RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 9:52:17 AM)

I think smoking is bad obviously for all involved, but what I don't really understand is what part of a typical bar setting is good healthwise. Overly loud music bad for hearing, Alcohol consumption while not negative in small quantities very very few people partaking in the typical bar scene consume those amounts. I hate all bars personally, and only go when as a group I am dragged to them. I find the whole environment completely and totally unattractive though. People though seem to only focus on the habits they don't have. What's really the difference between smoking and alcohol. Smoking effects other, alcohol does the same thing. Bar fights, domestic abuse, sexual encounters(wouldn't have done if not intoxicated), etc, etc, etc.. One could argue that these only occur when one abuses alcohol, but realisticly what percentage of bar patrons aren't abusing alcohol. 5%, 10%. LOL. I doubt if your typical non-medically disabled person smoked an equally less number of cigarettes compared to the typical smoker the effects wouldn't be severe. But I believe the discussion is about real world use, and if so, most people going to bars don't just drink a single beer, that is an anomaly not the norm. Like a smoker that would smoke a single cigarette per day. I've met one person like that but it doesn't change the typical behaviour.

I'm confused by what is the basic argument is it

Smoking should be banned because it affects others health?

Smoking should be banned because it has no known health benefits?

Smoking should be banned because it smells bad?

Because when I think about any of the reasons I could apply that to other socially acceptable activities taking place in the same bar.

I could see it being banned in places where other unhealthy activities were banned, like on a college campus, shopping center. But a bar, everything about a bar is unhealthy for most of the users of the establishment.

It doesn't affect me one way or the other as I avoid bars like the plague, but it seems odd that some unhealthy activities are okay and others would not be in the exact same location. 

I'd be okay with banning bars entirely, probably would cut down on hearing loss, drunken driving, promiscuous sexual encounters, recreational drug use, and exposure to unhealthy indoor air in states where smoking is still legal.

Bars aren't healthy anyway you look at. Period, but the air is clean. LOL. If that makes people feel better. I guess



Emperor1956 -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 9:53:49 AM)

quote:

meatcleaver:  Americans use twice as much energy per capita than the average westerner who uses umpteen times more energy than Chineese and Indians who use more than the average African. Most of the energy in the west is wasted and the majority is used on unnecessary luxury.  [snip]  It's not a disingenuous argument. If the average person is really concerned about bad health and pollution they would do something about it but they don't.


WAIT.  I finally got something here I can take to the bank.  See, by the unbelievably silly rantings of Termyn8tor and cleavemeater, those who overuse energy (i.e. all of YOU) can't smoke because you overuse energy.*  But ME?  I can smoke because I'm morally superior to you in that I don't wastefully consume energy.  Its like one good act wipes out the obligation not to do a bad act.  Moral accounting I can live with!

See, I drive a Prius (Yes, invoke all the smugness from South Park you want).  So....I'm averaging 40 mpg of real city driving (47+ on the highways, more if I stay at 55).  So as I see it, my choosing an energy efficient car means I get to smoke a cigar IN PUBLIC, in YOUR face for every...what....tank of gas?  See, I get to reward myself at YOUR expense because I'm energy conscious.  That seems fair.   To ME. 

Wow...by this logic, if I drove a fully electric car, I should be allowed to mainline crank and fuck underage girls once a week...right?

E.

____________________
*Even in typing this I am a bit chagrined at how unbelievably stupid it sounds.  Not disingenuous, true.  Just staggeringly, blindingly STUPID.  But they said it, I didn't.



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:15:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorelei115

I personally think it should be up to the individual business owner whether they want their establishment to be smoking or non-smoking. After all, they OWN it. If their workers don't like the policy, they can work somewhere else. If the customers don't like it, they can patronise somewhere else.



This is the smartest response i've heard on here yet.  Thank you Lorelei.
 
DG



pahunkboy -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:24:10 AM)

many bars now haver a roof top for smokers.

if it is any consolation, i live in redneck country. you can smoke almost anywhere here. as a result i seldom go out.  a man with a cigarette looks sexy to me, but i cant breathe. its that simple.

as long as this is a rant post. PLEASE- if you will be next to me on the bus or drs office- dont wear cologne. it stinks. these places reventalate the same air thru out- so i cant move out of the range of the fumes.

bath daily and wear a simple modest antiperspirant. brush your teeth and gargle.

also- please dont bore me with a 20 minute cell phone conversation. 3 mins and cut it out. i could care less about your measely broken down life.

have some decurum and civility toward others in the same room who are there via captive....


thanks



meatcleaver -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:32:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

WAIT.  I finally got something here I can take to the bank.  See, by the unbelievably silly rantings of Termyn8tor and cleavemeater, those who overuse energy (i.e. all of YOU) can't smoke because you overuse energy.*  But ME?  I can smoke because I'm morally superior to you in that I don't wastefully consume energy.  Its like one good act wipes out the obligation not to do a bad act.  Moral accounting I can live with!


Wow...by this logic, if I drove a fully electric car, I should be allowed to mainline crank and fuck underage girls once a week...right?

E.

____________________


You are being a little dippy here. If you READ the thread, it was pointed out that zealots who are anti-smoking aren't so zealous about more harmful pollutants and habits and quite happily indulge in habits and proliferate use of energy that endangers not just their health but the planet. So one can assume their irrational anti-smoking stance is just that, irrational and nothing to do with health.



Lordandmaster -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:36:50 AM)

So any business owner has the right to have any harmful chemical circulating in their establishment just because they own the place?  And if people don't like it, they can just go someplace else?  That doesn't hold water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorelei115

I personally think it should be up to the individual business owner whether they want their establishment to be smoking or non-smoking. After all, they OWN it. If their workers don't like the policy, they can work somewhere else. If the customers don't like it, they can patronise somewhere else.



Lorelei115 -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:42:51 AM)

I didn't say ANY harmful chemical. But frankly, yes. I am allergic to many perfumes. They are, to me and many others, a harmful chemical. Does that mean wearing perfumes should be banned?
Basically, Im saying you can't expect the government to police your life for you. If you don't want to be where there is secondhand smoke, leave. And it should be up to the person who owns that place whether smoking is allowed or not. Whats next, are you going to ban people from smoking in their homes, too? After all, they are circulating a harmful chemical!



KatyLied -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:46:10 AM)

Your home is private property, a place of business (for the most part, unless it is a membership only entry) is public property.  Can you not see the difference?



meatcleaver -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:47:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Or it was dealt with first because as I previously pointed out, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone other than the tobacco industry by smoking.  By the way, feel free to follow up at your earliest convenience with the figures on alcohol related  "illness and misery" that aren't associated with alcohol abuse that you neglected to address in your reply.

~stef


Just a variety of pages but I'm not going to extrapolate all the info from them but just a quick google and read and you will find that about 30% (varying on country) of car accidents are caused by alcohol use, medical problems such as cirrosis of the liver, social problems such as domestic violence, inability to work etc. etc.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics.htm

Not that I would ban drinking. I never drink a whiskey without a Cuban and never smoke a Cuban without a whiskey.

I do admit if I was a fascist I would ban perfume and other stinky toiletries.



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 10:52:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

So any business owner has the right to have any harmful chemical circulating in their establishment just because they own the place?  And if people don't like it, they can just go someplace else?  That doesn't hold water.




i buy a house. i own it.  If i want to smoke in there, i can.  If others don't like it, they don't have to visit.  If i don't like that people are not visiting me, then i can quit smoking in my house so that they will visit.
 
A guy buys a bar.  He owns it.  If he wants to cater to a smoking crowd, that should be his option.  If his business declines from it and he changes his mind, so be it.  People going into such bars know the hazards.  It's not like there's something destructive being hidden there.  If they don't want to go there, they don't have to.  Then go find a non-smoking place.
 
i hope to God we still have choice over things we buy and own.  Afterall, this is America, isn't it?
 
DG



NeedToUseYou -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:01:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

Your home is private property, a place of business (for the most part, unless it is a membership only entry) is public property.  Can you not see the difference?


It's not public property. Businesses can't discriminate based on basic criteria like race, religion, but it's not in any way public property. No business has to setup their business to serve all the public. Example restaurants and clubs can deny entrance based on dress and appearance. Public property would be a park.





Lordandmaster -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:05:29 AM)

Well, this issue has come up a million times on Collarme, and people always seem to think that business owners have the right to do whatever they please on their own property, but that's simply not the way the law works.  (With good reason, too--but I'm not going to get into that.)  For that matter, it's not the way the law has EVER worked.  So the "this is America" rhetoric doesn't apply.  In America we regulate the way merchants do business, and the state has an interest in protecting consumers from harmful chemicals like second-hand smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

i buy a house. i own it.  If i want to smoke in there, i can.  If others don't like it, they don't have to visit.  If i don't like that people are not visiting me, then i can quit smoking in my house so that they will visit.
 
A guy buys a bar.  He owns it.  If he wants to cater to a smoking crowd, that should be his option.  If his business declines from it and he changes his mind, so be it.  People going into such bars know the hazards.  It's not like there's something destructive being hidden there.  If they don't want to go there, they don't have to.  Then go find a non-smoking place.
 
i hope to God we still have choice over things we buy and own.  Afterall, this is America, isn't it?



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:08:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorelei115

I didn't say ANY harmful chemical. But frankly, yes. I am allergic to many perfumes. They are, to me and many others, a harmful chemical. Does that mean wearing perfumes should be banned?


Oh this is next Lorelei.  i work for the government and we just got a memo....no perfume nor scented hair spray, body spray, or hand lotion allowed because somebody complained when they went into the bathroom that somebody had used something scented in there that messed with their allergies.
 
So pretty soon, all the non smoking establishments will be 'fragrance free' as well. 
 
But i suppose we can all just sit home and smoke and wear perfume....lol.  (Until that is banned of course.)
 
DG



Lordandmaster -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:10:12 AM)

Just to make sure--you're all aware that bringing up perfume is a phony argument, right?  SOME people are allergic to perfume; but second-hand smoke is harmful to ALL human beings.



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:13:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Well, this issue has come up a million times on Collarme, and people always seem to think that business owners have the right to do whatever they please on their own property, but that's simply not the way the law works.  (With good reason, too--but I'm not going to get into that.)  For that matter, it's not the way the law has EVER worked.  So the "this is America" rhetoric doesn't apply.  In America we regulate the way merchants do business, and the state has an interest in protecting consumers from harmful chemicals like second-hand smoke.



But the point is, they don't have to be consumers if they choose not to.  People do have a choice in where they frequent.  If they know there is smoke in there and don't like it, then don't go.  People do have minds of their own, don't they?  Or should the government regulate that as well?
 
DG



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:18:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Just to make sure--you're all aware that bringing up perfume is a phony argument, right?  SOME people are allergic to perfume; but second-hand smoke is harmful to ALL human beings.


So where do you draw the line?  When enough people complain, perfumes are banned (as in my example).  It doesn't have to be that all people are affected.....all it takes is a disgruntled group who make enough noise.
 
DG



Lordandmaster -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:18:17 AM)

By that argument, a business owner would be free to refuse service to blacks.  In fact, it's the very argument that people used.  They can go over to their nigra restrunts, why do they have to come here?  In America, we believe that consumers should be free to go to any business establishment they wish, without having to worry about inhaling harmful chemicals...

Now if second-hand smoke weren't so deadly, we wouldn't have an argument.  But tobacco companies have a way of not giving a fuck about the fact that second-hand smoke is deadly.  Follow the money.  Who's ponying up the big bucks against smoking ordinances?  Guess who?



Lordandmaster -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:22:05 AM)

The fact that the line is difficult to draw fairly doesn't mean you can avoid drawing it at all.  I personally wouldn't support a ban on perfume, and I don't think most people would either, but there's clearly a line SOMEWHERE between perfume and second-hand smoke.  If a substance is scientifically proven to be as deadly to all human beings as second-hand smoke, it has to be regulated.  Perfume doesn't fail that test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

So where do you draw the line?  When enough people complain, perfumes are banned (as in my example).  It doesn't have to be that all people are affected.....all it takes is a disgruntled group who make enough noise.



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:24:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

By that argument, a business owner would be free to refuse service to blacks.  In fact, it's the very argument that people used.  They can go over to their nigra restrunts, why do they have to come here?  In America, we believe that consumers should be free to go to any business establishment they wish, without having to worry about inhaling harmful chemicals...

Now if second-hand smoke weren't so deadly, we wouldn't have an argument.  But tobacco companies have a way of not giving a fuck about the fact that second-hand smoke is deadly.  Follow the money.  Who's ponying up the big bucks against smoking ordinances?  Guess who?


We're not talking about discriminating against a race here.  We are talking about making a choice of going into a place where you know smoking is allowed.  i see no comparison.
 
Porn shops were banned in my county (but not in the surrounding larger counties).  Why?  Because people don't like to frequent them here?  Then don't!  But leave the free choice to do so to those that do.
 
And i still stand by my point.  If you don't like what's inside, then don't go in.  Period.
 
DG



adaddysgirl -> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. (11/13/2006 11:29:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The fact that the line is difficult to draw fairly doesn't mean you can avoid drawing it at all.  I personally wouldn't support a ban on perfume, and I don't think most people would either, but there's clearly a line SOMEWHERE between perfume and second-hand smoke.  If a substance is scientifically proven to be as deadly to all human beings as second-hand smoke, it has to be regulated.  Perfume doesn't fail that test.



An allergy to perfume can make people violently ill, particularly if they don't have their medication, inhaler, or whatever readily available.  Although harmful, not all people exposed to second hand smoke die from it either.  
 
DG 



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875