Old 8th December 2002, 04:53   #41
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Avalon


Okay, you hate purfume, does it shave years off of your life? Seriously man.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same damn thing. Death is incidental. The principle is the same (the principle being, that I should be allowed to do what I damn well please on my own property, as long as I don't intentionally injure people [i.e. axe murderers need not apply]).

Quote:
Also, yes, you may "own" if you want to call is the land that the resturant "was" built, but that's not the argument, I'm talking about bars/resturants and "public" spaces, apartments are residential.
So what makes the difference between residential and commercial properties? If a father smokes, his kids get his secondhand smoke, right? As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference. A residential property is privately owned, as is a commercial one. So what if members of the public enter a commercial property? The property itself is not owned by the Public, so the Public cannot decide how it is run.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 04:55   #42
Avalon
Major Dude
 
Avalon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,123
Send a message via AIM to Avalon
Quote:
Originally posted by hestermofet


So what makes the difference between residential and commercial properties? If a father smokes, his kids get his secondhand smoke, right? As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference. A residential property is privately owned, as is a commercial one. So what if members of the public enter a commercial property? The property itself is not owned by the Public, so the Public cannot decide how it is run.
All I'm saying is this, if it is a place that the public vists, the city has a right to take into concern and act on an actual health risk and death cause that causes more deaths to people.
Avalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 04:59   #43
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
NO!

I own a house. I decide to let some friends stay over. They end up staying a couple weeks. They realize that that's caused me quite a bit of expense, so they pay me. I realize, "hey, I can make money off this!", so I let in any stranger who wants a place to stay, so long as they pay this. I'm basically running a hotel, BUT IT'S MY OWN PROPERTY. It's my house. Why should the government tell me how I can live in my own house.

Members of the public visit my hotel. The Public does not. These particular members of the public enter my establishment consensually. If they do not like how I run the place, they can leave. No one is forcing them to visit my particular establishment.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 07:37   #44
dirkdeftly
Forum King
 
dirkdeftly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cydonia, Mars
Posts: 2,651
Send a message via AIM to dirkdeftly
Actually, technically that's illegal, since you don't have a business license

For your house to be public, ANYONE must be able to walk in there at will and expect to be allowed to stay there for a reasonably indefinite amount of time. Bars are not fully public as a minor cannot enter a bar without an adult guardian. Nor is your house, because it is private property. And don't give me that bull about "But it's my house, I'll let people in!" You're only saying that for the sake of argument.

But it doesn't really matter, now does it? They're talking about specific places - probably restaurants, stores and the like. Places where everybody has the right to breathe healthy air. The fact remains, drinking in and of itself does not cause the people in the vicinity of the drinker any physical harm, nor do drugs (that aren't burnt, of course), nor do microwave ovens (unless you have a pacemaker), nor do cell phones (unless you're a paranoid anti-technological freak, in which case you wouldn't be using a cell phone in the first place). If I want to go down to a Denny's and half a waffle at 11:30 P.M. I should be able to do that without having to breath cigarette smoke. It's disgusting, foul, and unhealthy. Did I make the choice to smoke a cigarette? No, I didn't. So I shouldn't have to be breathing it.

"guilt is the cause of more disauders
than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings
dirkdeftly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 07:47   #45
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Why should Denny's be under obligation to provide you with clean air? Because smoking is disgusting, foul, and unhealthy? So are their sausages, but they're still allowed to serve them

(and yes, my example would be illegal, but it illustrates a point)

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 08:13   #46
dirkdeftly
Forum King
 
dirkdeftly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cydonia, Mars
Posts: 2,651
Send a message via AIM to dirkdeftly
Except...no. Because it's illegal.

Denny's was an example. Take another restaurant and use that in it's place. In any case, they're a restaurant and they're there to serve food. I go there to eat food. Not to breathe cigarette smoke. I could catch cancer there - perhaps they should give you a warning from the Surgeon General when you walk in? No, they shouldn't; their profits would plummet faster then you can say 'emphysema.' So what should they do? The least we ask is that you hold of your disgusting habit for the 45 mins to an hour so that the sensible portion of the populus can breathe easily.

Oh, and I've got a question for you: If it's bad for a minor to smoke a cigarette, then why is it perfectly okay with you that minors can breathe second hand smoke?

"guilt is the cause of more disauders
than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings
dirkdeftly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 08:40   #47
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
Denny's was an example. Take another restaurant and use that in it's place. In any case, they're a restaurant and they're there to serve food. I go there to eat food. Not to breathe cigarette smoke.
Isn't it possible that part of the atmosphere of an establishment is cigarette smoke? Ever been to a pool hall? A pub? It's not just about food.

Quote:
I could catch cancer there - perhaps they should give you a warning from the Surgeon General when you walk in? No, they shouldn't; their profits would plummet faster then you can say 'emphysema.' So what should they do? The least we ask is that you hold of your disgusting habit for the 45 mins to an hour so that the sensible portion of the populus can breathe easily.
That decision should be up to the owner of the business to make, not the Government's. If he/she feels that allowing smoking will cut too far into profits, he/she can decide to not allow smoking on their premises.

Quote:
Oh, and I've got a question for you: If it's bad for a minor to smoke a cigarette, then why is it perfectly okay with you that minors can breathe second hand smoke?
I'm not exactly sure it's a bad thing. We allow McDonald's to target 4 year olds, so why not Rothman's? The obsession with preventing cigarette advertising being targeted to youth has ruined many great cultural events. In Canada, for example, Toronto no longer holds to Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire-- an event in which symphony's around the world play a piece synchronized with a pyrotechnics display. All because we don't want our precious kids to fall into the clutches of the Big Bad Tobacco Companies. The very next day, we hand them a 10 spot, and tell them to buy a Big Mac for lunch.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 08:52   #48
dirkdeftly
Forum King
 
dirkdeftly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cydonia, Mars
Posts: 2,651
Send a message via AIM to dirkdeftly
You really are a moron, aren't you? A restaurant IS just about the food. That's why it's a restaurant! A pub/bar is about drinking and/or smoking and/or food. It's not the same thing. You'll notice that they don't ban smoking in pubs/bars for that reason.

You keep exaggerating things like this. Four or five Big Macs won't kill you. Four of five cigarettes can. Quite frankly, I'm appalled at the amount of parents who send their kids out to get fast food burgers for lunch, and let them drink sodas for breakfast, etc. It's just plain irresponsible. But not quite as irresponsible as allowing minors to smoke. It's the same with drinking: their body's are smaller, so there's less room for smoke/alcohol to take up. And just to catch you once again before you start ranting: It's a whole lot easier just to put a label, such as the age of 18, on people than to test everybody to see how much alcohol their body can take and then declare them a minor or an adult. And, if you think that means the government is slacking off, then you go out and you see if you can do that, okay? Thanks.

"guilt is the cause of more disauders
than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings
dirkdeftly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 09:01   #49
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
You really are a moron, aren't you?
Way to win an argument.







You don't deserve a reply.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 09:22   #50
PhotoFx
Major Dude
 
PhotoFx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South for the winter.
Posts: 840
Send a message via AIM to PhotoFx
in an attempt to try and calm things down...

i agree with hester in principle, banning a personal choice (however moronic) cannot possibly be benificial in the long run. if we were to ban or limit all the unintentional causes of people killing other people, we would have to ban many of the "conveniences" of modern life. we would need to ban alchohol, and cars, because drunks can be belligerent, and cause the death of someone, and people can get sleepy, or stop paying attention, and cause the death of an innocent bystander, it's called vehicular manslaughter.

and, to be reasonable, i don't think smoking 5 ciggarettes is going to have much more of a damaging effect than eating 5 big macs. if nothing else, the big macs encourage you to keep eating (they're not all that bad tasting), and from what i hear, smoking for hte first time really isn't the most pleasant thing in the world.

that being said, if a place wants my business, a good way to go is to not allow smoking.

PhotoFx -[=]-"Visual forms are not inherent in themselves, but are granted by the act of seeing..." -Trevor Goodchild
PhotoFx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 12:06   #51
c2R
Stereotype?
(Forum King)
 
c2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ware, England
Posts: 3,511
Firstly, pubs and bars *are* public places - pub is short for "public house"; anyone is welcome in.

However, banning smoking would be the thin end of the wedge. Pressure should be put on manufacturers to create non-addictive cigarettes gradually, which would possibly make less people smoke.

There's a McDonalds opened in town. Horrible kids hang around outside, rubbish is dropped everywhere, and chewing gum too. They've already "accidently" dumped gallons of cooking fat and the like into the sewers, causing more of a rat problem. It also creates an all-pervasive offensive smell, and the "food" they serve is basically a heart-attack in a bun.

I say we ban McDonalds. You might as well ban alcohol from the pub as well, really, as it causes people to become violent and sick everywhere.


Sorry, but I witnessed the closure of many of the local country pubs in the decade after the breathylizer was introduced, as people could no longer drive to them for a night out. Many others were forced to turn into hotels and restaurants. If smoking was banned too, you'd alienate a great deal of the people that actually go to the remaining pubs, which would then close.

And then what about the pesticides and stuff they spray on the crops. It can't be good to breathe that in - why not ban it too. Then crop yields would decrease leading perhaps to famine, or an increase in imports from abroad.

The Norwegians and other countries considering such a ban need to take a reality check here... as I said before, the cigarette manufacturers need to be forced to change the cigarettes to make them less addictive. This will only be possible with government legislation - but then again, who would bite of the arm that feeds it? Think of the revenue gained by the government from tobacco sales...
c2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 17:30   #52
Aquila Blue
Major Dude
 
Aquila Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Digital World
Posts: 908
I am glad that there is going to be total ban on smoking in public places. In my opinion smoking is a disgusting habit that meerly burns your money, makes you smell bad, and can cause cancer and various other diseases.

Some people seem to be really up in arms about banning smoking in restaurants and bars. However, there have been smoking bans for years on offices and workplaces. It's important to keep in mind that a bar and a restaurant is also someone's work place. I don't think those employees should be subjected to someone's second hand smoke anymore than a bank teller should get smoke blown in their faces by the person they are serving at the moment.

Frankly, I really miss the total restuarant smoking ban that is in place in the major cities of Canada. In London, there are still smoking sections, and it's very annoying. Yesterday, my friend and I had to go to a few different restaurants until we found one with room in their non-smoking section. Before the total smoking ban on restaurants in some cities in Canada, I found that whenever a restaurant is busy, it's always the non-smoking section that was either full or had a long waiting list. I think that says something too. Afterall, if you were to go to an expensive restaurant, would you really want your meal to be ruined by someone else's air pollutants? I am all for total smoking bans.

Here's another interesting stat to mull over, in the UK, the incidence (number of new cases per year) of lung cancer is around 40,000. However, at any given time, there are only about 20,000 people who have the disease. Basically it means you die pretty quickly once you get it.


Aquila Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 19:23   #53
dirkdeftly
Forum King
 
dirkdeftly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cydonia, Mars
Posts: 2,651
Send a message via AIM to dirkdeftly
"You don't deserve a reply."

Having trouble thinking of more twistedly exaggerated 'examples' of why everyone should be able to kill themselves and the people in their vicinity at the same time?
Personally I think it's disgusting that so many people are dying from lung cancer when they've never smoked a cigarette in their life. But no, that's fine, it was their fault for being around smokers, wasn't it?

c2r: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that (I assume you mean minors as well). However, over here in good ole' "Let's bomb somebody!" America, minors are not allowed into bars, so bars aren't fully public

"guilt is the cause of more disauders
than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings
dirkdeftly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 19:27   #54
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
c2r: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that (I assume you mean minors as well). However, over here in good ole' "Let's bomb somebody!" America, minors are not allowed into bars, so bars aren't fully public
pubs are 18+, or 16+ with parent/guardian, clubs are strictly 18 or 21+. bars are *strictly* over 18s over - if there is a family part, it has to be separated. people are (by law) adults at the age of 18 here, rather than 21 (which i believe it is in the US). of course, you do get places which are a whole area with a bar at one side - the drink can be taken throughout the premises...

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 19:38   #55
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
"You don't deserve a reply."

Having trouble thinking of more twistedly exaggerated 'examples' of why everyone should be able to kill themselves and the people in their vicinity at the same time?
You can't go around calling people morons just because you disagree with them

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 19:52   #56
PhotoFx
Major Dude
 
PhotoFx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South for the winter.
Posts: 840
Send a message via AIM to PhotoFx
i think the polite thing to do at this point would be to ignore each other.

aquila, i agree with you, but still, it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it. if that means allowing non-smoking employees to sue the owner for health costs (as much as i'm against giving people an excuse to take money from each other for trivial causes (yes, i know health is not trivial)), then so be it. but i refer to my earlier examples as well. there are other causes for death from other people, smoking is not the only example. and if we're to ban one, it's only fitting to ban the others... .

PhotoFx -[=]-"Visual forms are not inherent in themselves, but are granted by the act of seeing..." -Trevor Goodchild
PhotoFx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 20:27   #57
Aquila Blue
Major Dude
 
Aquila Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Digital World
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally posted by PhotoFx

aquila, i agree with you, but still, it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it.
but by that same logic, then it should be up to the CEO of companies to decide whether some of their employees should be allowed to puff away in their cube and bother the rest of their workers, but the regulation of smoking in office buildings does not work that way. I know it is a bit different with bars and restaurants since it is some of the clients that are the offenders, however, I think that as long as every place does it and the ban in enforced, no venue will lose business. They actually may see an increase in business. I am slightly allergic to cigarette smoke and I tend to avoid smoky pubs and bars because it the smokes makes it hard to breath, chokes me up and in general brings the quality of my time way down. If these venues were non-smoking, I'd probably go more often. I'm sure some other non-smokers feel the same way I do. Plus, it would be really nice to not have my clothes stink the next day.


Aquila Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 20:55   #58
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by PhotoFx
it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it. if that means allowing non-smoking employees to sue the owner for health costs (as much as i'm against giving people an excuse to take money from each other for trivial causes (yes, i know health is not trivial)), then so be it.

Exactly. If people are so against smoking in business establishments, marketplace forces will ensure that business-owners stop allowing smoking in their premises. If enough people avoid a business because of it's smoky atmosphere, the business-owner will take a big profit hit, and will have to reevaluate how he's running his establishment. If, however, a business-owner decides to allow smoking in her business, that should be her right.

Quote:
but i refer to my earlier examples as well. there are other causes for death from other people, smoking is not the only example. and if we're to ban one, it's only fitting to ban the others... .
Exactly, again. Like I've said previously, banning smoking on private property is indicative of a greater trend towards prohibitive legislation.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 21:17   #59
Aquila Blue
Major Dude
 
Aquila Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Digital World
Posts: 908
however, by your reasoning, everything on the premesis of say a privately owned factory or privately owned restaurant should be completely up to the owner. However, that would be very foolish. There are occupational health and safety laws that are drawn up by governments and enforced in every workplace, as there should be. Otherwise, owners could save costs by having shoddy safety equipment (if they chose to provide any at all) and put their employee at risk in numerous other ways, just because they chose to and don't think that they should be bothered with things like occupational safety. I know you can argue that they do it because otherwise they'd get sued when accidents occur and lose manhours due to workplace related illness, but that's not the main reason safety issues are enforced, it's because there is legislation saying that they have to.

With smoking, it's not exactly the same issue, but it can still be considered a workplace health and safety issue. Sure the effects are not as direct as having a steel bar fall on your head and crush you, but smoking is a hazard that does effect your health. Also the cost of the government and health insurance companies after you get lung cancer is incredibly high. Much better to try to stop it in the first place. If you want to think of it in grim terms as death, it would probably be faster and less painful to be crushed by a piece of heavy machinery then to suffer the pain of lung cancer.


Aquila Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 21:26   #60
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by hestermofet
Exactly, again. Like I've said previously, banning smoking on private property is indicative of a greater trend towards prohibitive legislation.
...which is why i'm not in favour of it - smoking in public is, however, a nuisance to the public in general, and if the majority of people do not, and if a ban is generally acceptable, i see no reason not to ban it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 21:43   #61
henry3k56
Forum King
 
henry3k56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion
Posts: 4,241
Good! No more nasty smoking which is gross. There are certain liberties of having clean, good, filtered, smokefree air. With doing so of those personal liberties you're inhaling bad air caused because of some stupid person which cares mostly on smoking his/hers putrid smell of cigarrette smoke and ashes inside his/her lungs.

If I had it my way, genetically create a disease that will only kill Tobacco Leaves, and any other substance abuse plants that are used to produce harmful drugs to eventually stop all these bad drugs.

henry3k56 | Summer is here.
My Flickr Page & Frontierra | Posting Since September 2001.
henry3k56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 21:48   #62
Aquila Blue
Major Dude
 
Aquila Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Digital World
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally posted by henry3k56

If I had it my way, genetically create a disease that will only kill Tobacco Leaves, and any other substance abuse plants that are used to produce harmful drugs to eventually stop all these bad drugs.
hmmmm, we could do something with the Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) I bet... I think this calls for a collaboration henry, but I get first author on the paper


Aquila Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 22:04   #63
eleet-2k2
Forum King
 
eleet-2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mobil Ave.
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally posted by hestermofet
It's indicative of a larger trend... a political culture where it's ok to take away guns, the right to discipline your kids, and so forth. A populace of happy, fat and stupid people. Next, we'll have some stupid law forbidding smoking within 50 feet of children, even if it's your own home.

The nerve, of telling how business-owners how to run their own establishments.
I disagree.

Guns --> you can own them as long as proper procedures are followed to keep them away from children, and a thourough screen process to apply for a liscence

Disciplining kids --> gov't should stay the fuck outta that cuz it's private (unless you beat your kid savagely, then you should be placed in a burlap sack, rolled down a steep, rocky hill, then beaten yourself for at least an hout, and then jailed for a while till you get the help and anger management you need.)

Happy people are good. fat a stupid people? Firstly, that's America (by far and no offense to my American friends). Also I find it hard to believe that because of this supposed culture that it will make people stupid, and bring children up stupid for that matter. I believe computers and television are the cause for stupidity in most cases.

In regards to your comment about smoking with children's proximity, I doubt those laws will be passed, if they are created. I know that around hospitals, it's illegal to smoke within 10 metres of all entrances (or the main entrances, not sure).

Finally, I think the government has the right to tell you that you cant let people smoke in your establishments (unless you have a specific section completely enclosed from the non-smoking patrons (like a private room) and it must be well ventilated. There is no problem with this since smoking affects everyone's health. If you want to smoke, go outside.

"Welcome to the Island of people who know too much."..."Did you really think balloons would stop him?!"
See what I'm listening too.
eleet-2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 23:14   #64
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
I know you can argue that they do it because otherwise they'd get sued when accidents occur and lose manhours due to workplace related illness, but that's not the main reason safety issues are enforced, it's because there is legislation saying that they have to.
And I will. It's not the government's place to enforce a set of rules on an industry of which it has no knowledge about. It should leave business alone.

Market forces will ensure worker safety. Unionized labor plays a part in this; if a business is too unsafe, the workers can organize, and affect change. The desires of the workers, and of the employers will meet, and a compromise will be made. No parties will get everything they want, but all parties will be satisfied, because they will reach the Nash Equilibrium.

A great explanation was given in the movie A Beautiful Mind. There are three guys in a bar, and they are all pining for the same blond. They won't get her, though, because their interests conflict (obviously). Instead, they set their sights a bit lower, and each walks out that night with a brunette.

If the Government intervenes, however, and tries to establish a set of guidelines regarding something such as worker safety, the compromise will be artificial. None of the parties agreed to the guidelines; they were dictated to them.

<edit=as an after thought>
Besides, if someone is killed or injured as a result of a work-related accident, in addition to being sued, the business can be charged with criminal negligence. Why create new laws when sufficient ones already exist?</edit>

As for something which directly affects members of the public, such as kitchen cleanliness, again, market forces will ensure that a standard suitable to the demand of the public is met. In a truly competitive business environment, information is free. Consumers can freely find out how clean or dirty a kitchen is. They will then avoid restaurants they deem dirty, and patronize ones they feel are clean enough. "Dirty" restaurants will be forced to clean up, or else face a continual loss of customers.


So that's just really a long-winded way of saying that no, I don't support Government imposed worker safety guidelines either. The government should only intervene when neither side in a labor negotiation can agree, and only in a role of arbitration.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2002, 23:15   #65
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm

...which is why i'm not in favour of it - smoking in public is, however, a nuisance to the public in general, and if the majority of people do not, and if a ban is generally acceptable, i see no reason not to ban it.
If the majority of the public does not want a smoking environment, businesses will be forced to respond to this demand, or lose revenue. The Government doesn't need to make this choice for businesses.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 01:26   #66
henry3k56
Forum King
 
henry3k56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion
Posts: 4,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquila Blue


hmmmm, we could do something with the Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) I bet... I think this calls for a collaboration henry, but I get first author on the paper
ok,
I'll take care of the nice copyright ownership then.

But if any reprecussions happen to occur because of this idea. Lets blame someone else, and we'll help attempt to fix it.

henry3k56 | Summer is here.
My Flickr Page & Frontierra | Posting Since September 2001.
henry3k56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 06:16   #67
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
hestermofet: Drinking in small amounts is good for you. Getting drunk occasionally is probably good for you in a sense because it reminds you not to get drunk so much. It's only drinking constantly that kills you.
Drinking is never good for you. One of the dyes in red wine is good for you, but you can buy that as a dietary supplement. Alcohol is a poison.

Getting drunk "because it reminds you not to get drunk so much" is just stupid. Rat poison probably makes me sick. I should go eat some to remind me about that.

Only drinking constantly kills you? I'm pretty sure that alcohol poison causes real death. Regardless, one cigarette will not kill you. Neither will an occassional exposure to second-hand smoke.

Quote:
Originally posted by Avalon
Okay, you hate purfume, does it shave years off of your life? Seriously man.

Also, yes, you may "own" if you want to call is the land that the resturant "was" built, but that's not the argument, I'm talking about bars/resturants and "public" spaces, apartments are residential.
1. Perfume lowers my quality of life. I'd testify to that in court. Quality of life is more important than the length of life. Any decent doctor will tell you that.

2. Bars/restaurants are NOT public places. Privately owned. Did you see the word. You know the one. Private.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
Actually, technically that's illegal, since you don't have a business license
Exactly. So the government gets to strong arm businesses into agreeing with their beliefs. You can't open a business unless you agree to refuse to let people smoke. What about when the government requires businesses to log everyone who enters and exits. (it's going to happen, eventually) are you going to stand by and say "it's a public place", like that's some sort of justification?

Quote:
For your house to be public, ANYONE must be able to walk in there at will and expect to be allowed to stay there for a reasonably indefinite amount of time. Bars are not fully public as a minor cannot enter a bar without an adult guardian. Nor is your house, because it is private property. And don't give me that bull about "But it's my house, I'll let people in!" You're only saying that for the sake of argument.
Anyone who walks into a bar, restaurant, or store does so willingly. Maybe I will just let people in. Does the fact that I'm "only saying it" affect the validity of the argument?

Quote:
Originally posted by Atero
Four or five Big Macs won't kill you. Four of five cigarettes can.
Quote:
Someone once said:
You really are a moron, aren't you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquila Blue
but by that same logic, then it should be up to the CEO of companies to decide whether some of their employees should be allowed to puff away in their cube and bother the rest of their workers, but the regulation of smoking in office buildings does not work that way.
That's completely different. People have to work if they aren't going to sponge off the government. People don't have to go to bars, and they certainly don't have to go to bars that allow smoking. It's a choice. Working isn't really a choice.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 09:15   #68
Aquila Blue
Major Dude
 
Aquila Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Digital World
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George

That's completely different. People have to work if they aren't going to sponge off the government. People don't have to go to bars, and they certainly don't have to go to bars that allow smoking. It's a choice. Working isn't really a choice.
It's not. I'm not talking about the clientel here, I'm talking about the people who have to work in the bars and restaurants, the people who are the waiters who have to wade into smoke enclosed rooms, the bartenders who have to deal with customers blowing smoke in their faces, all because they have to work. True, working isn't a choice, and these employees should not have to work in an environment that is harzardous to their health. I'm pretty sure the legislation is not totally for public benefit, but it falls under occupational health and safety to protect the workers in these environments.

Another thing is that I don't believe that companies will self-regulate themselves when it comes to occupational health and safety. There is quite a high unemployment pool in many industralized countries as long as the job does not require very skilled labour, there will always be a work force that is willing to not ask questions and accept shoddy safety standards simply because they want to work. A person on an assembly line in some factory is probably not likely to make a big stink about conditions since he knows there are 10 people waiting to take over his job. Companies aren't going to self-regulate themselves if they know they have pretty much a steady stream of people who are willing to work in hazardous conditions meerly so they can work, regardless of the risk. That's why governments need to step in and regulate workplace safety.



Last edited by Aquila Blue; 9th December 2002 at 09:35.
Aquila Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 09:40   #69
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquila Blue
A person on an assembly line in some factory is probably not likely to make a big stink about conditions since he knows there are 10 people waiting to take over his job.
Exactly, and that's where unionized labor comes in. Don't underestimate the ability of organized workers to affect change. The bulk of progress in the terms of worker conditions in the past two centuries were the result of union action, not government intervention.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 10:05   #70
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquila Blue
It's not. I'm not talking about the clientel here, I'm talking about the people who have to work in the bars and restaurants, the people who are the waiters who have to wade into smoke enclosed rooms, the bartenders who have to deal with customers blowing smoke in their faces, all because they have to work. True, working isn't a choice, and these employees should not have to work in an environment that is harzardous to their health. I'm pretty sure the legislation is not totally for public benefit, but it falls under occupational health and safety to protect the workers in these environments.
I misunderstood your point. That's a valid argument, and I'm not really sure how to respond. Maybe something will occur to me later.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 10:13   #71
hestermofet
Major Dude
 
hestermofet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,763
Unionized labor

If workers are so against it, they can take action. Strike, peaceful negotiations, whatever. By enacting legislation, though, even working environments in which the employers and employees both decide that they are ok with smoke are forced to make a smoke-free business.

although, personally, I consider it an occupational hazard.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.
hestermofet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2002, 10:48   #72
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by hestermofet
although, personally, I consider it an occupational hazard.
Also a valid point.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump