|
|
#201
07-02-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if bans were to be lifted, and then virtually every restaurant and bar over time reverted to a "Smoking Allowed" policy, to the point that there was nowhere you could go for dinner or a bar evening without being assaulted by cigarette smoke, would you not agree that the smokers would be offering the rest of the public a coercive choice? [/ QUOTE ] I would not agree with that. Where's the coercion? I own this restaurant, and I allow smoking here, you're welcome to come if you want, or stay away if you don't. Even if I say no non-smokers allowed, I'm not coercing anyone, it's my restaurant, I can let in whomever I want. [/ QUOTE ] As far as I know, there aren't currently any restaurants where I am allowed to masturbate while I eat. Are the non-masturbaters offering me a coercive choice? Shouldn't I be provided with at least 50% of the restaurants to choose from for my masturbatory pleasure? Government intervention plzkthx. [/ QUOTE ] But that's "different". AMIRITE? 
|
|
#202
07-02-2007, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if bans were to be lifted, and then virtually every restaurant and bar over time reverted to a "Smoking Allowed" policy, to the point that there was nowhere you could go for dinner or a bar evening without being assaulted by cigarette smoke, would you not agree that the smokers would be offering the rest of the public a coercive choice? [/ QUOTE ] I would not agree with that. Where's the coercion? I own this restaurant, and I allow smoking here, you're welcome to come if you want, or stay away if you don't. Even if I say no non-smokers allowed, I'm not coercing anyone, it's my restaurant, I can let in whomever I want. [/ QUOTE ] The SMOKERS, not the owner, are the ones coercing the non-smokers to stay away from the establishment that allows both smokers and non-smokers to enter and be served. Stay away or be poisoned, that is.
|
|
#203
07-02-2007, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if bans were to be lifted, and then virtually every restaurant and bar over time reverted to a "Smoking Allowed" policy, to the point that there was nowhere you could go for dinner or a bar evening without being assaulted by cigarette smoke, would you not agree that the smokers would be offering the rest of the public a coercive choice? [/ QUOTE ] I would not agree with that. Where's the coercion? I own this restaurant, and I allow smoking here, you're welcome to come if you want, or stay away if you don't. Even if I say no non-smokers allowed, I'm not coercing anyone, it's my restaurant, I can let in whomever I want. [/ QUOTE ] The SMOKERS, not the owner, are the ones coercing the non-smokers to stay away from the establishment that allows both smokers and non-smokers to enter and be served. Stay away or be poisoned, that is. [/ QUOTE ] No, they aren't. The owner is. I've made this point twice now. The smokers cant do anything without the permission of the owner. It is the owner who is responsible for all on his property. But it isn't coercion.
|
|
#204
07-02-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if bans were to be lifted, and then virtually every restaurant and bar over time reverted to a "Smoking Allowed" policy, to the point that there was nowhere you could go for dinner or a bar evening without being assaulted by cigarette smoke, would you not agree that the smokers would be offering the rest of the public a coercive choice? [/ QUOTE ] I would not agree with that. Where's the coercion? I own this restaurant, and I allow smoking here, you're welcome to come if you want, or stay away if you don't. Even if I say no non-smokers allowed, I'm not coercing anyone, it's my restaurant, I can let in whomever I want. [/ QUOTE ] The SMOKERS, not the owner, are the ones coercing the non-smokers to stay away from the establishment that allows both smokers and non-smokers to enter and be served. Stay away or be poisoned, that is. [/ QUOTE ] No, they aren't. The owner is. I've made this point twice now. The smokers cant do anything without the permission of the owner. It is the owner who is responsible for all on his property. But it isn't coercion. [/ QUOTE ] It's kind of like how someone at the door making you pay to get in is coercing you if and only if he has no permission from the owner. If he has it he's a doorman, if not he's an aggressive thug.
|
|
#205
07-02-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if bans were to be lifted, and then virtually every restaurant and bar over time reverted to a "Smoking Allowed" policy, to the point that there was nowhere you could go for dinner or a bar evening without being assaulted by cigarette smoke, would you not agree that the smokers would be offering the rest of the public a coercive choice? [/ QUOTE ] I would not agree with that. Where's the coercion? I own this restaurant, and I allow smoking here, you're welcome to come if you want, or stay away if you don't. Even if I say no non-smokers allowed, I'm not coercing anyone, it's my restaurant, I can let in whomever I want. [/ QUOTE ] The SMOKERS, not the owner, are the ones coercing the non-smokers to stay away from the establishment that allows both smokers and non-smokers to enter and be served. Stay away or be poisoned, that is. [/ QUOTE ] No, they aren't. The owner is. I've made this point twice now. The smokers cant do anything without the permission of the owner. It is the owner who is responsible for all on his property. But it isn't coercion. [/ QUOTE ] It's kind of like how someone at the door making you pay to get in is coercing you if and only if he has no permission from the owner. If he has it he's a doorman, if not he's an aggressive thug. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly.
|
|
#206
07-03-2007, 07:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
I am a smoker. I think smoking bans are really a sensible thing to do. They do respect the freedom of all to breathe clean air. Of course, in you own house you can do whatever you want, provided you don't have children. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] PS I smoke in my house, fwiw. PPS I am sure I am not the only smoker that thinks this way. [/ QUOTE ] I smoke too. I don't really mind the bans. occasionally it would be nice to light up a smoke after a meal in a restaraunt. but i don't mind going outside. i don't smoke in my house. and i try to stay as far away as possible from my pregnant wife. what i don't like is the law that dictates how far away from a building's entrance i must be before lighting up. where i work, we're talking about being forced to smoke in 100+ degrees vs. in the relatively cooler shade. and not right next to the door, either. i do disagree with the ban on principle, though. i strongly agree that the market should bear out which establishments should be smoking and which should be non. obviously it will be a choice for the owner, but it should be a business decision, and not a forced mandate. if a restaraunt owner decides he will make more money by not allowing smoking in his restaraunt, no problem. that's his decision. smokers who just can't hang will have to go elsewhere. on the flip side, a bar owner may decide that he'd rather keep the smokers happy and risk losing the soccer mom's night out club, that's his decision. the people who can't hand with the smoke will go elsewhere. problem solved. also, wasn't it not too long ago that most restaraunts had a non-smoking and smoking section? what was the problem with that? too many soccer moms complaining when there were no seats available in non? i would always choose 'smoking' when dining out with smoker friends. we had no problems. likewise, eating with family where i am the only smoker, i had no problem sitting in the non-smoking section and waiting until i was outside to light up. people getting so uptight about it is the real problem.
|
|
#207
07-03-2007, 10:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
also, wasn't it not too long ago that most restaraunts had a non-smoking and smoking section? what was the problem with that? [/ QUOTE ] Actually I don't mind such a thing in most cases and think it could be a solution in many. The purported problem is that the secondhand smoke spreads and still causes health damage even in less noticeable concentrations.
|
|
#208
07-03-2007, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
"what i don't like is the law that dictates how far away from a building's entrance i must be before lighting up. where i work, we're talking about being forced to smoke in 100+ degrees vs. in the relatively cooler shade. and not right next to the door, either."
The problem, especially in New York, was that there were so many smokers lined up immediately outside a building's entrance that you had to run a gantlet half a block long surrounded by smoke. It was almost as bad as the smoking rooms at McCarren, which, btw, have been shut down.
|
|
#209
07-04-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
The problem, especially in New York, was that there were so many smokers lined up immediately outside a building's entrance [/ QUOTE ] Yeah the NYC smoking ban is a prime example of jackassery coming back to bite do gooders. sidewalks outside of bars and restaurants are now packed with smokers who should be inside. Bars cant sell drinks to people on the curb so they loose. And now there are hordes of drunks talking, screaming, yacking and screwing around under your window all night long. in many areas you just about have to walk into traffic to get around the crowd. WTG NYC !!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
