Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Anguille]

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. This is about each individual running their own lives, and having the choice to frequent establishments which best represent their vision for how they want to live.

That is something you have flat out admitted to opposing.

Individuals whose vision for how they want to live includes subjecting employees to secondhand smoke will just have to dream about it during their nicotene addled stupors. No one is guaranteed a choice of which type of establishment they wish to frequent and no laws will make an exception to employee protections for a special interest group who is not even able to provide a single tangible reason why some employees should be exempt from the right to a safe workplace.

 

[Anguille]

Only because you do not get how the market works.

I get it quite well. The market has decided smoking is no longer profitable.

 

[Ravi]

Now you're just being seely.

 

[Annie]

Finally! Confirmation of the fact that people like you have admitted and stated flat out that they want the Government to run your lives.

It's better that your authoritarianism is out in the open.

Agreed. If I wish to open an establishment that allows smoking, why should I not be allowed to? Now perhaps I need to make that clear, as many did regarding 'no smoking allowed.' If there were no clients, I'll go out of business or change my policy. Somehow I think that in the current environment if I could, I'd make a fortune, if a restaurant the food wouldn't even have to be very good.

 

[Gunny]

Very poor analogy. Cars and other gas fired engines provide necessary services and as yet cannot be substituted entirely by other types of engines and fuel. Tobacco does not. Tobacco that is smoked provides nothing of value except to those who are addicted to it Other forms of getting nicotene into the bloodstream exist.

It's a PERFECT analogy. It is the exact same thing. Your bitch is secondhand smoke. Your auto's emissions pollute the air far worse than any secondhand tobacco smoke.

Your excuses as to why you and others refuse to stop using gasoline-powered engines is weak. The reality is, if you TRULY were that concerned about what you believe, you'd walk, ridea bike, horse, golf cart ... whatever it took.

Otherwise, you are just placing values on air pollutants and deeming yours -- by FAR the worse on -- acceptable to suit your own personal convenience while deeming secondhand tobacco smoke unacceptable simply because you do not use it. But screw everyone else ... it's all about YOU.

 

[Ravi]

Personally, I've always seen the second hand smoke issue as a convenient smoke-screen to distract us from the much bigger polluters that hurt as all and that we really cannot avoid.

 

[Anguille]

It's a PERFECT analogy. It is the exact same thing. Your bitch is secondhand smoke. Your auto's emissions pollute the air far worse than any secondhand tobacco smoke.

Your excuses as to why you and others refuse to stop using gasoline-powered engines is weak. The reality is, if you TRULY were that concerned about what you believe, you'd walk, ridea bike, horse, golf cart ... whatever it took.

Otherwise, you are just placing values on air pollutants and deeming yours -- by FAR the worse on -- acceptable to suit your own personal convenience while deeming secondhand tobacco smoke unacceptable simply because you do not use it. But screw everyone else ... it's all about YOU.

And why do you think I don't walk or ride a bike? You get my point perfectly but you just want to throw in diversionary deadend arguments.

 

[Anguille]

Personally, I've always seen the second hand smoke issue as a convenient smoke-screen to distract us from the much bigger polluters that hurt as all and that we really cannot avoid.

So you're saying we should all just put up with second hand smoke because the other pollutants are going to get us in the end anyway?

Suppose we just don't want to die as fast? Or suppose auto emmissions don't occur in indoor spaces where the ratio of smoke to air reaches levels which are immediately toxic?

Suppose our clothes don't smell of automobile fumes but they do smell of ciggarettes and we don't like that?

Cigarette smoke and auto emmissions are not comparable for many reasons, health, necessity and otherwise.

Then again we could just do away with auto emmissions and when smokers can't get their cigarettes delivered, problem solved.

 

[Anguille]

Agreed. If I wish to open an establishment that allows smoking, why should I not be allowed to? Now perhaps I need to make that clear, as many did regarding 'no smoking allowed.' If there were no clients, I'll go out of business or change my policy. Somehow I think that in the current environment if I could, I'd make a fortune, if a restaurant the food wouldn't even have to be very good.

Take the blinders off.

 

[Shogun]

Bar owners don't want smoking anymore either. Bar employees don't want smoking anymore. Bar patrons don't want smoking anymore. In fact, many smokers don't want smoking anymore. I think you know this and you can't deal with not having things your way anymore. It sucks to be you, doesn't it.

you are simply wrong.

Smoking ban fires up bar owners, patrons
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07121/782375-46.stm

absolutely.

fucking wrong.

Smoking ban debate: Iowa bar owners get ready for a fight
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/10/news/local/doc47d4bd9baa58e491419862.txt

Totally, without a shadow of a doubt

Bar owners: smoking ban hurting business
February 28, 2008
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/highlandpark/news/822582,G3-smoking-022808-s1.article

fucking wrong.


Minnesota smoking ban is upstaged
Creative bar owners use 'actors' loophole, allowing patrons to light up despite new state law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MN9BVF0CE.DTL

 

[Shogun]

The market is showing that smoking is no longer marketable.

No, the MARKET isn't showing a goddamn thing beyond how a BAN has crippled business


In case you were asleep during civics 101, a BAN is about as far from a market indicator as it gets.

Bar owners lament smoking ban
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_5613137,00.html

still fucking wrong...

Hookah bar owners vow to fight smoking ban
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/255/story/165158.html

 

[Shogun]

I get it quite well. The market has decided smoking is no longer profitable.

Again, if the MARKET were to decide this then you would not NEED a BAN...

Make another profound statement.

please.

Bar owners: smoking ban hurting business
http://www.topix.com/city/mundelein-il/2008/03/bar-owners-smoking-ban-hurting-business


Smoking ban has bar owners worried
http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=3aa67081-367c-4b28-8e86-4f08f48db545

Bar owners work to repeal smoking ban
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Feb/20070201News008.asp

Bar owners defy Ohio's smoking ban
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7897124

YUP.. STILL wrong...

Bar Owners Fired Up Over Smoking Ban
http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7913827

Bars rebel against smoking ban
http://www.gazette.com/onset?id=19674&template=article.html

Bar owners on smoking ban: Butt out
http://blogs.chron.com/cityhall/archives/2007/08/bar_owners_on_s.html

Bar owners argue against expanded smoking ban
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/008021.html

Bar Owners Want City's Smoking Ban Altered
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080314/NEWS08/803140312

Smoking ban has bar owners fired up
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/26/news/local/7ae42898a912e836862573fa007ed123.txt

Holy COW!

concrete EVIDENCE that you are full of shit.

You know... something a little more tangible than projected estimates in lue of an epidemic of half dead, cancer ridden bartenders?

 

[Gunny]

And why do you think I don't walk or ride a bike? You get my point perfectly but you just want to throw in diversionary deadend arguments.

Au contraire ... from MY point of view, tis you making the diversionary, deadend argument.

You expressed a belief, trying to heap teh guilt trip on smokers for what they do to others. I merely turned YOUR argument around on you in a perfect analogy that you refuse to accept as such because it blows your little rant out of the water.

 

[Anguille]

Again, if the MARKET were to decide this then you would not NEED a BAN...

Make another profound statement.

please.

Bar owners: smoking ban hurting business
http://www.topix.com/city/mundelein-il/2008/03/bar-owners-smoking-ban-hurting-business


Smoking ban has bar owners worried
http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=3aa67081-367c-4b28-8e86-4f08f48db545

Bar owners work to repeal smoking ban
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Feb/20070201News008.asp

Bar owners defy Ohio's smoking ban
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7897124

YUP.. STILL wrong...

Bar Owners Fired Up Over Smoking Ban
http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7913827

Bars rebel against smoking ban
http://www.gazette.com/onset?id=19674&template=article.html

Bar owners on smoking ban: Butt out
http://blogs.chron.com/cityhall/archives/2007/08/bar_owners_on_s.html

Bar owners argue against expanded smoking ban
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/008021.html

Bar Owners Want City's Smoking Ban Altered
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080314/NEWS08/803140312

Smoking ban has bar owners fired up
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/26/news/local/7ae42898a912e836862573fa007ed123.txt

Holy COW!

concrete EVIDENCE that you are full of shit.

You know... something a little more tangible than projected estimates in lue of an epidemic of half dead, cancer ridden bartenders?

(It's spelled "lieu")
Cigarette smoke cause more than cancer. Bar business has not dropped and restaurant business is up since the ban in my state. In any case, regardless, employees don't need to give up their health so smokers can get their fix in the way they are accustomed. Nicotene junkies can injest it in much more congeniel ways. everyone is happy, case closed. Now get lost, Shogun.

 

[Annie]

So you're saying we should all just put up with second hand smoke because the other pollutants are going to get us in the end anyway?

Suppose we just don't want to die as fast? Or suppose auto emmissions don't occur in indoor spaces where the ratio of smoke to air reaches levels which are immediately toxic?

Suppose our clothes don't smell of automobile fumes but they do smell of ciggarettes and we don't like that?

Cigarette smoke and auto emmissions are not comparable for many reasons, health, necessity and otherwise.

Then again we could just do away with auto emmissions and when smokers can't get their cigarettes delivered, problem solved.

Certainly you should be free to choose to patronize only smoke free zones. Thus giving those the bang for the buck. Why compelled to make those who choose different conform to your values?

 

[Annie]

(It's spelled "lieu")
Cigarette smoke cause more than cancer. Bar business has not dropped and restaurant business is up since the ban in my state. In any case, regardless, employees don't need to give up their health so smokers can get their fix in the way they are accustomed. Nicotene junkies can injest it in much more congeniel ways. everyone is happy, case closed. Now get lost, Shogun.

Don't go to those establishments. In Chicago and many areas, choose "Lettuce Entertain You" outlets. They went smoke free long before the ban. Many did and someone like you needs to support them. On the other hand, Cheesecake Factory and Houllihan's wanted to keep smoking areas, risking that someone like you would boycott them. Put your $$ in the places you agree with, with hold them from those you disagree with.

 

[Anguille]

Certainly you should be free to choose to patronize only smoke free zones. Thus giving those the bang for the buck. Why compelled to make those who choose different conform to your values?

Who is going to work in these non smoke free zones? That is what the issue is about. If you want to run a business in the US you have to comply with labor laws. Labor laws do not make an exception for bar and restaurant workers to allow for employers to be excused from maintaining a safe workplace. Choose anything you want for yourself, but you don't get to make the choice for the people who work in bars and restaurants.

 

[Annie]

Who is going to work in these non smoke free zones? That is what the issue is about. If you want to run a business in the US you have to comply with labor laws. Labor laws do not make an exception for bar and restaurant workers to allow for employers to be excused from maintaining a safe workplace. Choose anything you want for yourself, but you don't get to make the choice for the people who work in bars and restaurants.

Why are individuals unable to choose to work for those that prohibit smoking or those that allow it?

 

[Anguille]

Why are individuals unable to choose to work for those that prohibit smoking or those that allow it?

Because then you are on a slippery slope. Any employer can then chose to disregard any workplace safety law and say that employees don't have to work there if they don't like it.

 

[Annie]

Because then you are on a slippery slope. Any employer can then chose to disregard any workplace safety law and say that employees don't have to work there if they don't like it.

LOL! The previous have been in existence forever. This is new territory. Confess, you are a fascist and support left wing fascist dictates.