ClumsyMonkey.net

Actually, there are laws against that kind of thing in public places without licenses and whatnot (at least, that's my impression).

Anyways, here's what it comes down to. There are two options.

a. Force smokers to smoke outside of the establishment
b. Force non-smokers to find other establishments

And, since smokers choose to smoke, choice b is being taken. Smokers are now expected to accept the fact that there are limits as to where they can smoke.

why should we cater to the needs of non-smokes, if you don't like it go somewhere else

its like coming into my restaurant and saying you don't like the food , so you put up a vote to make me change it

Still missing the point. You are choosing to go to the smoke filled environment. If you go to a concert, and it's very loud, are you going to start a petition to remove half the speakers? No. You are accepting the risk because you get some benefit. Same thing with entering a business where smoking is allowed.

BloodRayn wrote:i go to the bars/restaurants alot and i dont ever hear anyone complain about the smoke

and its a different story with dry counties/cities

for one thing, people move there/live there because they like that. you're trying to force people who do smoke into something. no one forced those people who live in dry counties/cities to do that, they did it of their own accord. its a completely different thing and cannot be compared.

it's not different. all of a sudden out of the blue they pull these amendments out and the people vote on it. if it just so happens that the MAJORITY of the people want a dry county, then everyone else is inconvienced. that's your problem, the majority are making you do something. you think a guy who has a home that his great grandfather built in a certain county is gonna pack up and leave because this charter or amendment is affecting his alcoholic behavior. NO! he'll end up crossing lines to get his booze.

crossing county lines and city limits is far less inconvienient then stepping outside for a cigarette. more then likely bars and restraunts will built outdoor patios and balconies to accomodate peoples smoking tendancies. and they'll have a big ass sign on the door that reads "you come out here your prone to be around a cigarette"

smokers are just whiney, drinkers are more socially accepted then smokers because if the barkeep tells the drunk to leave or stop drinking, he'll leave. if he tells a smoker to leave or stop smoking here comes the bitching and the cussing and the arguments.

Bandalero wrote:it's not different. all of a sudden out of the blue they pull these amendments out and the people vote on it. if it just so happens that the MAJORITY of the people want a dry county, then everyone else is inconvienced. that's your problem, the majority are making you do something. you think a guy who has a home that his great grandfather built in a certain county is gonna pack up and leave because this charter or amendment is affecting his alcoholic behavior. NO! he'll end up crossing lines to get his booze.

Again, these kind of amendments are actually fought against. And I don't know what your point is anyway.

crossing county lines and city limits is far less inconvienient then stepping outside for a cigarette. more then likely bars and restraunts will built outdoor patios and balconies to accomodate peoples smoking tendancies. and they'll have a big ass sign on the door that reads "you come out here your prone to be around a cigarette"

And then you'll be pissed because it's a nice spring day, and you want to sit on the patio, but there's someone smoking.
Or you'll be pissed because someone's smoking right outside the door and you have to walk through it to get into the building.

Or you'll be pissed because next the start making laws that affect what you can and cannot do in your own house, in clear violation of Right to Privacy.

smokers are just whiney, drinkers are more socially accepted then smokers because if the barkeep tells the drunk to leave or stop drinking, he'll leave. if he tells a smoker to leave or stop smoking here comes the bitching and the cussing and the arguments.

You have never been in a bar before, have you. Drunks are not kind hearted people who do whatever they're told. I can't even believe you posted this.

are you fucking retarded?

if a barkeep asks a drunk guy to leave, THEY are the ones who argue. and besides, you're not even taking a look at the costs to the owners to build these outdoor patios. and what about winter? we all don't live in eternally summer areas.

and no, most of those counties/cities that are dry have been so since they were founded. they didn't just decide one day to make it like that. and it IS a different story.

and we (the smokers) are the whiners? as far as i see, the people who are trying to ban the smoking are the whiners. you're the ones crying about how second hand smoke is killin you. it really isn't. your lungs regenerate so quickly it doesn't even affect you.

Narbus wrote:

crossing county lines and city limits is far less inconvienient then stepping outside for a cigarette. more then likely bars and restraunts will built outdoor patios and balconies to accomodate peoples smoking tendancies. and they'll have a big ass sign on the door that reads "you come out here your prone to be around a cigarette"

And then you'll be pissed because it's a nice spring day, and you want to sit on the patio, but there's someone smoking.
Or you'll be pissed because someone's smoking right outside the door and you have to walk through it to get into the building.

the bar, if run properly, would WANT to cater to all its patrons
it only makes business sense
not everyone who goes to a bar wants to be subjected to second hand smoke.. therefore have a patio or a floor where one can smoke freely and another area for everyone to enjoy..

the point is they should just leave it alone
its not a problem

people need to focus on something else

like working on cancer or some shit

christ

Yeah, but there are certain financial considerations to be had. Throw in the fact that most bars are packed to the gils come friday and saturday, regardless of the amount of secondhand smoke, and it doesn't make any financial sense to buy a lot of crap and install a special area for folks that's useless 4-5 months out of the year thanks to snow.

The bar, if run properly, would WANT to make money. And that's what they do.

yea exactly, you're forcing a bar or restaurant to spend its own money to build something. thats bullshit. if its really that big of a problem, the goverments should give them money to do it. otherwise, back the fuck off

that's right they are fought, and what happens when they lose? they take it in stride, no one questions the legality of it, no one bitches about it, they just cross lines and get their drink anyway.

yeah it's a nice spring day, and you want to go to a bar patio to enjoy it? how about a vast open park where the smokers are, but the smoke does not bother you as much. and there should be a sign on the door, that should tell patrons, smoking outside is prohibited. this should tell the non-smoker hey, your going to be in an area where people smoke. they already have laws that prohibit what to do in your house, most of them were striked down as un-constitutional.

i've been to a bar, i've removed hundred's of drunkards out of buildings before, it's easy, and relatively quiet amongst all the noise.

ok so whats the problem with the smoking inside then
people know its a smoking establishment

yea exactly, you're stuck there.

no one forces you to go to a place where people smoke. its your choice and you're infringing upon MY choice to smoke if you come to a place where i can smoke and try to tell that because you are there, i cant.

the bar isn't obligated to do anything, he doesn't have to build anything for anyone. he can make a patio available, and advertise it as an enviroment where smokers are welcomed to come in, drink and smoke. then the owner can just as easily write it off as a buisness expense, esentially making it a government backed improvement. even then it's going to bring in more buisness and it will practically pay for itself.

you didn't answer the question of why he has to cater to YOUR needs

bars and restaurants are obviously not losing money because of having smoking sections

technically.. restaurants and bars are NOT public places. they are private establishments.

which is why alot of these "smoking bans" have been struck down by state supreme courts

you didn't answer the question of why he has to cater to YOUR needs
bars and restaurants are obviously not losing money because of having smoking sections
technically.. restaurants and bars are NOT public places. they are private establishments.
which is why alot of these "smoking bans" have been struck down by state supreme courts

the problem with smoking inside is that it's illegal, just like buying/selling alcohol in dry counties. i don't make up the laws or rules, i just vote on them. you can argue that it's unconstitutional, and you can probably get it struck down. alot of places recently bring up these issues of dry counties all the time. a county south of houston amended it in 2000, not a whole lot of complaint there.

but its not illegal

you are trying to tell a private owner of a PRIVATE establishment what he can and cant do. THATS illegal.

so your lungs regenerate, ok fine. even if that is true, what about the asthematic, respitory problems, or the person with allergies? god forbid you have to discriminate against them. they have the same complain that most of the smokers have.

we want to go somewhere and have a drink in a place that we can breathe easily.

we want to go somewhere and have a drink in a place that we can smoke as well.

a bar that wishes to cater to everyones needs will have a place outside for smokers and a place inside for other people to enjoy as well. granted this doesn't work all the time because of winter/rain, it is still a better buisness move to have these facilities. I think it's should be the bar owners descision to allow smoking in his building, but that's not the way it is.

from personal expirience, it's alot easier to move a drunk around. first thing you do is grab the drunk and pull him toward you. the first thing they want to do is move away from you, so as your pulling, they pull away too. as soon as they do, that's when you push them, and you can move them wherever you want, their reaction times are slowed and your already moving them, there's no way they can move you. when and if they get hostile/loud, that's when you inflict minor pain. if you have the guy by the arm, squeeze it to the point where they'll shut up and are affraid to attack you. this has worked, this is what they teach you when your a bouncer or security of somekind. the owner of a bar in Juarez, basically paid me 300 dollars to remove loud drunks from his club, and this is the only advice he gave me, and it was all that was needed.

try telling a smoker to move or leave the building, and he'll get pissed.

it IS the bar owners choice

thats why all these laws are getting struck down

the point is, everytime someone doesn't like something, you cant just ban it. if we did that , like i said before, none of us would ever leave our homes because we'd inadvertantly piss someone off.

i have allergies, i smoke. so what.

just because some dude is sick i have to curb my fun at a bar? thats bullshit.

i dont have to bend my rights just to make someone else happy.
and i wont. if someone is in my car with me driving somewhere, do i change my music to suit them? no, i dont. now if they ask me to not smoke as much on a long trip, i do do that, because they aren't asking me to completely stop. you are singling out smokers as a certain group of people and are discriminating against them. we dont smoke to piss non- smokers off. we smoke because we enjoy it.

BloodRayn wrote:it IS the bar owners choice


i have allergies, i smoke. so what.

.

so you are allergic to cigarette smoke? and you smoke?