Civil Disobedience

[Father Time]

We are not talking about public for the 1000th time.

For the 100th time ... yes, we are. You keep confusing the concept of public space with public property.

You seem you think that the borders of the United States end at private property lines. You seem to think that each bit of private property is a little principality where the owner dictates his own laws and the the laws of the US have no jurisdiction on private property.

Oh goody straw men.

The US does have some jurisdiction and we're arguing about how much they should have. I'm arguing that it infringes on rights that should left up to the property owner partly because they will be facing the brunt of the effects.

Smoking is not a crime nor should it be, so why the fuck should the government get to decide if you can allow smoking on your own turf or not.

The fact is, owning property in the US only means you have certain privileges concerning that property which are granted by the state,

Like what you are going to do with the property and how you're going to run it.

OSHA has determined that cigarette smoke is a workplace health hazard that has no redeming value and which will no longer be allowed.

First give me a source, most of the time these laws are passed by nanny state little tyrants or vote whores.

If it's true they have overstepped their authority as dealing with smokers should be an expected risk in a fucking bar.

Now you may be confused so I'll explain this to you slowly. Now let's say you have an NFL (football) team. A player getting tackled and maybe suffering an injury is part of the job risk so it isn't covered (you could put the players in medieval style armor there would still be risk). However showering in raw sewage is not a risk that comes with the job so they mandate clean water for showers (and if they don't they'd be within their authority to do so).

Although it's pretty damn pointless though because if enough people don't like the smoke the bars will find themselves short handed and be forced to change.

Think of the scenario above (the one that you desperately want to ignore) in reverse.

If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws.

So it's too much to ask for an employee or customer to switch bars if the smoke bothers them but it's perfectly ok to tell bars that they should change countries?

There's a word for scum like you. It's called
Hypocrite.
Why don't you make that your avatar and tattoo that on your forehead to spare anyone else the wasted time in trying to reason with you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yesterday, a new law went into effect in NC.
No smoking in restaurants.

There is a little place down the street from my house that I eat at often, and they have always allowed smoking.
I went there for a meal yesterday.
No ashtrays were on the table yesterday.
After my meal, I lit up a cigarette. My act of civil disobedience.
My waitress brought me more water while I was smoking and didn't say a word. 2 other waitresses saw me and didn't say a word. Probably half the patrons in the restaurant saw me and didn't say a word.

While I was sitting there (still smoking), I observed a couple come in. They looked around and saw me smoking They asked the waitress (same waitress I had) for a seat in the non-smoking section. She replied, "New law doesn't allow smoking in any restaurant, you can sit anywhere you want". She got a good tip.

It is only day one, so I probably can't keep this up for long, but I'm going to try.

Well, good for you. And when you expire early, there will be more Social Security for the rest of us.

You might also read Thoreau's essay on civil disobediance;

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - with annotated text

 

[alan1]

Yesterday, a new law went into effect in NC.
No smoking in restaurants.

There is a little place down the street from my house that I eat at often, and they have always allowed smoking.
I went there for a meal yesterday.
No ashtrays were on the table yesterday.
After my meal, I lit up a cigarette. My act of civil disobedience.
My waitress brought me more water while I was smoking and didn't say a word. 2 other waitresses saw me and didn't say a word. Probably half the patrons in the restaurant saw me and didn't say a word.

While I was sitting there (still smoking), I observed a couple come in. They looked around and saw me smoking They asked the waitress (same waitress I had) for a seat in the non-smoking section. She replied, "New law doesn't allow smoking in any restaurant, you can sit anywhere you want". She got a good tip.

It is only day one, so I probably can't keep this up for long, but I'm going to try.

Well, good for you. And when you expire early, there will be more Social Security for the rest of us.

You might also read Thoreau's essay on civil disobediance;

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - with annotated text

From your link,

"Civil Disobedience" is an analysis of the individual’s relationship to the state that focuses on why men obey governmental law even when they believe it to be unjust. But "Civil Disobedience" is not an essay of abstract theory. It is Thoreau’s extremely personal response to being imprisoned for breaking the law. Because he detested slavery and because tax revenues contributed to the support of it, Thoreau decided to become a tax rebel. There were no income taxes and Thoreau did not own enough land to worry about property taxes; but there was the hated poll tax – a capital tax levied equally on all adults within a community.

Yep, I disagree with the law. It violates personal property rights.

The taxes on tobacco are levied only on a minority. Taxes passed by a majority upon a minority, hardly an "equal tax".

See how that works?

 

[Anguille]

Like anyone should accept your postings as reality.

I can just imagine the thought process that goes through Anguille's head.

"Oh no MountainMan posted something that contradicts our beliefs, what should we do?"
"We need to remain head in the sand status at all costs. Fire the reality warpers, and put on a smug sense of rightness, that oughta keep them at bay while we search for a different solution."

And accuse somebody of criminal behavior.

Coming from someone who admits to criminal behavior, i.e. smoking in a non smoking area, that's very funny. lol!

Bad enough you used to be so inconsiderate and rude as to smoke around other people while they were eating when it was still unregulated. Now you put restaurants at risk for a fine by lighting up in them. I feel sorry for that waitress that you put on the spot with your antics. I hope she spit in your coffee before she served it.

It's never made sense to me why anyone would light up around another person in the first place. No smoker can claim ignorance of the fact that it is offensive behavior and that it puts other people at risk for serious health problems.

If some smokers were not so selfish and anti-social in the first place we would never have need for these laws and the waste of taxpayer money spent legislating and enforcing them.

 

[Anguille]

We are not talking about public for the 1000th time.

For the 100th time ... yes, we are. You keep confusing the concept of public space with public property.

You seem you think that the borders of the United States end at private property lines. You seem to think that each bit of private property is a little principality where the owner dictates his own laws and the the laws of the US have no jurisdiction on private property.

Oh goody straw men.

The US does have some jurisdiction and we're arguing about how much they should have. I'm arguing that it infringes on rights that should left up to the property owner partly because they will be facing the brunt of the effects.

Smoking is not a crime nor should it be, so why the fuck should the government get to decide if you can allow smoking on your own turf or not.



Like what you are going to do with the property and how you're going to run it.

OSHA has determined that cigarette smoke is a workplace health hazard that has no redeming value and which will no longer be allowed.

First give me a source, most of the time these laws are passed by nanny state little tyrants or vote whores.

If it's true they have overstepped their authority as dealing with smokers should be an expected risk in a fucking bar.

Now you may be confused so I'll explain this to you slowly. Now let's say you have an NFL (football) team. A player getting tackled and maybe suffering an injury is part of the job risk so it isn't covered (you could put the players in medieval style armor there would still be risk). However showering in raw sewage is not a risk that comes with the job so they mandate clean water for showers (and if they don't they'd be within their authority to do so).

Although it's pretty damn pointless though because if enough people don't like the smoke the bars will find themselves short handed and be forced to change.

Think of the scenario above (the one that you desperately want to ignore) in reverse.

If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws.

So it's too much to ask for an employee or customer to switch bars if the smoke bothers them but it's perfectly ok to tell bars that they should change countries?

There's a word for scum like you. It's called
Hypocrite.
Why don't you make that your avatar and tattoo that on your forehead to spare anyone else the wasted time in trying to reason with you.

You are too for me to bother responding to anymore.

If you haven't got it by now, you never will.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is a simple enough concept. Less smokers and less concern by non smokers. We suffered for a VERY long time without even no smoking areas, now it is smokers turn to suffer through no smoking areas.

And fortunately around here the local mall and Hospital and other businesses have put up signs that say NO SMOKING within 50 feet of the exits either.

 

[Anguille]

We suffered for a VERY long time without even no smoking areas, now it is smokers turn to suffer through no smoking areas.

That pretty much says it all. Smokers piss people off with their offensive behavior and then they wonder why no one feels sorry for them?

 

[California Girl]

We suffered for a VERY long time without even no smoking areas, now it is smokers turn to suffer through no smoking areas.

That pretty much says it all. Smokers piss people off with their offensive behavior and then they wonder why no one feels sorry for them?

Lots of people piss off other people with their behavior. Stupid people piss me off, as do people who drink too much, and those who do drugs, people who make judgements about others based on their race, color or creed, people who drive badly, people who mistreat animals and a variety of other 'peeves'. Difference is, I don't feel I have a greater right to have things my way than they do to have things their way.

Freedom is a bitch sometimes.

Also, it isn't for you to decide that 'no one feesl sorry for them'.

 

[rightwinger]

Quote: Originally Posted by Anguille
If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws.
So it's too much to ask for an employee or customer to switch bars if the smoke bothers them but it's perfectly ok to tell bars that they should change countries?

All this is moot.

It is the smoker who now has to make the hard choices not the non-smoker.

If smoking is more important than going to a movie....stay home and smoke.
If smoking is more important than going with your friends to a bar.....stay home and smoke
If smoking is more important than going to work.....stay home and smoke

Easy isn't it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

And if in your bar you decide you will make more money by not allowing blacks inside, then that is your right too?

And the goalpost has been moved. Uh . . . we're talking about smoking, rw.

Its the same principle. Your establishment/ your rules

Its why blacks were prohibited from eating in white establishments for generations

"Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone"

Oh, my bad. Discrimination is ok if you're in agreement with what's being discriminated. Got it.

 

[California Girl]

And the goalpost has been moved. Uh . . . we're talking about smoking, rw.

Its the same principle. Your establishment/ your rules

Its why blacks were prohibited from eating in white establishments for generations

"Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone"

Oh, my bad. Discrimination is ok if you're in agreement with what's being discriminated. Got it.

Welcome to the new 'improved' America of the liberals.

 

[California Girl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Anguille
If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws.
So it's too much to ask for an employee or customer to switch bars if the smoke bothers them but it's perfectly ok to tell bars that they should change countries?

All this is moot.

It is the smoker who now has to make the hard choices not the non-smoker.

If smoking is more important than going to a movie....stay home and smoke.
If smoking is more important than going with your friends to a bar.....stay home and smoke
If smoking is more important than going to work.....stay home and smoke

Easy isn't it?

Yes, it is. And when the bars and restuarants start to close, be sure and blame the smokers for not patronizing these establishments. When the workers and owners start claiming unemployment, be sure to blame the smokers.

It certainly is easy.

And you can follow the UK, Ireland and the host of other countries who have seen massive closures in pubs and restaurants since the ban.

Enjoy the new America - where we are all told how to live by the Nanny State and remember, you wanted it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Answer my question, why can't you leave if you don't like the presence of smokers? No one is forcing you to be in the bar or restaurant.

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

What prevents you (or anyone) from asking the smoker to put the butt out or take it outside or move to a different area? No guarantees but . . . . maybe people should practice civility towards one another rather than just bash smokers vs. non-smokers. Remedy the situation themselves, leave the decision up to the owner, and keep uncle out of it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

20+ years ago I was working for a company that went non-smoking.
No problem, the owner of the company (and the property) decided he wanted to do that. It was his right what he did with his personal property and business.

The lady that ran the computer that controlled the company was a smoker. She gave her two week notice and left after two weeks.
The next week, the computer system crashed 3 times. It shut the entire company down for about 3 hours each time it crashed.
A week later, the owner of the company hired her back and allowed her to smoke in her office. Funny thing is, nobody else was allowed to smoke in their office. Hey, it was his company and his property, it was his right to do that.
I heard the company finally went totally smoke free when she retired about 7 years ago.

In a nutshell.

 

[Valerie]

Maybe the solution should be for restaurants and bars to get licensed to have indoor smoking just as establishments seek liquor licenses, so only a certain number would be allowed within each jurisdiction. That way workers have a choice, patrons have a choice, restaurant/bar business owners have a choice. If you don't like being around drunk people then don't go to bars and if you don't like being around smokers then don't go to smoking establishments. (And if you don't like breathing in coal particles you have every right to not work in a coal mine.)

 

[Ravi]

Maybe the solution should be for restaurants and bars to get licensed to have indoor smoking just as establishments seek liquor licenses, so only a certain number would be allowed within each jurisdiction. That way workers have a choice, patrons have a choice, restaurant/bar business owners have a choice. If you don't like being around drunk people then don't go to bars and if you don't like being around smokers then don't go to smoking establishments. (And if you don't like breathing in coal particles you have every right to not work in a coal mine.)

The big thing now is hookah bars...I don't know if they serve alcohol or not but they do get licensed to allow smokers to smoke there.

Angie...are you going to crusade against hookah bars?

 

[Father Time]

For the 100th time ... yes, we are. You keep confusing the concept of public space with public property.

You seem you think that the borders of the United States end at private property lines. You seem to think that each bit of private property is a little principality where the owner dictates his own laws and the the laws of the US have no jurisdiction on private property.

Oh goody straw men.

The US does have some jurisdiction and we're arguing about how much they should have. I'm arguing that it infringes on rights that should left up to the property owner partly because they will be facing the brunt of the effects.

Smoking is not a crime nor should it be, so why the fuck should the government get to decide if you can allow smoking on your own turf or not.



Like what you are going to do with the property and how you're going to run it.



First give me a source, most of the time these laws are passed by nanny state little tyrants or vote whores.

If it's true they have overstepped their authority as dealing with smokers should be an expected risk in a fucking bar.

Now you may be confused so I'll explain this to you slowly. Now let's say you have an NFL (football) team. A player getting tackled and maybe suffering an injury is part of the job risk so it isn't covered (you could put the players in medieval style armor there would still be risk). However showering in raw sewage is not a risk that comes with the job so they mandate clean water for showers (and if they don't they'd be within their authority to do so).

Although it's pretty damn pointless though because if enough people don't like the smoke the bars will find themselves short handed and be forced to change.

Think of the scenario above (the one that you desperately want to ignore) in reverse.

If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws.

So it's too much to ask for an employee or customer to switch bars if the smoke bothers them but it's perfectly ok to tell bars that they should change countries?

There's a word for scum like you. It's called
Hypocrite.
Why don't you make that your avatar and tattoo that on your forehead to spare anyone else the wasted time in trying to reason with you.

You are too for me to bother responding to anymore.

If you haven't got it by now, you never will.

Translation: I have no comeback or counter argument and am hoping you won't see through my newest attempt at dismissal.

 

[Father Time]

We suffered for a VERY long time without even no smoking areas, now it is smokers turn to suffer through no smoking areas.

That pretty much says it all. Smokers piss people off with their offensive behavior and then they wonder why no one feels sorry for them?

You get offended by people smoking? Oversensitive much?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We suffered for a VERY long time without even no smoking areas, now it is smokers turn to suffer through no smoking areas.

That pretty much says it all. Smokers piss people off with their offensive behavior and then they wonder why no one feels sorry for them?

You get offended by people smoking? Oversensitive much?

Retarded much? I know all about arrogant asshole smokers. My mom and dad and all my siblings are smokers ( or were mom and dad are dead).

Some current examples of their bullshit.

Standing IN the only exit entrance to a building smoking

To fucking lazy to take care of their butts and throwing them on the ground, half the time not even putting them out. Out car windows as well.

Ignoring the law and smoking where it is not allowed.

blowing their smoke at passing people

 

[Father Time]

That pretty much says it all. Smokers piss people off with their offensive behavior and then they wonder why no one feels sorry for them?

You get offended by people smoking? Oversensitive much?

Retarded much? I know all about arrogant asshole smokers. My mom and dad and all my siblings are smokers ( or were mom and dad are dead).

Some current examples of their bullshit.

Standing IN the only exit entrance to a building smoking

To fucking lazy to take care of their butts and throwing them on the ground, half the time not even putting them out. Out car windows as well.

Ignoring the law and smoking where it is not allowed.

blowing their smoke at passing people

And you honestly think all smokers act like that?

Oh and this has what to do with them smoking in a place the owner doesn't mind? The owner's allowed to throw out individuals.