Smoking ban

[johnny]

Hm.... suddenly i see a whole new market..... now where do i put that sign ?

[Gab]

Do you guys mean that smoking shouldn't be banned in smoking bars?

[ 03-30-2004, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If there's ever a smoking ban in bars where I live, I'll get my pitchfork.

And then you'll smoke it ? [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]ROTFL! That made me lose it at the desk. *still laughing and trying not to snicker out loud while boss passes by* [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

We already have a public smoking ban in NY state. I was glad when they enforced it in the workplace because I had a hard time breathing when co-workers were chainsmoking nearby.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by wellard: The old liberty argument! You KNOW that one goes both ways Timber [img]tongue.gif[/img] And if anyone tries to exercise there liberty of smoking in a pub (bar) restaurant near my asthmatic son they will find a bill of rights sticking out of where the sun don’t shine.

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by wellard: The old liberty argument! You KNOW that one goes both ways Timber [img]tongue.gif[/img] And if anyone tries to exercise there liberty of smoking in a pub (bar) restaurant near my asthmatic son they will find a bill of rights sticking out of where the sun don’t shine.

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE. [/QUOTE]I guess that answers my question.

[ 03-30-2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: quote: Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If there's ever a smoking ban in bars where I live, I'll get my pitchfork.

And then you'll smoke it ? [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]ROTFL! That made me lose it at the desk. *still laughing and trying not to snicker out loud while boss passes by* [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

We already have a public smoking ban in NY state. I was glad when they enforced it in the workplace because I had a hard time breathing when co-workers were chainsmoking nearby. [/QUOTE]And in general, that's fair enough. Although I think that bars and clubs are an exception and should be considered a standard occupational hazard of working in that particular industry.


I'm curious how this is going to play out in Ireland. I think that it will be a farce.

Problem one (as I already said), is that it is unlikely to be enforced outside of Dublin.

Problem two relates to the heavy drinking culture in Ireland (shared in the UK). Anyone who's been out drinking in Dublin at the weekend knows that the entire city becomes full of drunks - and with that there is a persistent problem of both violence and noise (a major problem already).
Add drunken smokers who will now stand on mass OUTSIDE of bars where they can cause trouble - or frustrated drunken smokers in bars: and you have a recipe for disorder. I wouldn't want to be the head of Dublin's police force right now...

[ 03-30-2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: And in general, that's fair enough. Although I think that bars and clubs are an exception and should be considered a standard occupational hazard of working in that particular industry.

The music industry? Why should singers and horn players trying to protect their voices and lungs from the damaging effects of tobacco have to simply "put up" with this "standard occupational hazard" of working in bars? It reduces our ability to make music. Less lung capacity = less vocal or horn ability.

Couldn't disagree more with you. (as usual). I've been addicted to tobacco through passive smoking alone and was very thankful when first Sydney and New York passed the laws they did.

And, like Ireland and England and New York, Australia is a huge alcohol consumer. The laws were accepted and worked around once implemented. It's all a big hoohar over nothing. It's been proven places make MORE money with a citywide tobacco ban, as the nonsmokers come out, and stay out once the ciggies are out.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by wellard: The old liberty argument! You KNOW that one goes both ways Timber [img]tongue.gif[/img] And if anyone tries to exercise there liberty of smoking in a pub (bar) restaurant near my asthmatic son they will find a bill of rights sticking out of where the sun don’t shine.

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE. [/QUOTE]Then just go there to drink. Smoke elsewhere. I'm glad I now have the freedom, the liberty to breathe air without tobacco while I eat or drink. I'm glad that I'm now free to pay my rent and put food on my table without compromising my health. I'm glad I'm free and have the liberty to hang out with my friends, in the bar culture of New York (bars are our loungerooms) without having my right to clean air infinged upon by someone lighting up next to me. I'm glad I have it on an airplane, a train, in a movie cinema, in a bar, at work. Halelujah!

For too long, smokers choices have removed freedom of choice, and liberty from nonsmokers. Now, the world is moving towards protecting our liberty and freedom. If you want to smoke, don't do it around nonsmokers. [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

I LOVE the liberty argument. It's the whole POINT!

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, without re-hashing the arguments from the infamous thread, let's just say we agree to disagree here, okay?

[Yorick]

Well, just remember freedom is a two edged sword. Pursuing "freedom" as an idealism is absurd because one persons freedom can directly negate anothers freedom. Like anything, BALANCE within the subjective values of freedom is important.

We see a common argument used defending freedom regarding:
Gun laws
Abortion
Smoking in Bars
Religion

I found the discussion in court concerning the pledge to be a case in point. If there is seperation of church and state, why should the state impose Atheism as it's national religion? The father stated the pledge meant his daughter was saying her fathers religion was wrong - his words, were his atheism was his religion.

Now, the pledge doesn't declare what God is. An atheist could quite happily be deciding that God is merely a concept or idea, while declaring all America is united under that concept. Meanwhile the Hindu is perceiving God to be everything, and that America is united under than "everything", while the Christian or Jew, is thinking of Yhwh when they state it.

So.. as I see it, the freedom exists. However, removal of it, is the state imposing atheism, removing freedom of religion.

Just as giving women freedom to kill thei unborn children, removes the child the freedom to exist.

Just as giving people the freedom to own a gun impacts on their freedom from being shot.

Freedom.

Give an argricultural society freedom to plant crops and it takes away from the nomadic society the freedom to graze herds, or gather berries.

The British Empire vs Australian Koori people being a prime case in point. One nations freedom to "colonise" was anothers decimation.

The funny thing is, in life you can gain freedom through restriction. Even better if it is self restriction.

With music, the simpler and more predictable the chord progression (say Blues for example) the more melodic freedom one has. Whereas, the more chordal variety in a song, key changes etc, the less melodic freedom a player has.

Interesting little law of life there.

If I restrict my life in certain areas, I gain freedoms in others.