Jump to content

350 Bars Are Going To Allow Smoking Tonight

Retta

By Retta
in Let's Get Personal (unmoderated)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
peacefulfield Advanced Member

peacefulfield

Posted
Posted

Well its about time the bar owners decided to fight for their rights. To use a legal substance on their private property should be up to them. I'm so tired of laws passing without the public voting... Do you think their would be MM here if we weren't allowed to vote on it? NO LAW should pass unless WE THE PEOPLE (Taxpayers) get to speak our minds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mememe Advanced Member

Mememe

Posted
Posted

Well its about time the bar owners decided to fight for their rights. To use a legal substance on their private property should be up to them. I'm so tired of laws passing without the public voting... Do you think their would be MM here if we weren't allowed to vote on it? NO LAW should pass unless WE THE PEOPLE (Taxpayers) get to speak our minds...

We vote for people who appoint others to speak for us. Unfotunatley, they lie to us from the very begining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

I do not use tobacco either but it is about time those who choose to use this legal product are able to do so freely in places intended for it - like a bar.

I hope they ALL allow it.

 

It is one of those things I am conflicted on. Like you I agree that business owners should be able to run their business the way they want to. On the other hand I sure like being able to go to a bar and not having burning eyes, scratchy throat, and smelling like a ashtray.

 

The problem is if smoking is allowed then no bar can be non smoking because they will lose business. Now I don't have any choice but to suffer the smoke or never go out to a bar.

 

One other point is places like Bob Evens are no waiting to set down now that the smoking area is gone. Before there were always seats available in the smoking area but no one wanted to set there. In that case a minority of smokers was inconveniencing the majority.

 

No easy answers on this one for me. I am glad smoking is baned but I do see the other side too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StonedPlanet Advanced Member

StonedPlanet

Posted
Posted

http://www.freep.com/article/20101231/NEWS06/12310335/1001/NEWS/Some-bar-owners-to-allow-smoking-as-protest

 

from the free press

 

:thumbsd:

 

:growl:

 

sorry y'all but i quit around 9 months ago....

 

i can't support this :rolleyes:

Just because you quit does not mean you can't support the freedoms of other smokers!

With most freedoms under attack lately we should be sticking together and not just support the causes that "don't affect me"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

Just because you quit does not mean you can't support the freedoms of other smokers!

With most freedoms under attack lately we should be sticking together and not just support the causes that "don't affect me"...

 

What about my freedom not to breath smoke? And don't say go somewhere else because before the law not a single restaurant or bar in my town was non smoking. Why should the 25% of smokers be able to infringe on the 75% of the peoples rights to breath clean air?

 

Too bad that restaurants and bars could not work this out themselves. If they had better separated the smoking and non smoking areas and done a better job of installing those smoke eaters this would not have been an issue. This is a classic example of businesses ignoring a problem and the legislature stepping in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mememe Advanced Member

Mememe

Posted
Posted

 

 

The problem is if smoking is allowed then no bar can be non smoking because they will lose business. Now I don't have any choice but to suffer the smoke or never go out to a bar.

 

No, then you would have MORE choices. Instead of having only nonsmoking as a choice, you would have smoking bars or non smoking bars. With so many people claiming that smoke in bars irritates them, the non smoking bars should do just fine. Freedom means having a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peacefulfield Advanced Member

peacefulfield

Posted
Posted

No, then you would have MORE choices. Instead of having only nonsmoking as a choice, you would have smoking bars or non smoking bars. With so many people claiming that smoke in bars irritates them, the non smoking bars should do just fine. Freedom means having a choice.

:thumbsu::goodjob: Well Said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

No, then you would have MORE choices. Instead of having only nonsmoking as a choice, you would have smoking bars or non smoking bars. With so many people claiming that smoke in bars irritates them, the non smoking bars should do just fine. Freedom means having a choice.

The biggest problem was the moron parents who didn't care if their children were to breathe 2nd hand smoke in restaurants. However, in a bar where they are all consenting adults there isn't that same problem.

 

I think the secondary argument is that the workers are subjected to the smoke as well, and of course the argument goes that the workers can't work elsewhere due to circumstances or whatever. You may argue that they can. However, especially in this strong union state, remember that businesses are regulated to protect the health of workers. There are regulations to protect workers from inhaling fumes from paint at GM or asbestos, etc., etc., etc. Maybe we should deregulate ALL workplaces and let the worker work at their own risk? The question becomes how far do you go? The workers at GM have a choice too, right? If they don't like inhaling toxic fumes they can go work at the rock quarry or not work at all, right? Same goes for the waiteresses at your fav bar, right? Or maybe we can just regulate the bars such that the serving staff has to wear respirators and walk around looking like aliens? It's a double standard is what it is. Most people think that they should be protected from mesothelioma caused by breathing in crap at an auto plant but they also think it is okay to let the wait staff breathe in 2nd hand smoke. Wise up!

 

We all have choices to make. Should businesses be allowed to take advantage of their workers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wozerdozer Advanced Member

wozerdozer

Posted
Posted

I Quit smoking a year and a half ago and I am happy that I dont no more. I think it should be up to the bar owner to decide if smoking is allowed. To tell you the truth all the bars I frequent still allow you to smoke. Sure they give you a dixie cup with water and warn you to put it out or down when a costomer comes through the door but they are still smokeing in bars.

 

Thanks

Wozer

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

No, then you would have MORE choices. Instead of having only nonsmoking as a choice, you would have smoking bars or non smoking bars. With so many people claiming that smoke in bars irritates them, the non smoking bars should do just fine. Freedom means having a choice.

 

Ya because before the law there were so many non smoking bars available. Not one in my town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mememe Advanced Member

Mememe

Posted
Posted

Big industry has masks and suits their workers wear. If a worker has a problem with smoke, they could put a company supplied mask on. Like a fireman does entering a smoke filled building to get the ones not wearing masks out. Workers have masks, the others in the firemans working environment do not.

 

The big picture (i think) is that bar owners & patrons will keep comlaining. Then the state will say, "OK, you can have smoking but ya gotta pay a tax". Then back to how it used to be but with increaced tax revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

Maybe it should be up to big industry to decide if THEIR workers are exposed to workplace hazards too.

 

That really is a sticky point. Workers have to right not to be exposed to carcinogenic gas.

 

I still contend that businesses could have helped the situation. I was in a cigar store today that has a smoking lounge. You can't smell one bit of that smoke in the main part of the store and there were three or four guys I could see back there smoking. The right floor plan and smoke eaters with the air being replaced in the room often can make it tolerable. But restaurants did not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mememe Advanced Member

Mememe

Posted
Posted

Ya because before the law there were so many non smoking bars available. Not one in my town.

Supply and demand. If the smoke was such a big problem, there would have been non smoking bars. We didn't take the time to figure out a solution for both sides before no smoking at all was forced on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

Big industry has masks and suits their workers wear. If a worker has a problem with smoke, they could put a company supplied mask on. Like a fireman does entering a smoke filled building to get the ones not wearing masks out. Workers have masks, the others in the firemans working environment do not.

 

So you like making a habit of proving others' points? That is exactly the point. Why do you think fireman have the gear they do? Regulations! What does the waitress have to wear to protect her from a smoke-filled bar? Nada! But that's okay, right? Because she had a choice and the choice was not to work there, right? And all of the GM workers on the line also have a choice. So let's do away with all safety regulations and let businesses employ people who will CHOOSE to subject themselves to hazardous conditions. You can't win this argument and you know you can't. You want to pretend that the PATRON'S choice as to whether to frquent a smoke-filled bar is the only choice that should be considered here. Nevermind the workers AT THE BAR, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

Supply and demand. If the smoke was such a big problem, there would have been non smoking bars. We didn't take the time to figure out a solution for both sides before no smoking at all was forced on us.

 

No it was not supply and demand. It was economics. It was not that there was not a demand for non smoking restaurants but that no restaurant could stay in business if they cut out the 25% of the population that smoked. Would you be ok with 25% of the people with weak bladders peeing in the public pool you swim in?

 

I can admit to seeing both sides of this issue. Surely you can see the problem for the non smoker too? Is it fair that 25% of the people should be able to impact on the air of the other 75%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...