Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Paulie]

Every bar that has gone out of business in Columbia Missouri since the ban went into effect catered to smokers.

Again, bars do not cater to smokers, they do not sell tobacco.

Most bars by me sell cigs, Ang. Packs are usually even more expensive than at the convenience store, but the irony of that is the patrons will still buy them at the bar because of convenience.

Btw, I don't agree with the government mandating this, but I haven't once heard a single person complain about having to step outside to smoke a cig.

I think it actually presents a newfound social opportunity, where guys and girls can meet and talk with the playing field trimmed down a bit.

Striking up a convo while burning a cig out on the deck or bench together is a little less intimidating for a lot of people than the typical walk up to the chick in the bar routine.

 

[Paulie]

Here's an idea...

Since most patrons don't seem to have been negatively affected by this all that much, how about we tentatively repeal the ban and see if everyone keeps things the way they are regardless of the ban being lifted?

Most bars have already been outfitted to cater to the smokers now, so let's drop the law and let the market figure it out from here.

Or is that too right wing?

 

[Anguille]

He did all that work to dig up information for you and you didn't even have the courage to acknowledge it.

Immie

This is getting stale.
I'll repeat for the third time, then if you want to keep on lying, it's on your own conscience anyway.

I read his posts, despite all the side tracking into how studies are done and statistics arrived at, he failed to prove, in fact, he explicitly did prove that people who breathe second smoke are indeed exposed to dangerous carcinogens and narcotics.

 

[Anguille]

Which would lead to me being intoxicated... then if I drove even though I had not smoked mj... got pulled over and arrested for DUI, I would be responsible yet the pot smoker would be to blame. I wonder if Anguille would be willing to pay the fines of all non pot smokers that were busted for DUI, just for being around the stuff.

Immie

Since I don't favor allowing people to smoke marijuana in public places just like I am opposed to people smoking tobacco in public places, you would not even risk being exposed to enough marijuana smoke to make you fail a DUI test, if exposure to secondhand pot smoke could even produce that effect.

However, you were promoting the idea of legalizing it in even more places than smoking tobacco is allowed which would increase the likelihood that I could seriously be affected by your idea.

Immie

Don't twist my words, I was promoting nothing of the sort.

 

[Immanuel]

Here's an idea...

Since most patrons don't seem to have been negatively affected by this all that much, how about we tentatively repeal the ban and see if everyone keeps things the way they are regardless of the ban being lifted?

Most bars have already been outfitted to cater to the smokers now, so let's drop the law and let the market figure it out from here.

Or is that too right wing?

You don't honestly think libs... er progressives (for Ravi)... would want to allow people to make up their own minds now, do you?

That goes against everything they believe in. Remember the government knows better what they should do then they do.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

No, discrimination based upon skin color is illegal, and should be, just as smoking marijuana is. Smoking tobacco is not yet illegal.

Immie

Discrimination based on skin color is not entirely illegal. For example, I have the right to refuse to invite white people to my backyard barbecue at my privately owned home, if I want. Why should I not have the right not to allow white people into my privately owned restaurant if I want? The answer is my restaurant is a public space. Get it now why public spaces that are privately owned are subject to laws governing them?

Smoking certainly is illegal in many places, to claim it is legal is incorrect.
You said, "The owner of the business has the right to offer or refuse service to whomever he/she wants.". It that kind of thinking that got the Jim Crow laws abolished.

Believe it or not, I was actually refused service in a restaurant in Mississippi because I was white.

And it is not the same thing, except in the fact that you are attempting to discriminate against people you abhor.

Immie

Abhor is your word not mine.

Smokers are not being discriminated against in the least. They are perfectly free to enter any bar or restaurant they wish. No one is permitted to light up in them. That rule applies to everyone.

 

[Anguille]

Which would lead to me being intoxicated... then if I drove even though I had not smoked mj... got pulled over and arrested for DUI, I would be responsible yet the pot smoker would be to blame. I wonder if Anguille would be willing to pay the fines of all non pot smokers that were busted for DUI, just for being around the stuff.

Immie

Since I don't favor allowing people to smoke marijuana in public places just like I am opposed to people smoking tobacco in public places, you would not even risk being exposed to enough marijuana smoke to make you fail a DUI test, if exposure to secondhand pot smoke could even produce that effect.

However, you were promoting the idea of legalizing it in even more places than smoking tobacco is allowed which would increase the likelihood that I could seriously be affected by your idea.

Immie

Ahem. You are the one who said it should be treated th same as tobacco and allowed in bars and restaurants.

 

[Immanuel]

Since I don't favor allowing people to smoke marijuana in public places just like I am opposed to people smoking tobacco in public places, you would not even risk being exposed to enough marijuana smoke to make you fail a DUI test, if exposure to secondhand pot smoke could even produce that effect.

However, you were promoting the idea of legalizing it in even more places than smoking tobacco is allowed which would increase the likelihood that I could seriously be affected by your idea.

Immie

Don't twist my words, I was promoting nothing of the sort.

Really? Then maybe you should clarify this post! Sounds to me like you are both a) promoting the legalization of pot smoking and b) allowing it in more places than tobacco smoking.

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

And you are willing to allow it in more places because you like the smell of it. I think it smells like burning shit, but here we go again, your rights take precedence over my rights.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Discrimination based on skin color is not entirely illegal. For example, I have the right to refuse to invite white people to my backyard barbecue at my privately owned home, if I want. Why should I not have the right not to allow white people into my privately owned restaurant if I want? The answer is my restaurant is a public space. Get it now why public spaces that are privately owned are subject to laws governing them?

Smoking certainly is illegal in many places, to claim it is legal is incorrect.
You said, "The owner of the business has the right to offer or refuse service to whomever he/she wants.". It that kind of thinking that got the Jim Crow laws abolished.

Believe it or not, I was actually refused service in a restaurant in Mississippi because I was white.

And it is not the same thing, except in the fact that you are attempting to discriminate against people you abhor.

Immie

Abhor is your word not mine.

Smokers are not being discriminated against in the least. They are perfectly free to enter any bar or restaurant they wish. No one is permitted to light up in them. That rule applies to everyone.

Funny thing is that most racists won't admit to abhoring people of a different color either.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

And yet the general area around it is still open to the public.

You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps because the laws have determined that the stripper's nudity when kept within a certain area, is not a hazard to anyone. Same as how smokers are allowed to smoke where they don't harm anyone but themselves.

And the area around the stripper is not entirely open to the public. I doubt children are allowed in a strip club.

If that's all it takes for you to consider them not public then OK, bars don't allow anyone under 21 (making them more restrictive than strip clubs) so...

Where have I said strip bars are not public places? No place. Try again.

 

[Anguille]

If you get turned on watching a mother breast feed that is on you.

He's a bit of a perv.

He might be, but there is nothing perverted about a man being turned on by a nursing mother. It's genetic.

Shame on you.

TMI!!

 

[Anguille]

Btw, I don't agree with the government mandating this, but I haven't once heard a single person complain about having to step outside to smoke a cig.

Nor have I, come to think of it. Most smokers I know think the bans are fair. Some even like them because it helps them cut down on how many cigs they smoke.

 

[Anguille]

However, you were promoting the idea of legalizing it in even more places than smoking tobacco is allowed which would increase the likelihood that I could seriously be affected by your idea.

Immie

Don't twist my words, I was promoting nothing of the sort.

Really? Then maybe you should clarify this post! Sounds to me like you are both a) promoting the legalization of pot smoking and b) allowing it in more places than tobacco smoking.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

And you are willing to allow it in more places because you like the smell of it. I think it smells like burning shit, but here we go again, your rights take precedence over my rights.

Immie

Read it again. It's your incorrect assumption that I said MAYBE marijuana should be allowed in more places because I "like the smell" even though I explicitly said " since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.
My previous posts make it clear I am for the smoking bans, for both substances.
I never said I was willing to allow it anywhere, I said "maybe' concerning pot in some places because I wanted to give it more thought. Maybe means undecided.

 

[Anguille]

Believe it or not, I was actually refused service in a restaurant in Mississippi because I was white.

And it is not the same thing, except in the fact that you are attempting to discriminate against people you abhor.

Immie

Abhor is your word not mine.

Smokers are not being discriminated against in the least. They are perfectly free to enter any bar or restaurant they wish. No one is permitted to light up in them. That rule applies to everyone.

Funny thing is that most racists won't admit to abhoring people of a different color either.

Immie

That was low!
You must be getting pretty desperate if you are trying to link me to racists.
Why would I abhor smokers when most smokers are considerate people who don't smoke around other people who don't like it. Don't let a loud and obnoxious minority define how you view smokers, Immie.

Perhaps you abhor non smokers yet won't admit it?

 

[Father Time]

You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps because the laws have determined that the stripper's nudity when kept within a certain area, is not a hazard to anyone. Same as how smokers are allowed to smoke where they don't harm anyone but themselves.

And the area around the stripper is not entirely open to the public. I doubt children are allowed in a strip club.

If that's all it takes for you to consider them not public then OK, bars don't allow anyone under 21 (making them more restrictive than strip clubs) so...

Where have I said strip bars are not public places? No place. Try again.

So strip joints are not public but bars are? I'll never understand your logic (and I'm using that term loosely).

 

[Anguille]

If that's all it takes for you to consider them not public then OK, bars don't allow anyone under 21 (making them more restrictive than strip clubs) so...

Where have I said strip bars are not public places? No place. Try again.

So strip joints are not public but bars are? I'll never understand your logic (and I'm using that term loosely).

Strip bars, strip joints, whatever, they are all public spaces. But you knew that.

 

[Father Time]

Every bar that has gone out of business in Columbia Missouri since the ban went into effect catered to smokers.

Again, bars do not cater to smokers, they do not sell tobacco. They do not rely on the sale of tobacco as a main source of income. If some bars known to be heavily frequented by smokers went out of business in MO after the ban it's their own fault for already having driven off the rest of the population that does not want to put up with the smoke. The smokers put their own favorite hangouts out of business by being so rude as to smoke in them.

cater
–verb (used without object)
1. to provide food, service, etc., as for a party or wedding: to cater for a banquet.
2. to provide or supply what amuses, is desired, or gives pleasure, comfort, etc. (usually fol. by to or for): to cater to popular demand; to cater to an invalid.

So if you serve a certain group of people you cater to them.

Also how the fuck is it the bar's fault when a law drives their customers away?

You really are desperate to try to pretend there's nothing wrong with those laws.

 

[Father Time]

Where have I said strip bars are not public places? No place. Try again.

So strip joints are not public but bars are? I'll never understand your logic (and I'm using that term loosely).

Strip bars, strip joints, whatever, they are all public spaces. But you knew that.

No they're private places able to turn away people who don't meet a dress code they set up (no shirt no shoes no service) or have pets or whatever. You know this but are trying your damnedness to pretend they're public.

 

[Anguille]

So strip joints are not public but bars are? I'll never understand your logic (and I'm using that term loosely).

Strip bars, strip joints, whatever, they are all public spaces. But you knew that.

No they're private places able to turn away people who don't meet a dress code they set up (no shirt no shoes no service) or have pets or whatever. You know this but are trying your damnedness to pretend they're public.

I'm not pretending anything. This is how the legislators define them and I and most people agree with them.
How come you private property rights maniacs haven't found a way to claim the smoking bans are unconstitutional?

 

[Father Time]

Strip bars, strip joints, whatever, they are all public spaces. But you knew that.

No they're private places able to turn away people who don't meet a dress code they set up (no shirt no shoes no service) or have pets or whatever. You know this but are trying your damnedness to pretend they're public.

I'm not pretending anything. This is how the legislators define them and I and most people agree with them.

Really? Show me the legal scripture that says such buildings are public property.

How come you private property rights maniacs haven't found a way to claim the smoking bans are unconstitutional?

Well we could try the 9th.

Why's that so important anyway? You really going to argue that if a ban is constitutional it's justified/moral?