Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.
I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days.
RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic.
The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
Salanis wrote: Anyone ever read excerpts from Upton Sinclair's novel, "The Jungle"? Yeah... the FDA and most health regulations aren't necessarily bad things.
Yeah, we should base all our laws on novels. 
Notice the rest of "The Jungle" is a call for socialism - coming out of Chicago. Hmmmm ...
gamby wrote:Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days. RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic. The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
What about banning eating soup while driving?
Changing your shirt? That's way more dangerous than texting.
How about not having at least one hand on the wheel? That should be banned too.
Ever notice how drivers tend to turn their heads? No way Jose! There should be mandatory blinders installed on every car so that the driver can't look at anything that's not glass or a mirror.
Talking too, mandate white noise generators installed in every car instead of distracting stereos and conversation.
Or maybe we could just have rules about what your car does while it's going down the road and let you figure out how to do that yourself...
I suggest a ban on bans. Then, a ban to ban banning bans.
tuna55 wrote:gamby wrote:What about banning eating soup while driving? Changing your shirt? That's way more dangerous than texting. How about not having at least one hand on the wheel? That should be banned too. Ever notice how drivers tend to turn their heads? No way Jose! There should be mandatory blinders installed on every car so that the driver can't look at anything that's not glass or a mirror. Talking too, mandate white noise generators installed in every car instead of distracting stereos and conversation. Or maybe we could just have rules about what your car does while it's going down the road and let you figure out how to do that yourself...Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days. RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic. The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
Ding!
I don't smoke. I hate smoking. I think banning smoking in bars is absolutely redonkulous.
Here's a better, free market solution: give tax breaks to bars that open with or change to a no smoking policy. Then let the public decide which is more successful. If you don't want to breathe smoke while being at a bar, then you CHOOSE to go to the bars that have a no-smoking policy. if you CHOOSE to smoke, you can go to the bar that allows smoking. i fyou are a smoker and want to WORK in a bar, you look for bars that allow smoking. If you want to work in a bar but DON'T want smoke around, you CHOOSE to work in a bar with a no-smoking policy.
If the bars that have a no-smoking policy do better, then the smoking bars will voluntarily change or go out of business OR choose to cater to a smaller clientelle.
Simple, easy, and it steps on NO ONE'S RIGHTS!
But it doesn't make do-gooder, control freaks who want to run everyone else's lives happy, so it won't happen. 
ignorant wrote: One more quick point. The quality of the air inside my plant is closely regulated by OSHA to protect the workers inside that establishment. Who protects the lungs of bartenders?
No joke. I play in a band that plays in a lot of smokey bars. We've had shows that were so smokey that I was hacking and physically ill the next day. I don't smoke, but the rest of the band does, and we all prefer to play in non smoking bars
joey48442 wrote: I think the main difference between smoking/poison is it is illegal to poison someone, but smoking is still legal. If you don't like smoke, don't go there. If enough people do this the restaraunt will go out of business. I hate tvs in restauaunts, so I don't go to places with tvs. Easy. Joey
Isn't it time for you and the Missus to join us at Finleys? I didn't realize the TV's were offensive, I will find a nice Amish eatery for you ;)
Chris_V wrote: If you don't want to breathe smoke while being at a bar, then you CHOOSE to go to the bars that have a no-smoking policy. if you CHOOSE to smoke, you can go to the bar that allows smoking. i fyou are a smoker and want to WORK in a bar, you look for bars that allow smoking. If you want to work in a bar but DON'T want smoke around, you CHOOSE to work in a bar with a no-smoking policy.
WAAAAAYYYYY easier said than done. I live in a city of approx. 160k, and I can only think of ONE bar that doesn't allow smoking. Give drunk people the option and they get lazy, and they'll fire up at the bar. When we play out of town shows, or just go out of town to hang out, everyone goes outside to smoke, and are much happier the next day when they don't feel like crap and have every article of clothing reek, although they are the same people that would have just lit up at the bar if they had allowed smoking.
16vCorey wrote: WAAAAAYYYYY easier said than done. I live in a city of approx. 160k, and I can only think of ONE bar that doesn't allow smoking. Give drunk people the option and they get lazy, and they'll fire up at the bar. When we play out of town shows, or just go out of town to hang out, everyone goes outside to smoke, and are much happier the next day when they don't feel like crap and have every article of clothing reek, although they are the same people that would have just lit up at the bar if they had allowed smoking.
Does your city have a tax break for a bar that has a no smoking policy? If not, then it hasn't been tried there.
If people really want bars with no smoking, then it would make business sense to voluntaily provide one, and the enforcement would be identical to what they would have to do if it were city imposed vs merely management imposed.
It really isn't that hard. But NO ONE TRIES IT THAT WAY. they simply decide that it needs to be a universal ban and that's that.
It's like everything else. Education and choice is just no longer thought about, and overregulation and bannning is the only choice in people's minds.
Nah, it's in Indiana. They don't care here. I have yet to see a no-smoking bar or club here.
Chris_V wrote: ....Here's a better, free market solution: give tax breaks to bars that open with or change to a no smoking policy....
I am guessing that is not intended to be funny, but you in your explanation of your free market solution, the first 3 words or your explanation completely violate the concept of free market.
My wife and I go out more due to the smoking ban. Mostly because we can say we're going out for a smoke and disappear without paying.
Damn, I don't smoke but I've gotta try that Wally
Chris_V wrote: Here's a better, free market solution: give tax breaks to bars that open with or change to a no smoking policy. Then let the public decide which is more successful.
Semantics aside, this is an interesting idea. Is there a city you know of that has tried this?
Wally wrote: My wife and I go out more due to the smoking ban. Mostly because we can say we're going out for a smoke and disappear without paying.
Dammit, Wally wins this thread, too.
tuna55 wrote:gamby wrote:What about banning eating soup while driving? Changing your shirt? That's way more dangerous than texting. How about not having at least one hand on the wheel? That should be banned too. Ever notice how drivers tend to turn their heads? No way Jose! There should be mandatory blinders installed on every car so that the driver can't look at anything that's not glass or a mirror. Talking too, mandate white noise generators installed in every car instead of distracting stereos and conversation. Or maybe we could just have rules about what your car does while it's going down the road and let you figure out how to do that yourself...Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days. RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic. The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
Gosh, those are fantastic examples--all so free of hyperbole and. I hope none of your loved ones get mowed down by someone paying more attention to their text than to their driving.
There is no doubt in my mind that we won't see a massive increase in texting-while-driving fatalities. We're only at the tip of the iceberg. No way in hell ANYONE can do it safely.
As for the non-smoking rule--having experienced it for the past 10 years, I honestly can't see a difference in business. Oddly enough, people still seem to enjoy going to bars. Smokers just smoke outside. At this point, it's an accepted situation. The bonus is that I don't leave an establishment smelling like an ashtray.
DrBoost wrote: 2nd (comment made about the fried chicken oil) I love how freaks from CA say they are more health-conscious. How can you be health-conscious, have you seen your air lately? That's kinda the point. If your air is nasty enough to be seen, it aint healthy! IF you really were 1/2 as health conscious as other folks, you wouldn't have to chew your air before you swallow!!!
What exactly do you want people to do about the air in the L.A. basin? That place was polluted before there was even a city there. I’m pretty sure California has some of the strictest emissions control regulations in the world. You can’t even use a leaf blower in LA. As a result the air has gotten continually better over the last 20 years. If you’re trying to say people in California don’t care about air quality then i think you’re on crazy pills. I hear people bash California constantly for being overzealous with its emission controls and now you’re bashing California for not doing a good enough job at controlling air pollution? Which is it?
GlennS wrote: What exactly do you want people to do about the air in the L.A. basin? That place was polluted before there was even a city there. I’m pretty sure California has some of the strictest emissions control regulations in the world. You can’t even use a leaf blower in LA. As a result the air has gotten continually better over the last 20 years. If you’re trying to say people in California don’t care about air quality then i think you’re on crazy pills. I hear people bash California constantly for being overzealous with its emission controls and now you’re bashing California for not doing a good enough job at controlling air pollution? Which is it?
People who think Cali is all smog are probably the same ones who think that we all live within an hour of a beach (which is sunny and warm... LOL!), surf, and smoke pot.
I can see both sides of this argument, however, being a non-smoker, I love smoking bans! To hell with "smokers" rights, they can go outside, I don't want to breathe that crap. Although if it wasn't banned, I'd probably just frequent non-smoking restaurants. It's kind of like the whole 18 years old is old enough to die in war but not old enough to drink beer; I used to care until I turned 21. Now it doesn't really affect me so I pay attention to things worth caring about 
.
gigolojoe wrote: I can see both sides of this argument, however, being a non-smoker, I love smoking bans! To hell with "smokers" rights, they can go outside, I don't want to breathe that crap. Although if it wasn't banned, I'd probably just frequent non-smoking restaurants. It's kind of like the whole 18 years old is old enough to die in war but not old enough to drink beer; I used to care until I turned 21. Now it doesn't really affect me so I pay attention to things worth caring about
I think your post somes up what alot of people are saying..."It doesnt bother me as long as it doesnt effect me..." Scary stuff.
Joey
gamby wrote:tuna55 wrote:Gosh, those are fantastic examples--all so free of hyperbole and. I hope none of your loved ones get mowed down by someone paying more attention to their text than to their driving. There is no doubt in my mind that we won't see a massive increase in texting-while-driving fatalities. We're only at the tip of the iceberg. No way in hell ANYONE can do it safely. As for the non-smoking rule--having experienced it for the past 10 years, I honestly can't see a difference in business. Oddly enough, people still seem to enjoy going to bars. Smokers just smoke outside. At this point, it's an accepted situation. The bonus is that I don't leave an establishment smelling like an ashtray.gamby wrote:What about banning eating soup while driving? Changing your shirt? That's way more dangerous than texting. How about not having at least one hand on the wheel? That should be banned too. Ever notice how drivers tend to turn their heads? No way Jose! There should be mandatory blinders installed on every car so that the driver can't look at anything that's not glass or a mirror. Talking too, mandate white noise generators installed in every car instead of distracting stereos and conversation. Or maybe we could just have rules about what your car does while it's going down the road and let you figure out how to do that yourself...Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days. RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic. The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
I don't "text and drive" either, nor do I advocate ANYONE doing it. I wear my seatbelts EVERY TIME I drive, but I think laws to that effect are stupid. You can't legislate utopia. Trying will only result in statism.
Chris_V wrote: But it doesn't make do-gooder, control freaks who want to run everyone else's lives happy, so it won't happen.
DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner. Control. This has nothing to do with health, it has everything to do with garnering more control over the populace to do what those in power think should be done.
DrBoost wrote: 2nd (comment made about the fried chicken oil) I love how freaks from CA say they are more health-conscious. How can you be health-conscious, have you seen your air lately? That's kinda the point. If your air is nasty enough to be seen, it aint healthy! IF you really were 1/2 as health conscious as other folks, you wouldn't have to chew your air before you swallow!!!
This is actually a HORRIBLE example if you are trying link this to the government telling you what you can do. There is not a lot of smog in LA anymore. I can't even remember when the last Smog alert was (maybe 10 years ago?!) I have been here since 1990 and I can tell you the air has got a lot cleaner since then. I was not here but I am told it was REALLY bad in the mid 70's, just look at some of the movies shot here then, it was bad.
Why is it so much better? You guessed it, the damn Facist / Socialists in government "telling us what to do" and just assuming people will not do what is best for them in the long term by sacrificing in the short term. There is NO way LA would be as clean as it is today without government intervention.
tuna55 wrote:gamby wrote:I don't "text and drive" either, nor do I advocate ANYONE doing it. I wear my seatbelts EVERY TIME I drive, but I think laws to that effect are stupid. You can't legislate utopia. Trying will only result in statism.tuna55 wrote:Gosh, those are fantastic examples--all so free of hyperbole and. I hope none of your loved ones get mowed down by someone paying more attention to their text than to their driving. There is no doubt in my mind that we won't see a massive increase in texting-while-driving fatalities. We're only at the tip of the iceberg. No way in hell ANYONE can do it safely. As for the non-smoking rule--having experienced it for the past 10 years, I honestly can't see a difference in business. Oddly enough, people still seem to enjoy going to bars. Smokers just smoke outside. At this point, it's an accepted situation. The bonus is that I don't leave an establishment smelling like an ashtray.gamby wrote:What about banning eating soup while driving? Changing your shirt? That's way more dangerous than texting. How about not having at least one hand on the wheel? That should be banned too. Ever notice how drivers tend to turn their heads? No way Jose! There should be mandatory blinders installed on every car so that the driver can't look at anything that's not glass or a mirror. Talking too, mandate white noise generators installed in every car instead of distracting stereos and conversation. Or maybe we could just have rules about what your car does while it's going down the road and let you figure out how to do that yourself...Drewsifer wrote: Ignorant, no one is forcing them to work there. If you don't like working at a bar that has smokers, go work somewhere else. If there's such a huge market for people who want to eat and not work in smoke, than a clever businessperson should leap on it.I love that answer--because jobs are so abundant these days. RI and MA have banned smoking in restaurants and bars for about 10 years now--it's fantastic. The anti-texting while driving is just plain common sense.
How is regulating "texting while driving" any different than regulating vehicle speed? I think its reasonable to try and limit what people can and cannot do while on the road. When they screw up more often then not they take someone down with them. I dont want to get T-Boned by someone who was too busy texting to notice a red light.
When people die in auto accidents they often leave responsibilities behined that the government ends up having to take care of like orphaned children. Thats a decent incentive to pass a law that has no effect on our daily lives unless we get in a crash that greatly reduces this risk. The social good easily outweighs any negative. Seat belt laws are a no brainer.
GlennS wrote: ... ... ... How is regulating "texting while driving" any different than regulating vehicle speed? I think its reasonable to try and limit what people can and cannot do while on the road. When they screw up more often then not they take someone down with them. I dont want to get T-Boned by someone who was too busy texting to notice a red light. When people die in auto accidents they often leave responsibilities behined that the government ends up having to take care of like orphaned children. Thats a decent incentive to pass a law that has no effect on our daily lives unless we get in a crash that greatly reduces this risk. The social good easily outweighs any negative. Seat belt laws are a no brainer.
You just made my point. Running a red light is already illegal - why should you care why they ran it?
There is no such thing as 'social good' because you are always going to have some body who decides what 'good' is. In this case, it's pretty obvious, nobody wants to be in a car accident, but in other cases, it's not that clear, and once you put the camels nose in the tent, everything becomes legislate-able. Seat belts are a no brainer, there is so little damage a person can do by NOT wearing their own seat belt, it makes no sense to make a law against it. Likewise with helmets. You are going to create fascism little by little with all of the good intentions in the world.
You'll need to log in to post.
