It's Black Wednesday in the Twin Cities...

good

[QUOTE=morey]good[/QUOTE]
Philistine

Most bars banned cigars already around here, so I guess I'm used to having to go outside.

Anyways, like the article says, some people are making the best of it, so that's nice.

hope they do it here soon it'll cut down on my dry cleaning bill. stinky motherfuckers.

[QUOTE=morey]hope they do it here soon it'll cut down on my dry cleaning bill. stinky motherfuckers.[/QUOTE]
What? What the hell are you talking about?

They just passed a smoking ban in Mankato Minnesota too.
Now, if they could pass a law that banned sulfuric farts from public places, and the dreaded
-silent but deadly walk by fart that gets blamed on you somehow-
the world would be a better place.
Breathe easier.
Wook.

Morey, don't tell me you work at a bar.. Please don't tell me you're one of those.

[b]working at a bar and complaining about the smoke is like working as a roadie and complaining about the loud music.

It comes with the territory. I'm never going to work at a nursing home because I don't like bed pans, smelly old bed sores and changing wrinkly peoples diapers.

It just makes sense. If you don't like the smell of smoke, why would you work at a bar in the first place?[/b]

[QUOTE=fortune_wookie]They just passed a smoking ban in Mankato Minnesota too.
Now, if they could pass a law that banned sulfuric farts from public places, and the dreaded
-silent but deadly walk by fart that gets blamed on you somehow-
the world would be a better place.
Breath easier.
Wook.[/QUOTE]

Are you from Mankato?

i'm tired of leaving clubs and shows feeling like my throat is coated with drywall because you assholes can't have the common decency to step outside for five minutes. stupid selfish addicts.

[QUOTE=big S]i'm tired of leaving clubs and shows feeling like my throat is coated with drywall because you assholes can't have the common decency to step outside for five minutes. stupid selfish addicts.[/QUOTE]
Were you surprised when the room was smokey? I should hope not, I mean, what do you expect? That's a part of concerts, clubs and bars.

Again, I have a cigar only once in a great while, but I can't complain if I go somewhere that I know will be smokey and leave smelling like smoke.

There are smokeless establishments, ya know. Do you want to know why there are so few smoke free clubs and bars, because they suck and no one likes them.

So this smoking ban is really the minority, people like you, winning and making smokers have to stand outside.

I wish they'd ban whining in public places.

Do people complain about having to deal with numbers at a bank? That's what banks do. That's how we keep track of funds.

I work at a bank. I'm not going to push for a ban on numbers because I no longer like them as part of my job. That's stupid.

It's the same thing folks. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but come on, it's common sense.

yeah, my throat has been fucked up for the past week because i whined too much.

and i couldn't give a shit about the smell. it's fucking RUDE to smoke inside. BAN IT.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Do people complain about having to deal with numbers at a bank? That's what banks do. That's how we keep track of funds.

I work at a bank. I'm not going to push for a ban on numbers because I no longer like them as part of my job. That's stupid.

It's the same thing folks. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but come on, it's common sense.[/QUOTE]
you're right, numbers and carcinogenic, noxious (sp?) fumes are exactly the same.

[QUOTE=big S]yeah, my throat has been fucked up for the past week because i whined too much.

and i couldn't give a shit about the smell. it's fucking RUDE to smoke inside. BAN IT.[/QUOTE]
do you want a tampon?

Speaking of tampons.. they should ban bleeding women from public places... it smells.

Think that'll go over?

do you want an IQ point?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Do people complain about having to deal with numbers at a bank? That's what banks do. That's how we keep track of funds.

I work at a bank. I'm not going to push for a ban on numbers because I no longer like them as part of my job. That's stupid.

It's the same thing folks. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but come on, it's common sense.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps construction workers shouldn't complain when they contract asbestos-induced cancer from the loft insulation.

There's a difference here: The numbers at your bank are part of your job, it's what you are paid for - it's what you agreed to do and, crucially, it doesn't affect your health.

Non smokers are not paid or obliged to passively inhale the smoke of others because they happen to be in the vicinity, but yet they are forced to because of proximity.

The smell sucks, yes. But what smoke is, is a carcinogen exhaled into the air by smokers, who then complain when non-smokers point out that it's disgusting, a danger to their health and an infringement on their liberties.

We could piss in their drinks to balance it out, but really.

I'm not a whiner about this issue, but I am getting fed up of smokers just turning round and saying "yeh, well you should just suck it up. That's what clubs and bars are" everytime the subject comes up.

And I'm a Bill Hicks fan.

Asbestos is an entirely different issue.

Before the ban in bars.. that's what a bar was. Smokey. But everyone knew it was bad.

If you got a job at a bar and didn't like the smell of smoke, then you are a moron. See, you agreed to work at a place that you knew, ahead of time, would be smokey. If you walked into the bar and were like "What, it's smokey in here?" then you are a moron.

Soon they'll putting decibel restrictions at rock concerts, censoring lyrics for live music and comedy, and banning alchohol at all sporting events.

And secondhand smoke doesn't do jack shit to you anymore than breathing in fumes in traffic. Exhaust fumes are actually much worse for you.

Maybe we should ban all gas powered vehicles, too.

wow, here's another fun one.

[size=5]GUM?[/size]

They've just banned chewing gum in public establishments in Hennepin county (in Minneapolis) because of "health risks" and "removal costs" when people, say, stick it to the bottom of a table or banister. (I'm searching for a link as we speak, I just read this in a local paper)

[I]I'm reminded of Michael Fay. He broke a law in Singapore, remember, spray painted some cars, and got cained. They used to have a chewing gum ban everywhere and have since lifted it actually. What are we becoming?[/I]

Like I said, "What's next you fucking whiners?"

[QUOTE=ireLocus][QUOTE]Asbestos is an entirely different issue.[/QUOTE]

You mean, like numbers in banks?

[QUOTE]Before the ban in bars.. that's what a bar was. Smokey. But everyone knew it was bad[/QUOTE]

Doesn't mean everyone has to like it. You're acting like people are obliged to submit to the whim of the smoker. I want to smoke, so you should have to suck it up. It's what bars are about.

Ideas and knowledge evolve.
During WW1 doctors were reccommending cigarettes to soldiers as a good way to calm the nerves and as a perfectly healthy habit. Discoveries about their actual effects were met with resistance and complaint.

Now we know something. We have progressed. Smoke kills.

[QUOTE]Soon they'll putting decibel restrictions at rock concerts,[/QUOTE]

They already do.

[QUOTE]censoring lyrics for live music and comedy,[/QUOTE]

Doesn't kill you.

[QUOTE]and banning alchohol at all sporting events.[/QUOTE]

What you drink doesn't harm me.

I'm not for a blanket, total ban, but you seem to boil it down to the smell and bar workers.

If you think everyone that disagrees is a moron, good luck to you mate.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]And secondhand smoke doesn't do jack shit to you anymore than breathing in fumes in traffic. Exhaust fumes are actually much worse for you.

Maybe we should ban all gas powered vehicles, too.[/QUOTE]

For one - that's not true.

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3590578.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3590578.stm[/URL]

For two - it's a twisted argument. Cars are modern necessities that we should make strides towards cleaning up and perhaps reining in (which we are).

Smoking is a recreational habit that serves no function except to feed the addiction of the user. The side effect of that is toxic fumes in badly ventilated places.

That's very clever, riddlegimp, very clever indeed.

My point is bars should be off limits for smoking bans. Period.

Ban smoking in restaraunts, fine. Ban it in malls. Fine. But coffee shops and bars? I draw the line there. Making someone stand outside to do somehting that have every right to do is just as much an infringement on their rights as it is to make you breath secondhand smoke. Why can't you just leave the smokers haven instead of taking their natural habitat and claiming it as your own?

[B]There are smokeless bars. [/B]

Hello.

They're unpopular because MOST people go to the bar to drink while they smoke. But they exist and you can go there and enjoy a smoke free environment in which you can drink and socialize and dance.

Point is, you've got places to go already established as smoke free. Why take bars and clubs away from the smokers? Because you're whiners.

Do you get it now? You've got smokeless bars already. Can't you be happy with that?

[I](P.S. Oh yeah, and don't miss that other little post Imade about Gum being banned soon in public establishments. )[/I]

[QUOTE=ireLocus][QUOTE]That's very clever, riddlegimp, very clever indeed.

My point is bars should be off limits for smoking bans. Period.

Ban smoking in restaraunts, fine. Ban it in malls. Fine. But coffee shops and bars? I draw the line there. Making someone stand outside to do somehting that have every right to do is just as much an infringement on their rights as it is to make you breath secondhand smoke. Why can't you just leave the smokers haven instead of taking their natural habitat and claiming it as your own?[/QUOTE]

No it's not. Making them stand outside doesn't infringe on their health (other than maybe a cold in the winter ) but smoking does infringe on the health of others.

Why don't we try it the other way round? Have a few designated "smoker's bars" in the city and see how popular they are.

[QUOTE]They're unpopular because MOST people go to the bar to drink while they smoke.[/QUOTE]

I agree that they suck partly because bar culture at the mo is ingrained in the idea that bars = smoke. However, landlords are also terrified to lose custom and so won't create smokeless bars willingly.

Also - I'd say that MOST people go to a bar not to smoke. They can do that anywhere. They go to drink, socialise and hang out. On the side, many people like to smoke. But bars are not created specifically for smoking.

[QUOTE]Do you get it now? You've got smokeless bars already. Can't you be happy with that?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it ain't gonna work like that.

[QUOTE][I](P.S. Oh yeah, and don't miss that other little post Imade about Gum being banned soon in public establishments.[/I][/QUOTE]

I saw it.

Didn't have the "shock wow cool great point" effect I'm afraid, but it is interesting.

i'm not understanding how having to stand outside to smoke is an 'infringement on their rights'.

[QUOTE=big S]i'm not understanding how having to stand outside to smoke is an 'infringement on their rights'.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe anoyone could suggest it's rude to smoke indoors in a place designated for smoking.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I can't believe anoyone could suggest it's rude to smoke indoors in a place designated for smoking.[/QUOTE]

It's not just designated for smoking. The bars I go to are a hell of a lot more fun than that.

I enjoy cigars.

It is a freedom I have, to smoke a cigar.

I am now more and more limited where I can enjoy that freedom.

This is my point.

I can no longer go to a bar, enjoy a twenty year Smithwoodhouse tawny port with an Ovation Robusto because other people at that bar don't like my habit and would rather make me stand outside with said cigar (without the port, mind you) than avoid places that are smokey themselves.

Here's one. If I don't like hip hop, it would make sense that I frequent bars that play other styles of music. I wouldn't go to anurban establishment and complain to the DJ that his music sucks.

I realize music isn't a health concern, but the point is [I]you don't have to be there either[/I].

[B]You don't have to be there where it's smokey, and it's your choice to show up. I'm not making you stand there in a place where you will breath in second hand smoke.[/B]

You can choose to go there or go elsewhere.

Now, I have to stand outside no matter what. [B]I no longer have a choice[/B]. You have your freedom to come or go, like you always did, and I have slightly less freedom.

Please tell me you understand my point now.

so if you don't have a choice anymore then why make such a big fuss over it? it seems to me like you're the one whining.

I understand your point of view, I just happen to think that it's flawed.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I enjoy cigars.

It is a freedom I have, to smoke a cigar.

I am now more and more limited where I can enjoy that freedom.

This is my point. [/QUOTE]

That's fair enough.

[QUOTE]
I can no longer go to a bar, enjoy a twenty year Smithwoodhouse tawny port with an Ovation Robusto because other people at that bar don't like my habit and would rather make me stand outside with said cigar (without the port, mind you) than avoid places that are smokey themselves.[/QUOTE]

I love port, incidentally. So good call.

[QUOTE]Here's one. If I don't like hip hop, it would make sense that I frequent bars that play other styles of music. I wouldn't go to anurban establishment and complain to the DJ that his music sucks.

I realize music isn't a health concern, but the point is [I]you don't have to be there either[/I].[/QUOTE]

Ten people go into a bar that doesn't have a smoking ban. One of them lights up.

That one smoker's liberty infringes on that of the other nine [B]who do not have a choice[/B] whether to inhale smoke or not. Your decision has impacted on the others, and quite possibly affected their health.

[B][QUOTE]You don't have to be there where it's smokey, and it's your choice to show up. I'm not making you stand there in a place where you will breath in second hand smoke.[/QUOTE]

But why should it be your habit that dictates what the place is like? We all like bars, but I'd go so far as to say that hardly anyone visits them with the express purpose of "having a smoke". It sounds as though you like to visit on occassion specifically to have a cigar. That's not how most people view bars. They are places, like you say, to chat, dance, drink, flirt, laugh etc etc etc

They are not designated for smoking. They are not solely for smoking. (At least, they aren't here)

[QUOTE]Now, I have to stand outside no matter what. [B]I no longer have a choice[/B]. You have your freedom to come or go, like you always did, and I have slightly less freedom. .[/QUOTE]

People have the right to do whatever they want to themselves. But your right to smoke is outweighed by the rights of other people not to be harmed by what you do.

The freedom that you lose through having to stand outside is, to be blunt, insignificant when compared to the right of others not be harmed by your actions.

Look - I do know what you're saying, and I'll come clean and say that even a year or two ago I wasn't keen on a smoking ban (I'm in the UK by the way, and we're only just bringing these laws into action). But, thinking it through, I just think that it's not only fair, it's logical - and, by the looks of things - somewhat inevitable (not that that means you have to agree with it of course!)

edit: By the way - I have no idea why that middle section is in bold. I cant see any tags anywhere, but there it is. Go figure.

[QUOTE=big S]so if you don't have a choice anymore then why make such a big fuss over it? it seems to me like you're the one whining.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, well it seems whining got people like you their way. When in Rome, right?

Anyways, that right up there is a good point, whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not.

Riddlegimp, you make a good argument. You have very valid points and I can agree with many of them, but you have one flaw in your case as well.

It doesn't make sense to ban smoking everywhere. It would make more sense, and be more "fair" to everyone if it were evened out between smoking and non smoking establishments. Kicking people out of their haunts because of their personal choices is just as bad as forcing you to sit and breath my second hand smoke.

You shouldn't have to, you're right. There should be more places to go where you don't have to, I agree. But a total ban is just plain mean. It alienates smokers the same way that the smokey bars alienate the non-smokers.

Do you know how it feels to know that, as of tomorrow, I'm being punished by a law for having acqiured a liking for cigars and an oocasional clove cigarette. I'm being forced outside the places I love.

That's an aweful feeling that millions of smokers are dealing with right now. I can see it from your point of view (so, honestly, sorry if I came of super strong at first, I was just pissed) about wanting to not breath other peoples fumes, but look at it from a smokers point of view.

It is a really crappy feeling to know that one of my pleasures in life is being methodically stripped away.

i like people like me. there should be more of us.

[QUOTE=big S]i like people like me. there should be more of us.[/QUOTE]
No, because people like you ignore good sound reasoning and think only of yourselves.

I'm suggesting there should places for smokers and non smokers alike. I'mnot just arguing for myself here. I want balance for both sides of this issue.

You're ignoring that fact.

People like you should be smacked.

* Blows big beautiful smoke ring across the table a the big S *

Sorry if you caught some of that, riddlegimp, it was meant for someone else.

boohoo go stand outside.

[QUOTE]
Do you know how it feels to know that, as of tomorrow, I'm being punished by a law for having acqiured a liking for cigars and an oocasional clove cigarette. I'm being forced outside the places I love. [/QUOTE]

I can imagine how that would feel. I think that there is a fine line between, what I would call, sensible smoking laws and the demonising of smokers.

At some level, I think that there is a puritanical, middle-class, soulless, mirthless beast at work as part of the driving force of this ban. Put plainly - I think that demographically smoking is far more a working class pursuit, and the middle class love to stick their nose in where people perceived as "lower than them" are having fun.

However - there are genuine and frightening health statistics that lend what may have started as a crusade from the whiners some real depth and worth.

Personally, I don't smoke, but I would never look down on anyone for doing so.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Riddlegimp, you make a good argument. You have very valid points and I can agree with many of them, but you have one flaw in your case as well.

It doesn't make sense to ban smoking everywhere. It would make more sense, and be more "fair" to everyone if it were evened out between smoking and non smoking establishments. Kicking people out of their haunts because of their personal choices is just as bad as forcing you to sit and breath my second hand smoke.[/QUOTE]

This is obviously the key thing that we disagree on. The problem is that, utlimately, these are public places, even if they are privately owned. It's the same reason, for example, a restaurant has to follow a code of hygeine.

I still can't accept that putting someone's health at risk (and that has always been my chief issue with it) is as bad as stopping someone from doing that (and really - we are talking about an inconvenience.)

[QUOTE]Do you know how it feels to know that, as of tomorrow, I'm being punished by a law for having acqiured a liking for cigars and an oocasional clove cigarette. I'm being forced outside the places I love.

It is a really crappy feeling to know that one of my pleasures in life is being methodically stripped away[/QUOTE]

I think that in a strange way, because you seem to associate going to bars with the occassional "treat" cigar, you're hit in a different way to most smokers. But yes, I can see how it sucks.

If you're ever in London I'll show you plenty of smoky boozers where they sell decent tawny port

[QUOTE=big S]boohoo go stand outside.[/QUOTE]
Hah! you can't ban me in this kinda room, whiny.

Note to self: I gotta get an avatar of me with a big Robusto or something. Sweet.

I see what you're saying about health risks, I do. But that wouldn't be an issue if there were more places to go that were smoke free. Just because smoking is bad doesn't mean they all need to be smoke free, though, does it?

I also agree about the "class" thing to a certain degree, although it's not really that cut and dry, it's a pretty good point that I'd not considered before.

The point is, smokers have nowhere to go and have a smoke and drink anymore. They didn't leave us any places. That would have been more like fairplay.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Do people complain about having to deal with numbers at a bank? That's what banks do. That's how we keep track of funds.

I work at a bank. I'm not going to push for a ban on numbers because I no longer like them as part of my job. That's stupid.

It's the same thing folks. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but come on, it's common sense.[/QUOTE]

This makes sense for bars.

But not for concerts. Just because I like a band and want to go see them doesnt mean i should have to suffer from people lighting up all over the place. And it is not the minority. Most people I know who go to concerts dont appreciate people lighting up in their face or sitting in a smoke filled room when trying to watch their favourite band.

You buy a concert ticket so you can go see the band or have fun with your freinds. You donty buy the ticket for the show to breathe in someone elses smoke.

Sometimes I play poker at my freind's, who has a "newfie shanty" in his bakcyard where our freinds who smoke can smoke and not get in any shit. I dont tell them to get out because that is the place where they can smoke.If i want to play poker with them, its in that place. We dont have to play poker in there, but we choose too. I dont hate all smokers, but I think they need to respect non-smokers just like I respect my freinds who smoke. If its my house, they arent smoking in it. If its there house, I wont tell them not to smoke. End of story.

So, they banned chewing gum because of the cost of cleaning it up?
That's kind of crazy.
It costs tons and tons of money to clean up cigarette butts every year. Even at a small college it costs thousands every year to clean up cigarette butts.
The problem with making people stand outside to smoke is that littering will increase big time. Even with those makeshift sand bucket ashtrays. People will probably just toss their filters to the ground.

I think that the goal with the possible smoking ban will be to make people decrase smoking all together. To maybe not have so many social smokers. And that way less people will get sick, ex: cancer. The cost of picking a few butts off the ground is way less that the health care costs from smoking.
Smoking fucks up just about every part of your body.
If they can decrease your exposure to smoke, and second hand smoke, health care costs will should go down. People are living longer. With or without smoking. So, the longer you live, the more semi-free health care you get. And with the way our health care system is set up, our country needs to start more preventative measures for health care.

For now, I think with the smoking bans, the city has a grace period. Almost like an experimental period.
Businesses have one year to prove that their revenues will decrease by like 15% percent I think. If their revenue decreases that much because of smoking bans, their establishment will be allowed to have smoking still.
But, in one year, if there is no revenue change, or hardly any, the ban stands in that establishment.
I think that's how it works.
There really isn't an easy answer for either side of the smoking ban issue.
People have the right to smoke.
And people have the right to not have to breathe second hand smoke.
People have been breathing since the dawn of man.
Until cavemen made fire, we didn't have smoking.
People who want to smoke can go outside.
People who don't smoke can go outside to get a breath of fresh air.
You're always going to be breathing in something that will kill you, whether it's smoke or airborne diseases.
What you can't do is hold your breath.
It will be interesting to see how all of this turns out.

i have a feeling they're just taking small steps towards banning smoking altogether.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I see what you're saying about health risks, I do. But that wouldn't be an issue if there were more places to go that were smoke free. Just because smoking is bad doesn't mean they all need to be smoke free, though, does it?

I also agree about the "class" thing to a certain degree, although it's not really that cut and dry, it's a pretty good point that I'd not considered before.

The point is, smokers have nowhere to go and have a smoke and drink anymore. They didn't leave us any places. That would have been more like fairplay.[/QUOTE]

To be frank, I don't think that it's about the issue of fairplay.

Ignoring any hidden motives behind the ban, the logic of it is simply that it is a health risk to go to a bar. Less than 30% of people smoke, yet they are influencing the health of the other 70%.

Also - this is the economic truth of the matter. Landlords will be reluctant to switch or turn into the "smoke free bar" in a city that doesn't have a ban on smoking. When there's only a few smoke-free bars, they are inevitably pathetic. Partly because they are competing against established bars and partly because most groups of friends consist of smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers can visit smoking bars, but the smokers aren't happy with going to smoke-free places - so where does everyone end up!?

(The interesting thing is that Ireland, which has had the ban for a couple of years, has actually claimed that in general pub attendance and revenue is increasing because a broader range of people are visiting bars.)

In the end - you have lost something that you took pleasure in before. But - it's hasn't disappeared entirely. You can still smoke and, though it sucks, you can pop outside for a cigar and then carry on with your evening. It's not nice, but it's not the absolute end.

It would be interesting to see if there could be such a thing as a "bar for smokers", but I guess that would allows any bar to become a bar for smokers and it would simply go back to what it was before.

Dude - I've got to hit the sack in a mo, but I'll check for your replies later and in the morning, so don't think I'm just blowing that smoke ring right back at you!

good point, mocky, and I generally agree. Although I liked going to little jazz clubs and having a smoke with live music. There's a a lot of smoke free jazz clubs too, so it's cool.

But as for concerts, I agree. It's the music people are there for. Just like it used to be with bars and how I'd go there to smoke.

[QUOTE=big S]i have a feeling they're just taking small steps towards banning smoking altogether.[/QUOTE]

So do I. And am I the only one who sees that as a problem? Yes, it's an unhealthy habit, but so is junk food or being sedentary all day. Should the gov't really be able to dictate what we can do based on health? Obviously no. This, however, is the first step in that direction.

Riddle: another thing to consider is the problems that the bans have already created. (It's been kept hush in the media to a great degree) Police around here are "preparing" to handle the large groups of slightly to heavily inebriated smokers standing outside of these establishments while they smoke. Having 15 or 20 or more people smoking on the sidewalk and therefore blocking it is what the cops are afraid of. The problems that have arisen are, 15 or 20 displaced smokers (with varying amounts of achohol in them) vs. a couple cops asking them to clear the walkway is a recipe for trouble.

Oh well, I guess we acquiesce.

[QUOTE=fortune_wookie]So, they banned chewing gum because of the cost of cleaning it up?
That's kind of crazy.
It costs tons and tons of money to clean up cigarette butts every year. Even at a small college it costs thousands every year to clean up cigarette butts.
The problem with making people stand outside to smoke is that littering will increase big time. Even with those makeshift sand bucket ashtrays. People will probably just toss their filters to the ground.

I think that the goal with the possible smoking ban will be to make people decrase smoking all together. To maybe not have so many social smokers. And that way less people will get sick, ex: cancer. The cost of picking a few butts off the ground is way less that the health care costs from smoking.
Smoking fucks up just about every part of your body.
If they can decrease your exposure to smoke, and second hand smoke, health care costs will should go down. People are living longer. With or without smoking. So, the longer you live, the more semi-free health care you get. And with the way our health care system is set up, our country needs to start more preventative measures for health care.

For now, I think with the smoking bans, the city has a grace period. Almost like an experimental period.
Businesses have one year to prove that their revenues will decrease by like 15% percent I think. If their revenue decreases that much because of smoking bans, their establishment will be allowed to have smoking still.
But, in one year, if there is no revenue change, or hardly any, the ban stands in that establishment.
I think that's how it works.
There really isn't an easy answer for either side of the smoking ban issue.
People have the right to smoke.
And people have the right to not have to breathe second hand smoke.
People have been breathing since the dawn of man.
Until cavemen made fire, we didn't have smoking.
People who want to smoke can go outside.
People who don't smoke can go outside to get a breath of fresh air.
You're always going to be breathing in something that will kill you, whether it's smoke or airborne diseases.
What you can't do is hold your breath.
It will be interesting to see how all of this turns out.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know about the grace period. It just sucks I guess that I'm one of the guinea pigs.

* puffs hard on his Robusto *

*cough cough * oh well.

(P.S. I like your other points as well, but I kinda have to get busy at work here, my lunch is over. )

Actually here's another angle in favor of smoking in bars.

If you're not at the bar to smoke, you're still more than likely there to drink. Drinking isn't the healthiest habit either. So why take one unhealthy habit away from me so you can breath fresh air while you kill your kidneys?

If bar goers were really so health concious, they'd probably not be there so often in the first place. If that were the case, they couldn't be ingesting any dangerous amount of secondhand smoke, since secondhand smoke has to be pretty damn frequent to be harmful.

Good logic, no?

.I don't like like the fact that we can get our freedom to smoke taken away. You can still smoke. It's just the freedom to do it anywhere is taken away.

But, when you smoke, you're taking away everybody else's freedom to breathe smoke free air.

It's a never ending loop.

P.S. Don't forget about cirossis of the liver from drinking.

And, unfortunately, Drunk driving is going to happen with or without smoking bans.
But you got good points dude, I'm enjoying this discussion.

[QUOTE=fortune_wookie].I don't like like the fact that we can get our freedom to smoke taken away. You can still smoke. It's just the freedom to do it anywhere is taken away.

But, when you smoke, you're taking away everybody else's freedom to breathe smoke free air.

It's a never ending loop.

P.S. Don't forget about cirossis of the liver from drinking.

And, unfortunately, Drunk driving is going to happen with or without smoking bans.
But you got good points dude, I'm enjoying this discussion.[/QUOTE]
yeah, I hear ya.

But I don't, and most smokers don't, want to smoke everywhere. Just bars.

We've already let go of restaraunts and many coffee shops and small concert venues. That's cool.

We already can't smoke in stores. That's fine. It's the bars that we want.

The list of places smoking is already banned is quite long. That's fine, I guess.

But...

You're not really taking away someone's freedom to breath fresh air unless they have no choice whether to be there or not. While it is invasive, it still hinges on two parties decisions. My decision to smoke and their decision to hang out there and not smoke and still breath my fumes.

In that sense, people who choose to ride their bike instead of driving a car to work to avoid traffic fumes are being more violated than the wankers whining about bar smoke. They will breath traffic fumes whether they like it or not. They have no choice. Non smokers, however, do have a choice of where they hang out.

I mean, I don't remember any reports of non smokers boycotting bars that allowed smoking. That would have made a point.

i hope they do this in jersey soon
to get into the city, just to go to a smoke free club costs too forking much
so you go to a smokers club in jersey, dance, and come home smelling like an ashtray.

it is le suck

[QUOTE=TheJudasCow]i hope they do this in jersey soon
to get into the city, just to go to a smoke free club costs too forking much
so you go to a smokers club in jersey, dance, and come home smelling like an ashtray.

it is le suck[/QUOTE]
why don't you just lobby to get the cover in smoke free places lowered?

Wouldn't that be a solution everyone would like?

Banning smoking isn't the solution. Once the smokers move outside, are you gonna complain that the sidewalk is too smokey, too?