Mazda MX-6 Forum banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,869 Posts
By the way, banning it outside I think is where it crosses the line. That's infringing upon rights way moreso than in private establishments.
Assuming "outside" means public, like a public street, I totally agree. Dirty habit, but not government business.

On the other hand, I absolutely love the indoor bans for the same reason you do. The health benefits are a nice side effect too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
Dave,

Around here, Bus Stops fall under ownership of the transit company, and they have had no smoking signs posted on them forever.

Do you think that stops any one?
i know what you mean, but im just saying that's why i am for banning smoking

people will do it regardless i know that. But my point was that I would like to fact to just walk down the street and not have to walk through the smell of smoke ya know?? it was more or less an example to show that it isn't ALWAYS out of spite to complain. there are some reasons. Although some people complain just because.

sicksix, i know there is more than a smell to worry about, it was just an example lol
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Why do I have the feeling that sentence isn't yours?

I personnally have no problem with people being barred from smoking outdoors. I'm not saying it's right to impose that type of law, but I certainly don't mind it. Sure it's a contradiction and not all that fair but.....
I'm lost. I'm the anti drug and anti cigarette one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Not sure which side I'm on here. I used to smoke (up till 1 months ago). A pack a day habit that cost a small fortune. I quit when the Oral Surgeon gave me a prescription for Endocet (it's a narcotic) and told me not to smoke for a week after surgery. I never started back up again so, I guess I'm a non smoker now. I think it's good idea to not have smoking in a diner, but one of the bars (Kazs' ) owners had what I thought to be a great idea. He bought the store next to him, and opened it as the smoking side of the bar. There was a double door between the smoking and non-smoking side. If your drink ran out, You had to go to the non-smoking side and order. No waitresses are harmed and smokers get to drink and smoke. They (meaning law makers of St Catharines, good old Rigby) passed another law prohibiting smoking in the bars, PEROID! Half the bars on St Paul st have closed, lack of business and the owner of Kazs' is out the cash, cause he can't use his "fish tank".

I think there is a point where your just going to far. This might very well be that point. I hear on the radio, an ad that encourages smokers to stand up for there right to smoke by visiting some web site. After this, you know they'll only find somthing else to make laws about and restrict our lives even more, "only for our own good", cuz you know were all a bunch of stupid no minds, who would cross the street in the middle of traffic if that flashing sign wasn't there.:jump::jump::jump::jump:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
If it's public (government) property, than a smoking ban is fine. If it's private property, the owner of the property gets to make that decision. Smoking bans inside bars (private property) and whatnot are a gross violation of property rights.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to where it is, because basicly, you have no right to be there(private property) anyways; you are given the privilege to go in, by the owner, if you want.

-Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,869 Posts
If it's public (government) property, than a smoking ban is fine. If it's private property, the owner of the property gets to make that decision. Smoking bans inside bars (private property) and whatnot are a gross violation of property rights.
Its a public health issue, something government has been regulating with the consent of the people for millennia.

The government is well within it's authority to inspect kitchens for food safety, and they are well within their authority to ban smoking in bars. There is a reason why most states make very specific rules about what constitutes a "private club for members" and a tavern, bar, or restaurant that is open to the public. In most reasonable and constitutional bans, private clubs still allow smoking as do businesses designed expressly for smoking such as a cigar bar.
Don't like smoking? Don't go to where it is, because basicly, you have no right to be there(private property) anyways; you are given the privilege to go in, by the owner, if you want.
That simply isn't true. The owner has a broad right to refuse service to individuals, but outright denying entry to certain people is by no means a universal right of the owner. I welcome you to open a bar called the "KKK Pub" and see how long it takes before you get sued/unlicensed/arrested for only allowing entry to white people. Conversely, the owner agrees to not allow entry or service of certain groups such as minors and visibly intoxicated persons as a condition of licensing. The owner doesn't have a right to operate an establishment with poor food safety, an edifice that doesn't meet fire code, or increasingly an atmosphere of annoying and unhealthy smoke.

Many of us feel that government regulation to keep our restaurants smoke free is quite reasonable, just as most of us are glad that the state makes an attempt to ensure that the food coming out of the kitchen is safe. Here in New Mexico I have to seek out establishments that are smoke free; I find this annoying and burdensome. Also: I guarantee none of the smoke free bars were smoke free before bans in place elsewhere engendered public debate on the issue. Judging from the responses to this thread and the popular support of these bans in many places, I'm not exactly the only one that feels this way.

Banning smoking in public in a broad sense including my sidewalk is simply nuts IMO. Other than the fact that many smokers are douchebags that have no problem tossing their butts and ashes wherever, its silly to argue that people smoking walking around the city are even a nuisance.

PS Jon: Firefox apparently doesn't have millennia in the dictionary either, wtf?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
Its a public health issue, something government has been regulating with the consent of the people for millennia.
That's an excuse to tell people how to live their lives, and a poor one at that. It's poor because "the consent of the people" is very misleading. I didn't consent, but am I not "of the people"? So, I'll rephase that for ya.

Its a public health issue, something government has been regulating with the consent of the majority of people for millennia.
And I know that you know that majorities are not exactly knowledgable of all the facts dealing with all the subjects at hand. Considering that the division of labor is what creates the world we live in, don't expect people to know more than what they do.

The government is well within it's authority to inspect kitchens for food safety, and they are well within their authority to ban smoking in bars. There is a reason why most states make very specific rules about what constitutes a "private club for members" and a tavern, bar, or restaurant that is open to the public. In most reasonable and constitutional bans, private clubs still allow smoking as do businesses designed expressly for smoking such as a cigar bar.
They inspect kitchens and bad food still gets served, and people still get sick; buildings and houses still burn down; people are in deadly car crashes every day...Yeah, a lot of good they do. Bad things are going to happen. More regulation doesn't help, people doing the right thing and making good choices does. And, you can't say that the regulation has helped because there are less food posionings or house fires...Correlation is not causation. People learn from past mistakes and try to adjust.

Just because you don't like smoking still does not give you the right to tell an owner of a business what he can and can't do. I also don't care much for gov. defining things, that's just another way for them to tell people how to run their life. Yes, most places are open to the public, but that in no way means that they are publicly run or owned. Again, don't like it, don't go, it's that simple. If you think there is a market for non-smoking places, then open one.

That simply isn't true. The owner has a broad right to refuse service to individuals, but outright denying entry to certain people is by no means a universal right of the owner. I welcome you to open a bar called the "KKK Pub" and see how long it takes before you get sued/unlicensed/arrested for only allowing entry to white people. Conversely, the owner agrees to not allow entry or service of certain groups such as minors and visibly intoxicated persons as a condition of licensing. The owner doesn't have a right to operate an establishment with poor food safety, an edifice that doesn't meet fire code, or increasingly an atmosphere of annoying and unhealthy smoke.
Actually, it is. I don't have to let people into my house, which I am the owner of, and I also don't have to let people into my business, which I am owner of. I understand that you seem to be focused on the food industry mostly, but that's just to make your point. What if I own a shop and an 18 year old comes in with a stack of cash wanting a 500hp monster? I don't have to give him service, just as any other business doesn't either for what ever reason. As much as I dislike people that judge/hate others based on color/religion/etc., as long as those people don't act on their hatred they are free to associate with whom ever they want. Freedom of association.

Many of us feel that government regulation to keep our restaurants smoke free is quite reasonable, just as most of us are glad that the state makes an attempt to ensure that the food coming out of the kitchen is safe. Here in New Mexico I have to seek out establishments that are smoke free; I find this annoying and burdensome. Also: I guarantee none of the smoke free bars were smoke free before bans in place elsewhere engendered public debate on the issue. Judging from the responses to this thread and the popular support of these bans in many places, I'm not exactly the only one that feels this way.
You mean that you have to take more time to find a place to go? Oh, call Jesse Jackson, you have been violated! :D But wait, your rights haven't been...don't bother with that call. I'm sure you know, but I obviously don't give half a crap what majorities say; they are often wrong.

Think medicine when thinking regulation. How many people die waiting for drugs that may kill them? Do you think that somebody that has a 100% chance of death cares if they may die from a drug that has a 50% chance of killing them?

Of course, that is regulation out of control, but then again, it all started so simply and with good intentions. But the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

-Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah!

There's flipsides to everything. You remove smoking in bars and instead you have a place that reeks of bad odour, urine and spilt liquor. You remove smoking on the street and instead you have crotchety people waiting for their next fix. All things relative.

Frankly, I don't give a crap what anyone tries to enforce, if I want a cigarette I'm gonna have one. How can you outlaw one vice that's been in society so long without removing the others like alcohol? It's bollocks, and if these stupid american ideals end up here someone's gonna pay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,869 Posts
They inspect kitchens and bad food still gets served, and people still get sick; buildings and houses still burn down; people are in deadly car crashes every day
Most of the deadly car accidents are directly related to people not following the common sense regulations put forth by the law, i.e driving while plastered, driving at inappropriate speeds, ignoring traffic control devices...

You don't really want to argue that there is no causal link between seatbelt laws and automobile fatalities, do you?

Do you really want to tell me that you are as comfortable walking into some random restaurant in Mexico and eating food you can't see being prepared as you are in Virginia?
people doing the right thing and making good choices does.
Refer back to your statements about majorities. Large groups of people often choose to do things that are irrational and dumb. This is why society needs leadership, its just a collection of dumb animals.
And, you can't say that the regulation has helped because there are less food posionings or house fires...Correlation is not causation. People learn from past mistakes and try to adjust.
There is a very definite causal link between seat belt laws or helmet laws and fatalities on roads. There is a very definite causal link between aircrew rest period regulations and fatigue related airplane crashes. I'm certainly not saying all regulation is good or directly linked to positive results, much of it isn't. Some is quite good.
Just because you don't like smoking still does not give you the right to tell an owner of a business what he can and can't do.
There are two ways to answer this. On the one hand, I do tell owners what they can and can't do by voting with my dollars. On the other hand, the elected officials I help elect draft regulations that set limits on what that owner can and can't do. It isn't "unfair" that Bill Business Owner doesn't get to serve alcohol to 12 year olds. Society very much has the right to prevent that.
I also don't care much for gov. defining things
Definitions are a necessary evil, but they should be as far removed from the political process as possible. The law should say "Buildings must meet the requirements of the National Electric Code, punishment for non compliance is as follows:" and the NEC should be written and published by a group of stakeholders such as insurance companies and manufacturers. Compliance with the codes should be ensured by private and technically knowledgeable organizations licensed to carry that responsibility.

...which is in fact how it works when it works well. When it doesn't work well, douchebags like Bill Frist stand on the floor and tell us what vegetative state is.
I don't have to let people into my house, which I am the owner of, and I also don't have to let people into my business, which I am owner of.
Sure. If you want to charge people money for alcoholic beverages in your home or business, you'll need to comply with a whole bunch of rules. I'm not going to make any claim this is a good thing: most of the regulations are utter bullshit. That is, however, the way it is. You talk like it isn't.
What if I own a shop and an 18 year old comes in with a stack of cash wanting a 500hp monster? I don't have to give him service, just as any other business doesn't either for what ever reason.
Well, if the 18 year old is going to be driving said monster around a closed course with a bunch of your other customers who might suffer harm as a result of you serving the guy, you probably shouldn't serve him.
As much as I dislike people that judge/hate others based on color/religion/etc., as long as those people don't act on their hatred they are free to associate with whom ever they want. Freedom of association.
If you don't want to run an establishment open to the public and selling food and liquor, thats just dandy. Thus you can open the KKK Private Club for Members Only, but will enter a world of hurt if you try to open the KKK Pub open to Whiteys, home of the Dollar Draft.
You mean that you have to take more time to find a place to go? Oh, call Jesse Jackson, you have been violated! :D
:lol: I should call me a lawyer or sumtin.
Think medicine when thinking regulation. How many people die waiting for drugs that may kill them? Do you think that somebody that has a 100% chance of death cares if they may die from a drug that has a 50% chance of killing them?
Uck, no thanks. That would be a great example of how not to do government regulation, in about a gazillion different ways.

There are, on the other hand, hundreds of millions of people that rode on 737s and whether they know it or not are glad the FAR Part 25 requires manufacturers to carry out careful static testing of certain important bits. One test requires the wing to live to 150% of the limit load factor specified in the category meaning that a big gust of turbulence will stall the wing with a 1.5 FoS before structural failure; the 737 test article failed at a bit less than 100% of the limit load.

If this wasn't a regulatory requirement, no one would carry out such an expensive test. If you look into aircraft where the regulatory requirements are less strict, you'll find much higher accident rates due to design failures. The design flaw in the 737 would have been found somewhere down the line, either killing a test crew, or after certification when someone blundered into a thunderstorm and found themselves without wings on the other side.
But the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
Just because lots of regulations suck doesn't mean they all suck.

I personally think smoking bans in certain places, if supported by the people, are perfectly reasonable, but I can understand an argument that they aren't. I can't agree that all regulation is a slippery slope because there is way too much empirically derived proof that regulation is worthwhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
Most of the deadly car accidents are directly related to people not following the common sense regulations put forth by the law, i.e driving while plastered, driving at inappropriate speeds, ignoring traffic control devices...
You just proved my point. And if it's common sense, then the vast majority of people will do it naturally.

You don't really want to argue that there is no causal link between seatbelt laws and automobile fatalities, do you?
http://www.seatbeltdefects.com/history/
The market was taking care of it way before the law. Also, fatalities were going down before seat belt laws...why? Because people understood that cars are not safe and decided to drive more cautiosly. Now, do you know how many people (children mostly) have been injured or killed because of seat belts? I bet ya don't, dead people don't complain much.

Do you really want to tell me that you are as comfortable walking into some random restaurant in Mexico and eating food you can't see being prepared as you are in Virginia?
Not random ones, but I did eat out when I was in Cancun. I was protected by the market. Good stuff.

Refer back to your statements about majorities. Large groups of people often choose to do things that are irrational and dumb. This is why society needs leadership, its just a collection of dumb animals.
But there is a large, large difference between allowing those people to live their lives and to make dumb choices and to allow them to set the rules. Large difference...emence difference. Crazy wicked difference.

There is a very definite causal link between seat belt laws or helmet laws and fatalities on roads. There is a very definite causal link between aircrew rest period regulations and fatigue related airplane crashes. I'm certainly not saying all regulation is good or directly linked to positive results, much of it isn't. Some is quite good.
Refer to statement above. The market (persons) were taking care of it way before pointless regulation.

There are two ways to answer this. On the one hand, I do tell owners what they can and can't do by voting with my dollars. On the other hand, the elected officials I help elect draft regulations that set limits on what that owner can and can't do. It isn't "unfair" that Bill Business Owner doesn't get to serve alcohol to 12 year olds. Society very much has the right to prevent that.
So, I guess I should vote for someone that will violate your rights, and if they got elected, I'll just say it fair. :rolleyes: And the whole alcohol to 12 year olds is a red herring.

Definitions are a necessary evil, but they should be as far removed from the political process as possible. The law should say "Buildings must meet the requirements of the National Electric Code, punishment for non compliance is as follows:" and the NEC should be written and published by a group of stakeholders such as insurance companies and manufacturers. Compliance with the codes should be ensured by private and technically knowledgeable organizations licensed to carry that responsibility.
It should be privately done, yes. But there would be pressures on builders to not build crap anyways. I'll just keep it simple and say competition and all that goes with it.

...which is in fact how it works when it works well. When it doesn't work well, douchebags like Bill Frist stand on the floor and tell us what vegetative state is.
That depends....on what the definition of "is", is. :D

Sure. If you want to charge people money for alcoholic beverages in your home or business, you'll need to comply with a whole bunch of rules. I'm not going to make any claim this is a good thing: most of the regulations are utter bull[shizzle]. That is, however, the way it is. You talk like it isn't.
No. I talk like it should be this way. The costs from the mountains of bad, painful, and nearly criminal regulations far outweighs the benifits. I said it before, but when you give them an inch, they will take a mile. So, better not give them that inch.

If you don't want to run an establishment open to the public and selling food and liquor, thats just dandy. Thus you can open the KKK Private Club for Members Only, but will enter a world of hurt if you try to open the KKK Pub open to Whiteys, home of the Dollar Draft.
And why is that? Oh yeah, because nobody seems to understand how private property works, open to the public or not. BTW, how well do you think Club KKK will do in a market? Not to well. Lot's of business will be lost based on stupid hatred of others. Even better yet, do you think Club KKK hasn't opened because they will be smashed by the law or do you think it hasn't opened because nobody would go there? It's a bad business plan and nobody would fund something like that. Of course, Club KKK is a strawman too, but I burned it anyways. :)

Uck, no thanks. That would be a great example of how not to do government regulation, in about a gazillion different ways.
And yet they stick to it. These things don't shrink either; it can only get worse. That goes for all regulations. It's in the nature of gov. to grow.

There are, on the other hand, hundreds of millions of people that rode on 737s and whether they know it or not are glad the FAR Part 25 requires manufacturers to carry out careful static testing of certain important bits. One test requires the wing to live to 150% of the limit load factor specified in the category meaning that a big gust of turbulence will stall the wing with a 1.5 FoS before structural failure; the 737 test article failed at a bit less than 100% of the limit load.

If this wasn't a regulatory requirement, no one would carry out such an expensive test. If you look into aircraft where the regulatory requirements are less strict, you'll find much higher accident rates due to design failures. The design flaw in the 737 would have been found somewhere down the line, either killing a test crew, or after certification when someone blundered into a thunderstorm and found themselves without wings on the other side
The same group of people that require those tests are the same that protect the companies too. A company that builds bad and deadly products would quickly go the way of the dodo, mainly because the owners would be held responsible. Market forces my friend, market forces.

Just because lots of regulations suck doesn't mean they all suck.

I personally think smoking bans in certain places, if supported by the people, are perfectly reasonable, but I can understand an argument that they aren't. I can't agree that all regulation is a slippery slope because there is way too much empirically derived proof that regulation is worthwhile.
It's just to bad that you haven't proved that. :)

Why, oh why, haven't they required 5 point harnesses? Or even helmets and roll cages in cars? I've seen miatas flip over multiply times and the driver walks away. Hey, maybe all the regulations are just showboating..."Look, we did something!"

-Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
lol chris, you remind my of my father...you have an arguement or response for almost anything. And it's usually a good read :)

Are you sure you aren't a mix of grey and red hair, about 5'8", 60 years old and Scottish?? ROFL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
lol chris, you remind my of my father...you have an arguement or response for almost anything. And it's usually a good read :)

Are you sure you aren't a mix of grey and red hair, about 5'8", 60 years old and Scottish?? ROFL

Thanks Dave. :) I do enjoy a good arguement.

I'm scottish/german, BTW, close. :D Not much of a drinker though...hmm.

-Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
Thanks Dave. :) I do enjoy a good arguement.

I'm scottish/german, BTW, close. :D Not much of a drinker though...hmm.

-Chris
lol...not even the classic scotch?? hehe

german AND scottish?? god damn...what were your parents thinking!!! rofl jk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
lol...not even the classic scotch?? hehe

german AND scottish?? god damn...what were your parents thinking!!! rofl jk


Hehe..Family has been here for a while. Helped build the railroads in this area and most of the old houses. :)

-Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
My husband used to smoke, and he tells me smokers are assholes because of all the people that give them crap. I believe it, and I keep that in mind and I don't criticize smokers. I still think they're idiots, but I keep my opinions to myself. However, it is so extraordinarily rude for them to cluster up around entrances to public buildings so those of us who don't smoke are forced to walk through their cloud of noxious fumes to get in or out of the building. It's particularly irritating in the winter when they huddle in the open section of a revolving door to puff, and then have the nerve to get upset at people who actually want to use the door!

I'm totally in favor of the bans, however restrictive, since they don't hurt me. I do think it's sad that the government has had to institute bans to cut back on smoking, though. I mean, we've known for decades that smoking kills, so I simply don't understand why so many people do it! I understand that people in their 40's and older have been smoking since it was the thing to do, and with the high level of addictiveness I know it's hard to quit after that length of time. But I'm constantly amazed at the number of teens and people in their 20's who pick up the habit. Cigarettes taste terrible and smell terrible, and it's not pretty to see the wrinkles and hear the hacking cough that lifetime smokers develop. So why start at all? Is it just that ridiculous "It won't happen to me" attitude?

Only people I have any sympathy for are the tobacco farmers who are slowly losing their livelihood. You really can't blame them for cashing in on a crop that was so very profitable for such a long time! I know some of them are starting to develop other crops, such as the new vineyards in North Carolina, but not all of them can switch gears easily.

Guess we'll have to wait and watch the fallout. It was only a matter of time before cities started regulating people's stupidity, so now I wonder where we'll be a few years from now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
Action/reaction... shunt all the smokers outside, and you then have a problem of smokers socializing outside... just the way it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
I honestly care less where they ban smoking from next. Ban all the bars, hotels, restaurants you want. I'm trying to quit so the more inconvient it becomes, the easier I can stop.

Around here pretty much the only places you can still smoke inside are in bars, which have fairly secluded designated areas. Still, a few restaurants have smoking at the bar with no real division from the rest of the tables.

We have no offical ban yet, but I'd say about 40% of those business have phased out smoking in the last year. I'm sure more will follow and then most likely a smoking ban will be passed. Its funny, the bar I used to live right next to was one of the first to abolish smoking here, citing they are trying to convey a "healthier attitude"...ha.

Its interesting to think back to when I was young and remembered seeing people actually smoking inside shopping malls, McDonalds and places like that.
But it is true, smokers are a dying breed. However, its oxymoronic to see all these bans and regulations the goverment is coming up with to reduce smoking, when just about every store you walk into has some sort of towering cigarette display.

As for smoking, I can't blame people for doing it, a lot of us, like myself, started when we were young and stupid. Starting smoking when you are older and know better is pretty foolish.

I can't say I have much pity for people like tobacco farmers who are losing money due to goverment regulations now, they contribute to something that is subject to control and scrutiny. However, someone like a commerical fisherman who is contributing to the harmless consumption of seafood, when the goverment imposes new rules and they can't afford to comform to it, I feel bad for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
SixSick6 said:
SMELL should be the least of your concerns. Cigarettes still contain many carcinogens that can be traced for years and years after the smell has gone. Why do you think so many people don't want to buy used cars from smokers? It's not because the car might smell, it's because the car won't increase your risk of cancer just from sitting on the seats.
RIP sixsick6 :frown2:
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top