever, anywhere, should allow smoking, because of YOUR lungs is well…just a little far fetched. What makes YOUR lungs more important than the next persons?
Currently I have to make the choice to be assaulted or not participate in legal activities I enjoy because of OTHER PEOPLE’S ACTIONS. That is not right. Which is why if smokers have to make a choice to smoke or go outside it’s based on their own actions and choices. I have my choices removed by their choices. That’s not right.
Actually “PRIVATE” businesses can allow anything they want (that’s not overarchingly illegal). They can ban women, blacks, jews, the handicapped, non-smokers, etc. We are talking about public businesses.
So if I take heroin I should be allowed to inject you with heroin because my body isn’t more important than yours? My right to choose what enters MY body is more important than YOUR choosing what enters my body. Care to argue that point?
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
But I think the point has been made, if not from me, then from everyone else. I say we agree to disagree, because the dead horse is having the hell beat out of it.
Renee - You are mistaken. We are just trying to beat the life back into the horse. This is all for its own good…
By Mara
July 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
wha…huh?! oooohhh. I think I fell asleep…(yawn) Is it still Monday? Dang.
It’s just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it’s the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane
Let’s do the Time Warp again!
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
“Can you please give us one example of such a place in the state of Georgia?”
Limerick Junction and Standard Tap to name two. You want 100 more? Go in there and “avoid” the smoke.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Archie, I meant from a legal standpoint. I’m not saying that there’s actually equality, but we do have things like Affirmative Action working in minorities’ favor. As sompares to race, and I’m not saying it does, going from smoking everywhere to a smoking ban would be like going from “Whites Only” to “No Whites Allowed”. It would have been an overreaction, and I think the smoking ban is exactly that. Which isn’t surprising, since the push for these total bans has been led largely by right-wingers. Reactionaries.
I realized things in SC haven’t changed, but I’m trying to say that there’s a middle ground on this. Despite Joe L’s “victim” crap.
Renee, I don’t think there was anything wrong with your exaple. I’ve known people to break out in hives just being around peanuts…
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
“If you’re the bouncer, and the person trying to come in has repeatedly been warned, then no, it’s not assault.”
Ah but in the cause of smoking it’s the PATRONS committing the assault so the bouncer analogy (despite the fact you can find a thousand “exceptions” to any statement) holds no water.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Smoking in an Irish pub?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Horror!
By Chilao
July 13, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
LOL Chilao…too funny!!!! hahahahaha
I trust you are not the only one who grasped the whole ridiculousness of the Assault concept. LOL ( my point in remembering that ‘big ole dumptruck’ and don’t ask me what got into me lately over ‘ole’ this that or da udda)
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Hmm, Googled “Standard Tap” and saw nothing about Georgia…
By Renee
July 13, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
LOL Mara!!
Gob - oh, my apologies then….beat away….
Joe - I think your heroin comparison could only be made if someone slammed you down and put a lit cigarette in your mouth, held your nose and forced you to inhale. Let’s compare second hand smoke to the dirty syringes maybe??? So, if I know the crackhouse allows heroin usage, I don’t go into the crackhouse because an unsterile needle might p******k me. So, the restaurant allows smoking, I don’t go into the restaurant because of the second hand smoke.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Ah but in the cause of smoking it’s the PATRONS committing the assault so the bouncer analogy (despite the fact you can find a thousand “exceptions” to any statement) holds no water.
Well, then, we’ll just have to limit smoking to employees of the establishments…
By God
July 13, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Come, come Joe L. If I hadn’t meant for your lungs to inhale second hand smoke, I wouldn’t have invented car exhaust or cigarettes!
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Joe - Are those bars that cature to patrons that are 18 and over? If not, they are breaking the law. If so, you are a moron for continuing to allow yourself to be…ahem…assaulted every weekend.
You simply have to make a choice. Is your health more important to you than going to a bar? If you are insisting on going to a bar that allows smoking every weekend, then you are choosing to put your health at risk.
By Chilao
July 13, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Mara - I hate to admit it, but I actually have that soundtrack, a $5 BigLots item. I prefer the Transylvania Transvestite song though. And I have only seen the movie ONCE.
By God
July 13, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
And you know my Son done told you, “You have heard it said, a lung for a lung and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, if someone smites you with his smoke in one nose hole, you should offer him the other nose hole! And don’t judge the cigarette in someone else’s mouth until you’ve removed the cigar from your own!” It’s all very clear and simple. This is what it says and it is true, so accept it.
By Mara
July 13, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
I was just thinking…wonder if JoeL knows Whiley. The similarities between their “assaults” are eerie, don’t you think? Neither have been touched nor any mark left…yet they’ve both been randomly and horriblye assaulted by total strangers…hmmmm.
By Freud
July 13, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
GOB is dead! Joe L has anyone ever told you you just might be a masochist rather than a helpless victim?
By GOB
July 13, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
GOB is dead!
What?!?!?!?! I might need to rethink my weekend plans then.
By Mara
July 13, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Don’t be embarrassed about having the soundtrack, Chilao, it could be worse. I’ve got the 25th Anniversary Edition on DVD…
LOL!!! God is tickling me…tee-hee-heee
By Jack
July 13, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
FOUR LADIES ON THE BLOG ALL WEEK.
BUMMER IN THE SUMMER!
By Archie
July 13, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
The push for smoke bans is not all on right-wingers. Diane used to smoke so she has some self-interest in this thing.
By God
July 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Watch out Mara! You know what happened the last time I came down here and started tickling a woman!
By Jack
July 13, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
GOB is dead. Long live GOB!
By Billy
July 13, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Archie, I’m not saying it’s just them. I’m saying they’ve definitely played a part in it. And, if I’m not mistaken, Diane’s take on the issue is akin to mine…that there are far more & worse sources of pollution that enters our bodies than the occasional secondhand smoke from cigarettes…
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
“Hmm, Googled “Standard Tap” and saw nothing about Georgia…”
Yeah meant HIGHLAND Tap. Mixing up two places with similar names. Happens from time to time.
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
And in older societies people died because you couldn’t get them to treatment fast enough. Cars certainly serve a fundamentally purpose and to argue otherwise shows how deep your argument is sinking. I can’t agree with you Joe. I managed to live in suburbia for 5 months without a car of my own. My partner would usually drop me at the train station in the AM to commute to work, I took the bus home from the station and walked, I used the bus/train/my fee to run errands during my lunch hour or after work, I used my bicycle to get to the market for food if the car wasn’t availalbe. It is absolutely possible to live in most of America without a car or with only one car per household….we choose not to do so because as a society we’re spoiled and have become lazy. You should have seen the looks on people’s faces (especially co-workers who lived nearby my home who drove to work) when I told them how I lived without a car. And can I just tell you how much money we saved without the expenses of fuel, insurance, and general maintenance? Was it inconvenient at times? Absolutely! But I learned to adjust my schedule.
What does people dying have to do with the argument espeically with 911?
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
“Joe - Are those bars that cature to patrons that are 18 and over? If not, they are breaking the law. If so, you are a moron for continuing to allow yourself to be…ahem…assaulted every weekend.”
No I’m not a moron I’m FORCED by other people’s actions to be assaulted. If they want to smoke (THEIR ACTION) they can stay home. I should not have to avoid an establishment I have just as much right to frequent because of THEIR action. As I have said dozen of times if it was anything other than a socially engrained habit that the participants of are ADDICTED to there would be no discussion. But God forbid a smoker has to inconvenience himself to stop from polluting MY body.
By Billy
July 13, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Yeah meant HIGHLAND Tap. Mixing up two places with similar names. Happens from time to time.
Must be all that smoke people are assaulting you with, huh?
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
“If you are insisting on going to a bar that allows smoking every weekend, then you are choosing to put your health at risk.”
No actually someone else is putting my health at risk. That’s the whole point. They have no right to put my health at risk.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
“Smoking in an Irish pub?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Horror!”
Actually if you had been to a pub in Ireland lately you would know that there is no smoking there. Banned it years ago.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
“It is absolutely possible to live in most of America without a car or with only one car per household”
HUGE difference between those two statements. We are talking about NO CARS AT ALL on the entire planet. Think our civilization could advance or maintain current status without cars? No. I live in a place with a public transit infinitely better than MARTA and I don’t own a car. But my gf needs one to get to her job. At least in any efficient manner. Currently less than half of America leaves in ANY urban area let alone one with an efficient and complete transit system (which would be NYC, inner Chicago, inner Boston). Three in America.
Trust me I’m a HUGE advocate of public transit and diminishing auto use or having cleaner autos. But imagine a world without ambulances, buses (also polluters), fire engines, police cars, etc. and tell me the car does not serve a necessary purpose, unlike cigarettes.
By Joe L.
July 13, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
“I was just thinking…wonder if JoeL knows Whiley. The similarities between their “assaults” are eerie, don’t you think? Neither have been touched nor any mark left…yet they’ve both been randomly and horriblye assaulted by total strangers…hmmmm.”
Tell you what, I’ll spray you with formaldehyde and skunk musk and you tell me if you have been assaulted or not.
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Mara…LOL! I haven’t seen that movie in WAAAAYYY too long. Of course as soon as I started to read the lyrics the song kicked off in my head and I had to do the dance movements in my chair.
Renee…”I know the peanut allergy people can’t touch the peanut.” These types of allergies aren’t funny, but my cousin dated a girl who claimed to be sooo allergic to eggs that she’d swell up just from touching one. None of us really liked her very much so my cousins used to laugh at the idea of terrorizing her as a posse bu chasing her around the house with eggs in our hands.
Chilao…points for having the soundtrack, but only once! You have no idea how many small details you’ve missed.
Currently I have to make the choice to be assaulted or not participate in legal activities I enjoy because of OTHER PEOPLE’S ACTIONS You could choose to carry one of those little oxygen tanks with you.
Does anyone remember those stories about the oxygen booths in Tokyo where you could spent $1 for a minute of pure oxygen? They were placed around the city in response to the incredible pollution problem they had. I wonder if they’re still around or if it was only a fad thing.
By GOB
July 13, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
No I’m not a moron I’m FORCED by other people’s actions to be assaulted. If they want to smoke (THEIR ACTION) they can stay home. I should not have to avoid an establishment I have just as much right to frequent because of THEIR action.
No actually someone else is putting my health at risk. That’s the whole point. They have no right to put my health at risk.
Joe - If you believe those statements you are actually a bigger moron than I had initially thought. If you dont want to deal with smoke, you can stay home. They shouldnt have to avoid an establishment that they have just as much right to be at just because you disapprove of a legal action they are enjoying.
If you choose to go somewhere that you know for a fact is populated with smokers, then you are choosing to put your health at risk.
But on a positive note, at least you arent incredibly self-rightous…oh, wait…
By Netbanker
July 13, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this
We might as well change the topic because Joe has his mind made up and there will be no changing it.
By Lyrazel
July 14, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this
How to give a pill to a cat……..
By Brian Curtis
July 14, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
It’s Friday! Welcome to Joke Day!
In honor of nothing in particular, here’s a Cowboys and Indians joke:
Two cowpunchers, Slim and Tex, couldn’t find a cow that needed punching anywhere. Then the local Navajos jumped the reservation. The government announced they’d pay a bounty of ten dollars for each Navajo rounded up and brought in. So Slim and Tex signed on, and rode off in search of Indians. Three days went by and they hadn’t seen anything but rattlesnakes and scorpions.
Then that night, Tex was awakened by noises outside the tent. He peered through the flap. And there in the moonlight, he saw a thousand heavily armed Navajo warriors, surrounding the tent and advancing toward them.
He leaped back inside and shook his partner awake. “Wake up, Slim! Wake up! We’re rich!”
By Brian Curtis
July 14, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
A guy is stranded on a tiny desert island. One day he’s walking on the beach and he stumbles across a woman, washed up just above the surf line. She’s in bad shape and as he reaches her, she stops breathing. Quickly he administers mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. After a few frightening seconds, she starts breathing again and opens her eyes.
“You saved my life,” she breathes gratefully.
She brushes the hair back from her face. That’s when he realizes that he’s stranded on a desert island with the stunning Jessica Alba.
Time passes. The island is warm with plenty of fruit. They build a comfortable hut. It’s like Eden. Jessica falls deeply in love with him, and making love becomes their major form of entertainment. Then one day, she notices he looks depressed. She asks him what could possibly be wrong in such an idyllic existence.
“Is there anything I can do?” she inquires.
“Well, actually,” he replies, “there is something…”
“Anything, darling.”
“Would you mind putting on my shirt?”
That puzzles her, but she says, “Of course not,” and puts on the shirt.
“Now could you put on my pants?”
“Sure, I guess. And this will make you feel better?”
“Absolutely. Now, put on my jacket and draw a mustache on your face.” Jessica’s starting to get worried, but she goes along with that too. Then he says, “Now, would you please start walking down the beach and head around the island?”
She starts out, and he sets off in the opposite direction. Fifteen minutes later they meet on the far side of the island.
He rushes up to her, grabs her by the shoulders, and says, “Man, you will never believe who I’m sleeping with!”
By Mara
July 14, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
You know you’re a cat lover when…
You get a present wrapped with a bow and ribbon and you think, “The kitties are going to love playing with these later!”
You type using no capital letters because there’s a cat on your arm preventing you from using the shift key.
You hear the birds outside the bedroom window and put kitty there to watch.
You save a little milk at the end of cereal.
You spend more time shopping at the pet store than at the clothes store.
You go shopping at the local warehouse store and get boxes, not to carry the groceries, but for the cats to sit in at home.
You know what cat it is just by the meow.
You rush the cat to the vet because she “just doesn’t look right”, but you still have that annoying cough from a month ago.
You know which cat is rubbing against your ankles without looking down.
You send letters to people signed by your cat, and decorate the envelopes with cat paw prints.
You get back your European vacation photos and every one has a cat in it.
You refused to be the labor “coach” for your wife but stayed up all night when the cat had kittens.
You spend $70 to get her groomed and $12 on your own haircut.
You stumble out of bed at 6:30 to feed the cats, but berate someone who phones two hours later for disturbing you at an ungodly hour.
By Renee
July 14, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
A guy is driving around Tennessee and he sees a sign in front of a house:
“Talking Dog For Sale.” He rings the bell and the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes into the backyard and sees a Labrador retriever sitting there.
“You talk?” he asks.
“Yep,” the Lab replies.
“So, what’s your story?”
The Lab looks up and says, “Well, I discovered that I could talk when I was pretty young. I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA about my gift, and in no time at all they had me jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping. I was one of their most valuable spies for eight years running.”
“But the jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn’t getting any younger so I decided to settle down. I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security wandering near suspicious characters and listening in. I uncovered some incredible dealings and was awarded a batch of medals.”
“I got married, had a mess of puppies, and now I’m just retired.”
The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for the dog.
“Ten dollars,” the guy says.
“Ten dollars? This dog is amazing. Why on earth are you selling him so cheap?”
“Because he’s a liar. He never did any of that sh!t.”
By Sabra
July 14, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Its all about YOUR rights, okay. Leave the minority in the dust. Personal freedom is to be sacrificed on YOUR altar of what is right and wrong.
I go outside, I stay away from the doors, heck I even take a mint before I go back in. What do I hear from the non-smokers “You are stinking up MY air with your smoke” as I gasp from your obnoxious perfume.
You can not take away personal freedoms without an impact on yourself. Next would be perfume, or autos, red meat, salt because all could potentially be of harm.
By Chilao
July 14, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
What do you get if you cross a donkey with an onion?
Most of the time you simply get an onion with long ears, But every once in awhile, you luck out and you get a piece of a-s-s that brings tears to your eyes.
As I said before, I never understood the difficulties in giving a cat a pill, maybe I just acclimitized at their young age.
How about offering your cat milk off the top of the cereal bowl BEFORE you consume?(pushing the cereal aside so he had a nice little milk pool). That is how my deceased got it. as well as filet-mignon slices everytime he smelled it. (when I did one). LOL My other cats could care about filet mignon but that was his treat.
Net -yeah, I should probably watch it again, be reminded of how dated both the movie AND the music now are. LOL
By lozen
July 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Good jokes! Keep it up youse guys.
By Chilao
July 14, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
I must send my thanks to whoever sent me the one about rat poop in the glue on envelopes because I now have to use a wet towel with every envelope that needs sealing.
Also, now I have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason.
I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl (Penny Brown) who is about to die in the hospital for the 1,387,258th time.
I no longer have any money at all, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Bill Gates/Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program.
I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me, and St. Theresa’s novena has granted my every wish.
I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers.
I can’t enjoy a good Latte from Starbucks anymore because they WOULD NOT send any coffee to that poor Army Sgt who requested it.
I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.
Thanks to you, I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an email to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.
Because of your concern I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.
I no longer can buy gasoline without taking a man along to watch the car so a serial killer won’t crawl in my back seat when I’m pumping gas.
I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put “Under God” on their cans.
I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.
And thanks for letting me know I can’t boil a cup water in the microwave anymore because it will blow up in my face…disfiguring me for life.
I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.
I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don’t support our American troops or the Salvation Army.
I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill with calls to Jamaica , Uganda Singapore , and Uzbekistan.
I no longer worry about sudden cardiac arrest, since I can now cough myself back to life instead of wasting time calling 911.
I no longer have any sneakers — but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.
I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.
Thanks to you, I can’t use anyone’s toilet but mine because a big brown African spider is lurking under the seat to cause me instant death when it bites my butt.
Thank you too for all the endless advice Andy Rooney has given us. I can live a better life now because he’s told us how to fix everything.
And thanks to your great advice, I can’t ever pick up $5.00 I dropped in the parking lot because it probably was placed there by a sex molester waiting underneath my car to grab my leg.
If you don’t send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 70 minutes, a large dove with diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 PM this afternoon and the fleas from 12 camels will infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor’s ex-mother-in-law’s second husband’s cousin’s beautician, who is a lawyer.
Have a wonderful day, and you are welcome !!
I sure we all have people THAT list can be sent to. LMAO
By lozen
July 14, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Angus Broon of Glasgow comes to the little lady of the house exclaiming “Maggie, cud ya be sewin on a wee button thats come off of me fly I canny button me pants.” “Oh Angus…I’ve got me hands in the dishpan, go up the stairs and see if Mrs. MacDonald could be helpin ya with it” About 5 minutes later there’s a terrible crash, a bang, a bit of yelling and the sound of a body falling doon the stairs. Walking back in the door with a blackend eye and a bloody nose comes Angus. The little lady looks at him and says “My god, what in hells name happened to you? Did you ask her like I told you?” “Aye” says Angus..”I asked her to sew on the wee button an she did, everything was goin fine but when she bent doon to bite off the wee thread… Mr. MacDonald walked in…
By Mara
July 14, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Chilao - my cats are partial to weird stuff like green olives, tomatos and apple peices…go figure..
and yes, I did have a couple people to whom I owed that list of “thanks” LOL!!
By Chilao
July 14, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Mara - my female cat(12) loves yogurt and sourdough bread.
By Joe L.
July 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
“Personal freedom is to be sacrificed on YOUR altar of what is right and wrong.”
Actually it’s not PERSONAL freedom because it affects me. PERSONAL freedom is those choices that affect you and you only. You are actually removing MY personal freedom to chose what I want to enter my body.
I don’t care if you smoke. You have every right to chose what you do to your own body. But it’s ALWAYS wrong to negatively affect other people’s bodies with your choices. Period.
By Yawning
July 14, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Chilao - my cats are partial to weird stuff like green olives, tomatos and apple peices…go figure..
Mara - my female cat(12) loves yogurt and sourdough bread.
Wow. This shows how sad this blog has become today…No offense to the cat people out there.
By Billy
July 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Chilao - my cats are partial to weird stuff like green olives, tomatos and apple peices…go figure..
Mara - my female cat(12) loves yogurt and sourdough bread.
I like cake…
By GOB
July 14, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I don’t care if you smoke. You have every right to chose what you do to your own body.
Just as long as they do it under the conditions that suit you, right?
But it’s ALWAYS wrong to negatively affect other people’s bodies with your choices. Period.
Yeah, and it is even their fault if you insist on going to a bar that you know is going to be smoke-filled. Dont they know that Joe L is coming, so it doesnt matter what the law says? They need to stop smoking because Joe L wants to get his drink on without being…ahem…assualted.
By GOB
July 14, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Chilao - my cats are partial to weird stuff like green olives, tomatos and apple peices…go figure..
Mara - my female cat(12) loves yogurt and sourdough bread.
I like cake
My dog likes to catch her own throw-up in her mouth
By The72John
July 14, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Actually it’s not PERSONAL freedom because it affects me. PERSONAL freedom is those choices that affect you and you only. You are actually removing MY personal freedom to chose what I want to enter my body.
Because the world revolves around you and where you want to go. We understand. You and you alone determine the actions allowable to others around you.
What an arrogant a*s you must be in real life.
By RF
July 14, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Mara & Chilao- my calico simply must have my bed for her lounging quarters during the day, and it must be made. She’s been know to grab my pants leg, meowing like she’s dying, and then run to the bedroom and wait for me to make the bed. And of course, I do it every day!! Our male cat only eats dry and wet food mixed, and it must be stirred for freshness at least every hour until fully consumed. And of course, I do it. The poor dog gets a bowl of Kibbles once a day, but the cats—OH dear me, they must have their slightest desires met! Isn’t it funny how controlled we are by them?
By Billy
July 14, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
It was a nice little trip to the Indy 500. But then, a spectator (who we’ll call “Joe L.”) walked out on the track. “It’s assault to run someone over with your car,” he told himself. “They’ll have to stop for me so I can cross over to the infield.”
Joe was split in half at the waist.
As he lay there desperately trying to hold his small intestines inside his torso, Joe gasped at the drivers, the pit crews, and the emergency medical personnel who were trying to save him. “Why did you attack me like that? Your rights stop the moment they affect me in any way!”
“I’m sorry,” said the driver who first hit him. “I just assumed that since this is the most well-known race in the country and since you could see us flying around the track, that you would know that running out on the track could result in your coming into contact with a potentially dangerous car.”
“I don’t care!” Joe yelled, now spitting blackish-red blood. “My right to walk across the track trumps your right to drive around it at 200 mph!”
“Now I really feel bad,” said the driver. “Not only did I hit someone, but that person was retarded!”
By CHilao
July 14, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
LOL @ RF - careful, I think you just put Yawning to sleep, so now he/she will get fired, loose the job, and blame it on being assaulted by a bunch of anonymous bloggers. LMAO
my female - they get science diet, always available, but have the food in a double-bowl feeder. she will not eat from the far side, so when she complains that ‘her side’ is empty, I just reach down, turn it around, putting the full-side on her end and suddenly she has food, that WAS there, 2 inches away from HER side, until I moved it. LOL
By The72John
July 14, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
“Now I really feel bad,” said the driver. “Not only did I hit someone, but that person was retarded!”
This may be the absolute best joke ever. Apart from Joe L.’s actual birth, of course.
By Chilao
July 14, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Jokes on the fly today, huh? good one Billy. Yes, vehicular manslaughter is always much worse when the person hit is retarded. Dunno what it is about that but…
By Jack
July 14, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
I like cats. cooked slowly at 325 for four hours with a nice wine sauce.
By Kyle
July 14, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
“Because the world revolves around you and where you want to go. We understand. You and you alone determine the actions allowable to others around you.”
72John…i understand what your saying here, but this accusation can easily be turned around on the smoker as well. you know, the whole “me me me” philosophy. by choosing to smoke in a bar or restaurant, the smoker effectivley takes the non-smoker’s choice away of what establishment to attend. many non-smokers, and i’m not one of them, find the smoke to be repulsive and simply can’t stand it (and most importantly, it is harmful to one’s body). therefore, the choice of going into a bar/restaurant filled with smoke or not going at all is in fact no choice at all - they don’t go in. many of you say its all about choice, but this doen’t seem like a choice at all. one could argue that the smoker’s actions are limiting the choices available to the non-smoker
-as for the walking into a shooting range analogy or walking on to the track during the indy 500, i don’t think these analogies makes much sense (although the indy 500 story was pretty funny). the problem i see with these analogies is that a shooting range’s primary purpose is firing weapons, the indy 500’s primary purpose is to race cars, but a restaurant/bar’s primary purpose is not to provide a place for people to smoke (their primary purpose is to sell food and drinks).
-also i keep reading about how joe is being “assaulted” and many of you mocking him for using that term. well, here’s my input on the subject. i have read several cases on assault back in my torts class, and one of the cases (i can’t remember its name) actually involved an assault via smoke. a radio show host had a guest in studio who was protesting a tobacco company and the radio host continuously and intentionally blew smoke directly on the guest. the guest sued for assault and won. however, the judge was careful to point out that it only constituted assault (with respect to smoke) b/c the host INTENTIONALLY blew the smoke on a non-consenting guest. I don’t think that smoke lofting around in a bar would fall into this category.
By The72John
July 14, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Kyle - you seem to be missing the point. Given that there are non-smoking AND smoking restaurants, both smokers and non-smokers have options about where to go.
Joe, on the other hand, seems to think that his desire to eat at establishment A should dictate the rules under which establishment A operates.
-as for the walking into a shooting range analogy or walking on to the track during the indy 500, i don’t think these analogies makes much sense (although the indy 500 story was pretty funny). the problem i see with these analogies is that a shooting range’s primary purpose is firing weapons, the indy 500’s primary purpose is to race cars, but a restaurant/bar’s primary purpose is not to provide a place for people to smoke (their primary purpose is to sell food and drinks).
You’re not understanding what these references are meant to illustrate. JoeL keeps claiming that when he walks into a bar that he knows allows smoking that he is being assaulted by the smokers inside. He equates it to someone swinging their arms and blaming anyone who gets hit for wandering into the path. Both the shooting range and driving references are meant to illustrate that if one knowingly chooses to enter into the path of a potentially dangerous activity that he is FULLY AWARE is occuring, one can not claim to have been assaulted when that activity affects one.
-also i keep reading about how joe is being “assaulted” and many of you mocking him for using that term. well, here’s my input on the subject. i have read several cases on assault back in my torts class, and one of the cases (i can’t remember its name) actually involved an assault via smoke. a radio show host had a guest in studio who was protesting a tobacco company and the radio host continuously and intentionally blew smoke directly on the guest. the guest sued for assault and won. however, the judge was careful to point out that it only constituted assault (with respect to smoke) b/c the host INTENTIONALLY blew the smoke on a non-consenting guest. I don’t think that smoke lofting around in a bar would fall into this category.
You do understand that intent is the determining factor here, right? Not the act of smoking? If the person had spit harmless water or cola the decision would likely have been the same.
By Renee
July 14, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Actually, Kyle, that’s very similar to what I told Joe L. yesterday….that someone deliberately blowing smoke in another’s face could maybe, possibly, describe being assaulted, but just wafts of smoke, in a place that allows smoking, NO.
Okay cat discussion. My cat absolutely loves milk, but she can’t have it because soon after my house will be “assaulted” with her smells lol. My cat sleeps with my daughter, will sleep with me ONLY when my partner is not in the bed with me, and requires attention like a dog when you walk in.
By lozen
July 14, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Two priests were going to Hawaii on vacation and decided that they would make this a real vacation by not wearing anything that would identify them as clergy. As soon as the plane landed, they headed for a store and bought some really outrageous shorts, shirts, sandals, sunglasses, and etc. The next morning they went to the beach, dressed in their “tourist” garb and were sitting on beach chairs, enjoying a drink, the sunshine and the scenery when a “drop dead gorgeous” blonde in a tiny bikini came walking straight towards them. They couldn’t help but stare and when she passed them, she smiled and said, “Good morning, Father” - “Good morning, Father,” nodding and addressing each of them individually, then passed on by. They were both stunned. How in the world did she recognize them as priests? The next day they went back to the store, bought even more outrageous outfits-these were so loud, you could hear them before you even saw them-and again settled on the beach in their chairs to enjoy the sunshine, etc. After a while, the same gorgeous blonde, wearing a string bikini this time, came walking toward them again. (They were glad they had sunglasses, because their eyes were about to pop out of their heads.) Again, she approached them and greeted them individually: “Good morning, Father,” “Good morning Father,” and started to walk away. One of the priests couldn’t stand it and said. “Just a minute, young lady. Yes, we are priests, and proud of it, but I have to know, how in the world did YOU know?” “Oh, Father, don’t you recognize me? I’m Sister Angela!”
By lozen
July 14, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Mahatma Ghandi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet became quite thick and hard. He was quite a spiritual person. Even when he was not on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and became quite thin and frail. urthermore, due to his diet, he had bad breath… He came to be known as a super calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.”
By Netbanker
July 14, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Net -yeah, I should probably watch it again, be reminded of how dated both the movie AND the music now are. LOL Neither are dated…they’re classics! But you’ve got to marvel at how young Susan Sarandon looks. OMG! I can’t believe poor Penny Brown is having another relapse!! Let me get my checkbook….
After reading some of your comments I’m starting to feel glad that I no longer have cats…not that I don’t miss them, but with the hubby’s allergies we’ll be remaining a cat free household. The dog seems a lot less demanding…then again if I was a spoiled as she is and didn’t have to work I guess I wouldn’t be looking that gift horse in the mouth either.
By lozen
July 14, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
A website for all you cat people:
http://www.smileygram.com/funnyanimalvideos.com/catteasing/
By Mara
July 14, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
GOB My dog likes to catch her own throw-up in her mouth
Maybe she knows Jack’s dog’s “secret stew” recipe…LOL!!
RF - isn’t it amazing how a 12-lb cat can elongate until it completely takes up half a queen size bed? And you know what they say - dogs have owners, cats have staff :^)
Renee - Lucky you with the bed situation. I once woke up with all 3 of my fuzzy babies in bed with me…one on my head, one laying with his head on my throat while the other slowly cut off the circulation in my arm! But I love ‘em anyway. As for needing attention like a dog…nothing demands more attention than a cat who wants you to pay attention to it.
By lozen
July 14, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
A minister dies and is waiting in line at the Pearly Gates. Ahead of him is a guy who’s dressed in sunglasses, a loud shirt, leather jacket, and jeans. Saint Peter addresses this guy, “Who are you, so that I may know whether or not to admit you to the Kingdom of Heaven?” The guy replies, “I’m Joe Cohen, taxi driver, of Noo Yawk City.” St. Peter consults his list. He smiles and says to the taxi driver, “Take this silken robe and golden staff and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” The taxi driver goes into Heaven with his robe and staff, and it’s the minister’s turn. He stands erect and booms out, “I am Joseph Snow, pastor of Calvary for the last forty-three years.” St Peter consults his list. He says to the minister, “Take this cotton robe and wooden staff and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” “Just a minute,” says the minister. “That man was a taxi driver, and he gets a silken robe and golden staff. How can this be?” “Up here, we work by results,” says Saint Peter. “While you preached, people slept; while he drove, people prayed.”
By RF
July 14, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Mara- I read somewhere once that the cat could have been man’s best friend, but he’d never stoop to admit it. I just got blocked from blogging for a bit because my ten pound fur ball decided he wanted a nap, in my chair, on my lap. I didn’t have the heart to move him for an hour. Then, of course, the human children began arguing, so I had no choice!!LOL I don’t who’s more spoiled, the cats or my eight-year-old. I only turn over at night if the calico isn’t resting in the spot I wish to occupy. Man can she give you some dirty looks!
By Cody
July 14, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
While the computer programmer works at home he smokes and blows smoke rings into the air. His girlfriend gets irritated with the smoke and says to her lover: “Can’t you see the warning written on the cigarette packet, smoking is injurious to health!” He replies: “Darling, we don’t worry about warnings, we only worry about errors.”
By Netbanker
July 14, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you’re on a roll today! LMAO over Ghandi!!
By lozen
July 14, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Hey Chuck, “Do you think Noah did much fishing?”
By Jack
July 14, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Mara. One time my dog ate all of the cat skat out of the litter box and barfed it at my feet at 6:30 in the morning. What a way to start the day.
By lozen
July 14, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I have to tell you I’m losing money due to following your advice to put assets into emerging overseas markets! Lost money on everything last month, but the overseas funds did worse than the u.s. funds. Do you think this is going to turn around anytime soon?
By Sandy
July 14, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
lozen, Noah couldn’t do much fishing. He only had two worms.
By GOB
July 14, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
lozen, Noah couldn’t do much fishing. He only had two worms.
Maybe he used the dinosaur eggs as bait. That would explain why they went extinct.
By lozen
July 14, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
RF and Gob, this is for you
Questions you Hope your Pupils won’t Ask you
Why doesn’t glue stick to the inside of its bottle? Why are there flotation devices under plane seats instead of parachutes? Why are cigarettes sold in gas stations when smoking is prohibited there? Why do you need a driver’s license to buy liquor when you can’t drink and drive? Why is lemon juice mostly artificial ingredients but dishwashing liquid contains real lemons? If 7-11 is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, why are there locks on the doors? If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose? If nothing ever sticks to TEFLON, how do they make TEFLON stick to the pan? (and the cat people too) If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a height, what would happen? If you’re in a vehicle going the speed of light, what happens when you turn on the headlights? If it’s zero degrees outside today and it’s supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be? Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? How does the guy who drives the snowplow get to work in the mornings? You know how most packages say “Open here”? What is the protocol if the package says, “Open somewhere else”? You know that little indestructible black box that is used on planes? Why can’t they make the whole plane out of the same substance? What do you plant to grow a seedless watermelon? When sign makers go on strike, is anything written on their signs?
By Billy
July 14, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Why would Noah have needed to fish? The high oxygen content of the atmosphere at the time obviously could have sustained hihm for 40 days and 40 nights without food.
By Renee
July 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
What’s funny is when you pet the cat, the dog gets mad and she’s jumping up my leg a mile a minute trying to get her equal share of attention. Animals are defintely family!!
I won’t be on the blog the first part of the week. It’s the wifey’s birthday and I’m off work, so HOPEFULLY, we’ll be leaving town. But our luck has been so awful lately…who knows….
By Kyle
July 14, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
“Kyle - you seem to be missing the point. Given that there are non-smoking AND smoking restaurants, both smokers and non-smokers have options about where to go.”
John…not missing the point at all here. i know that there are non-smoking and smoking restaurants, and everybody has a place to eat. but smokers can go to either one (if they refrain from smoking for a few mins while eating), whereas most non-smokers are limited to only the non-smoking restaurants (they are limited b/c they don’t see the choice of sitting in a smoke filled room as much of a choice at all). just doesn’t seem fair that one class of people have a larger selection of what restaurant to go to than the other. also, as many of you guys have said, not many smokers in ga seem to mind - so what’s the big deal?
“Both the shooting range and driving references are meant to illustrate that if one knowingly chooses to enter into the path of a potentially dangerous activity that he is FULLY AWARE is occuring, one can not claim to have been assaulted when that activity affects one.”
-but in the case of smoking (unless your in an establishment whose primary purpose is to offer a location to smoke)one could ask the question of why that person has the right to partake in that potentially dangerous activity if that activity prevents others from enjoying or even attending the same location? what gives the smoker the right to stake claim to that location and effectively prevent others from coming there?
“You do understand that intent is the determining factor here, right? Not the act of smoking? If the person had spit harmless water or cola the decision would likely have been the same.”
uhhhh, yes. i understand that. that would be why i put INTENTIONAL in all caps and stated that smoke lofting in a bar wouldn’t seem to fall in this category (i.e. it wouldn’t be an assault) - and yes, renee, the case that i cited illustrates the point you made yesterday, i just felt like reiterating it for joe’s sake
By lozen
July 14, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Found a better one for the teachers out there:
You Might Be a Schoolteacher if…
you have no time for a life from August to June.
you want to slap the next person who says, “Must be nice to work from 8 to 3 and have your summers free!”
when out in public you feel the urge to talk to strange children and correct their behavior.
you refer to adults as “boys and girls.”
you encourage your spouse by telling them they are a “good helper.”
you’ve ever had your profession slammed by someone who would never dream of doing your job.
meeting a child’s parents instantly answers the question, “Why is this kid like this?”
you believe “extremely annoying” should have its own box on the report card.
you know a hundred good reasons for being late.
you don’t want children of your own because there isn’t a name you can hear that wouldn’t elevate your blood pressure.
By GOB
July 14, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
whereas most non-smokers are limited to only the non-smoking restaurants (they are limited b/c they don’t see the choice of sitting in a smoke filled room as much of a choice at all).
Whether they see it as a choice or not is irrelavent. They do in fact have a choice, and by not going to an establishment that allows smoking, they are choosing.
but in the case of smoking (unless your in an establishment whose primary purpose is to offer a location to smoke)one could ask the question of why that person has the right to partake in that potentially dangerous activity if that activity prevents others from enjoying or even attending the same location? what gives the smoker the right to stake claim to that location and effectively prevent others from coming there?
The law gives them the right to smoke in certain locations, given that certian criteria are met. There are many activities that we avoid on a daily basis because they are potentially dangerous. Do the people that do choose to partake in those activities have more rights than those who dont? Does someone who enjoys skydiving have more rights because he has more entertainment options than I do?
By The72John
July 14, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
*just doesn’t seem fair that one class of people have a larger selection of what restaurant to go to than the other. also, as many of you guys have said, not many smokers in ga seem to mind - so what’s the big deal? *
Freedom isn’t always fair. Is it fair to a jazz lover that there are more rock clubs?
what gives the smoker the right to stake claim to that location and effectively prevent others from coming there?
What gives the non-smoker the right to tell a business owner how to conduct his business? And frankly, I know MANY non-smokers who choose to frequent establishments where smoking is allowed because of music, dancing, whatever.
By Mara
July 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Kyle - …not many smokers in ga seem to mind - so what’s the big deal?
the big deal is that while we don’t complain (because we do see the justice of having areas that are completely non-smoking) those same folks we are trying to be sensitive to want to say that there is NO place for smokers EXCEPT being forced to stay home if we want a smoke with our cocktails. Simple fairness seems to dictate there should be some venues open to us.
By Chilao
July 14, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Mara. One time my dog ate all of the cat skat out of the litter box and barfed it at my feet at 6:30 in the morning. What a way to start the day.
and dogs are better than cats, WHY? LMAO No self-respecting cat would EVER be doing anything like that. A friend who has several dogs refers to the kitty box as ‘the hor’doeuvre tray’. and it is kept in a cat hotel(locked up).
Lozen - just when I was going to say “Lozen, step-away from the religious satire sites..LOL” you come thru with a teacher joke. Hilarious vid, btw. I really want to get my female a kitten to mother, now that her boyfriend is gone, I am just afraid she will kill it first. LOL
Net - yes, I thought of a very young Sarandon when I made that dated comment, but I figured I would keep my personal whatevas out of it. LOL Isn’t she in a cheerleader outfit at some point?
By Billy
July 14, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Kyle, I think the impasse we have is that several of us do not believe that the existence of smoke in any way prevents anyone at all from patronizing any place. The only place(s) in my town that I can recall as