Columbia to ban smoking in bars/restaurants [Archive] - Board To Pieces Discussion Forums

JVO

10-10-2006, 06:25 PM

Received city council approval last night. Looks like you picked a good time to stop smoking, JVO.

Yeah, I heard that the meeting went on for over 4 hours and that so many people showed up they had to come up with overfill rooms.

Freaking communism!!! I am sure loopholes will be found. Let's make a law and force everyone to follow it because we are holier than thou pieces of crap. I so hate it when others feel like they can dictate how everyone should live. If you don't like cig smoke, don't go places where there is cig smoke. Is that really too difficult? But nooooooo, we think cig smokers are evil so lets pass a law to punish them, and punish the businesses that they attract, and punish the business owners who pay taxes. The proposers of this law need to get a life!!!! Maybe if they actually got some action once in awhile they wouldn't have their head up their ass about what other people want to do with their lives. Also, I happen to watch quite a bit of the city counsel meeting, and let me just say for the record, the proponents of passing this law, were the most unattractive collection of people that I have ever seen. I can almost guarantee you that nearly every single one of them hasn't visited a shower in many moons. I suspect many of them were single and bitter and lonely, and instead of dealing were the pathetically dull exsistance they call life, they think it is better to take rights away from people who they have never met, just so they can feel superiour with their healthy lungs. Good thing you have healthy lungs, too bad you are going to die alone in your shitty smelly apartment that nobody every goes to. I want to start a no public bitching law. Bitching is bad for my stress level and therefore hurts my health. All those who like to bitch can not do so in public places. Fuckers!

I never noticed how much I love the smell of fresh cig smoke until I quit. Everytime I hung out with smokers over the weekend, all that I wanted to do was sniff all around them while they were smoking. Of course it doesn't smell to good 2 weeks later.

Ag Au

10-10-2006, 06:33 PM

someone lighting a winston cigarette is my very favorite. i don't know why, but it is.

i definately think that music venues should be smoke free because i don't think it is fair that eveyone there should breathe your smoke (unless it is the good kind). : ) same for eating establishments. people go to these places to listen to music, eat food, not smoke.

but bars and coffee shops should be able to decide. maybe do a percentage thing, like they do with liquor licenses. only so many smoking establishments per zone, or something to that effect. what are all those AA people going to do at the coffe shops with out their cigs?!

Soul Queen

10-10-2006, 06:40 PM

Columbia will adapt like most cities.

I personally think its nice to go into a place and not be suffocated by second hand smoke.

But, I'm a non-smoker.
As a non-smoker, smokers have been forcing their crappy smoke in my face for years...

:tomato:

Soul Queen

10-10-2006, 06:41 PM

Most of my friends are smokers, so smokers on the board, take no offense.

JVO

10-10-2006, 06:48 PM

I agree about the bars and coffee shops. I also think that as long as restaurants have seperated areas for smoking and nonsmoking that should be fine.

As far as places to listen to music...a vast majority of the people in these places are smokers, but because of a small percentage of whinners who might accidentally inhale some second hand smoke, they have to ruin it for everybody. Even the owners of the bars and lounges were begging to not pass the laws, but NNNOOOOO, there was fun being had, so the fun police had to swoop in and ruin it. If you are so freaked out about second hand smoke, don't go!!!!! Is that really too hard. All this is going to do is hurt small business and help frat parties. Just what the world needs more freaking shitty laws that restrict freedom. I swear to god, everytime the government passes a law for my own good that restricts my personal freedom I want to kill somebody. If they really cared that much about our health, why in the hell don't they do something about the freaking polution?

JVO

10-10-2006, 06:51 PM

Columbia will adapt like most cities.

I personally think its nice to go into a place and not be suffocated by second hand smoke.

:tomato:

99.9% of places there is no smoking. Except for resturants, bars, and casinos where else can you smoke?

As a smoker (formerly) I personally think it is nice to go into a place and smoke my freaking ass off.

Padrote

10-10-2006, 06:56 PM

Minneapolis has been smoke free for a year and a half....it is great...puff puff pass

JVO

10-10-2006, 06:57 PM

What is going to happen is that all of the bars and resturants are going to ignore the laws and continue to allow patrons to smoke, ssooooooo than the cops are going to start camping out inside bars to monitor people. Then they are going to start sending in undercover cops to write people up with tickets who have the nerve to smoke a cigarette in a bar (My god, THE HORROR!!!). Then you are going to have some drunkard who doesn't like the idea of getting a ticket in a bar for smoking from an undercover cop and he is going to start a fight with the cop and all hell breaks lose. I am telling you this is going to start happening all over the city. Every bar you used to love is going to be filled with cops just waiting to write you up for smoking or for any other unacceptable behavior, like being drunk in the parking lot.

Fucking puritans. Live your life and stay the hell out of mine.

Ag Au

10-10-2006, 06:59 PM

i haven't seen any ill effects on the bars and clubs in new york since the ban was passed. so there's that.

but also, when i think about the smoking issue, i always come back to the people who work there. talk about work place safety. just because you are a waitress, hostess, bartender, etc. doesn't mean that you should automatically conceed to smoke two packs of second hand smoke on your shift. its really not fair to them. pepole can choose whether or not to go to smoking establishments, but the people who work there might just need a job.

also, i don't think the smoking section in eating establishments cuts it. sorry, but that one side/other side thing is just bs.

i've done my fair share of smoking in the past, but i really love smoke free places. i think it certainly cuts down on social smoking, which is sounds good to me, less temptation. : )

JVO

10-10-2006, 07:15 PM

but also, when i think about the smoking issue, i always come back to the people who work there. talk about work place safety. just because you are a waitress, hostess, bartender, etc. doesn't mean that you should automatically conceed to smoke two packs of second hand smoke on your shift. its really not fair to them. pepole can choose whether or not to go to smoking establishments, but the people who work there might just need a job.

If you don't want to work someplace where people smoke DON'T! I don't want to get black lung so I am not a coalminer. Not to mention, in the two or three instances in which I worked at bars, I can tell you the waitresses always fought over who would get the smoking sections, because smokers always tipped more than non smokers. If it was really service personnel who were the ones behind this law I could understand it more, but it's not. In fact all of the people who worked in the food/bar service industry who spoke at the city counsel meeting were AGAINST the law. They believed that they would lose business and therefore the employers would be forced to lay off employees. Also with people not being able to smoke, they are much less likely to stay after dinner for drinks, thus hurting the tips amounts that would be earned. These people who are supposed to be helped were against the law. Nobody cares about that though, they just say they do so that they ruin other people's fun.

Mark my words, I will never, never, never not allow people to smoke in my home. If you are a guest in my house, I want you to feel as comfortable as possible, so smoke your ass off.

I think the people who are the craziest about smoking are former smokers who quit or non smokers who marry smokers. Once they quit, they feel superior to other smokers and therefore want to constantly remind them how unhealthy it is for you. Same is true with recovering alcoholics. Because they can't handle booze they feel the need to preach the evil of booze to everyone they can.

Lori Burger

10-10-2006, 07:49 PM

A long time ago, I read some statistics which indicated that bars weren't adversely affected financially in NYC or Cali by the banning of smoking. I also noticed that, as an ex-smoker, I enjoy myself more at bars where there's no smoking because I'm not constantly reminded of it, and also I don't stink to high heaven when I get home.

I signed a petition on Sunday which intends to help ban smoking in Maryland bars. I support this due to the aforementioned reasons, regardless of the funny look I got from Poof (another non-smoker) for doing so.

JVO

10-10-2006, 07:56 PM

andikay

10-11-2006, 12:12 AM

I want to know why the hell they didn't just get a petition together, collect signatures, and put it up for referendum on the November ballot. Probably because they knew it would NEVER PASS!

This is fucking ridiculous. I'm an ex-smoker. If you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to places where smoking is allowed (concerts should be the exception, in my opinion a smoking ban is fine there). Lots of bars in town have already lost business from enforcing a voluntary smoking ban. For example, Flat Branch used to have a booming late-night drinks-only business. Now, since you can't smoke inside, the bar is deserted after 11pm. You know where those people go? To Teller's, or Addison's, or Eastside, or numerous other places where smoking is allowed.

That point is moot now that you can't smoke anywhere, but it's still stupid. Take personal responsibility for your choices, instead of placing restrictions on others.

Lori Burger

10-11-2006, 11:56 AM

I am clearly in the minority on this issue. I just hate how we so freely give our freedoms away. For some reason people seem to take some sort of pleasure in limiting the things that other people can do.

Right, I can see your point here. I agree with the idea of people having as much freedom as possible and I dislike the idea of the government looking for opportunities to control people, but an act like smoking transcends this sort of instance because it directly, and adversely, affects others. My personal belief is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others' rights to do the same. Smoking in a bar affects everyone there, from those who are smoking, to those who are breathing in second-hand smoke on a regular basis, all the way to those who are grossed out that their hair now smells like cigarettes.

Soul Queen

10-11-2006, 01:09 PM

Right, I can see your point here. I agree with the idea of people having as much freedom as possible and I dislike the idea of the government looking for opportunities to control people, but an act like smoking transcends this sort of instance because it directly, and adversely, affects others. My personal belief is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others' rights to do the same. Smoking in a bar affects everyone there, from those who are smoking, to those who are breathing in second-hand smoke on a regular basis, all the way to those who are grossed out that their hair now smells like cigarettes.

I agree.

The point keeps coming up that if I don't want to be around those who are smoking then I should stay at home. Thats bullshit. Why should I have to stay at home because I DON'T want to smoke. The smokers are everywhere. I don't think there is anything wrong with having smoking designated areas or cigar bars. If you want to smoke outside, fine see ya later, I'll stay inside where I can breathe and its warm.

I don't think the smokers realize you have been inconveniencing others for years. Shut the hell up and smoke outside. Its not like anyone is taking your cancer stick away.

Ag Au

10-11-2006, 01:51 PM

right on SQ!

fiddup_(is_a_midduP)

10-11-2006, 01:52 PM

If there is such a high demand for non-smoking bars etc. Why haven't more establishments gone that way naturally? Why? Because business isn't as good. This should be left entirely to the establishment. It a business owner thinks there is a demand for a non-smoking evironment, build a non smoking bar. Let the non-smokers flock there, but don't tell me I cant smoke my legal cigarette in a bar. I know several bar owners that have been dreading this day. The thing that really kills me is that the city council decided. Fuck man at least put it to a public vote. (oh but it probably wouldn't have passed if the people got to make the decision! HORRAYYY FOR BIG GOVERNMENT

JVO

10-11-2006, 01:58 PM

I agree.

The point keeps coming up that if I don't want to be around those who are smoking then I should stay at home. Thats bullshit.

What is bullshit is that they passed a law that a majority of the citizens are against. What is bullshit is that a community banned a federally recognized LEGAL substance without the approval of the citizenry. What is bullshit is that the government is overjoyed to tax the shit out of smokers but then ban them from using the substance in public. If there were really that many non smokers who didn't want to go to bars with smoking in it, then there would be nonsmoking bars. That is the way that capitalism works. But of course that hasn't happened because there is no way a non smoking bar could compete against a smoking bar. This is just a bunch of holier than thou asswipes deciding what is best for other people. I guarantee you that none of the people responsible for this have been to a bar in over 30 years. I suppose that is fine, one day soon they are going to take a right away that you cherish, and we are only making it easier for them.

I am also very interested to see how this law will be enforced. My guess is that it won't (or there will be cops in every bar), so I am not sure that it even matters. Somehow I don't see bartenders busting people for smoking. Especially since they don't care.

Ag Au

10-11-2006, 02:07 PM

This is just a bunch of holier than thou asswipes deciding what is best for other people. I guarantee you that none of the people responsible for this have been to a bar in over 30 years.

maybe those people haven't been to bars in over 30 years because they hate smoking.

jvo, do you think you still have some pent up nicotine in your system over this?
:D :banghead:

i just don't understand why this is getting such a big deal played about it. we can all agree that smoking is bad for everyone. since when was it problemsome to ban poison in our environments? i don't really see this as a restriction on personal rights. yeah, it restricts the smokers, but it free the non-smokers. i don't think there is anything wrong for going in a healthier direction.

Soul Queen

10-11-2006, 02:12 PM

[quote=JVO]What is bullshit is that they passed a law that a majority of the citizens are against. What is bullshit is that a community banned a federally recognized LEGAL substance without the approval of the citizenry. What is bullshit is that the government is overjoyed to tax the shit out of smokers but then ban them from using the substance in public. If there were really that many non smokers who didn't want to go to bars with smoking in it, then there would be nonsmoking bars. That is the way that capitalism works. But of course that hasn't happened because there is no way a non smoking bar could compete against a smoking bar. This is just a bunch of holier than thou asswipes deciding what is best for other people. I guarantee you that none of the people responsible for this have been to a bar in over 30 years. I suppose that is fine, one day soon they are going to take a right away that you cherish, and we are only making it easier for them.

quote]

:cry:

I bet there are more people than you think that don't want to wear smoke all the time. Not just people who haven't been out to the bar in 30 years either.

I don't think its that big of a deal. You can still smoke. 30 years ago you could smoke at your desk in your office. Now you can't. Do you think when that was banned that was unreasonable too?

I don't.

JVO

10-11-2006, 02:21 PM

maybe those people haven't been to bars in over 30 years because they hate smoking.

jvo, do you think you still have some pent up nicotine in your system over this?
:D :banghead:

i just don't understand why this is getting such a big deal played about it. we can all agree that smoking is bad for everyone. since when was it problemsome to ban poison in our environments? i don't really see this as a restriction on personal rights. yeah, it restricts the smokers, but it free the non-smokers. i don't think there is anything wrong for going in a healthier direction.

I think that you are failing to see the greater problem here. For me this really has very little to do with smoking (and yes I certainly do have some pent up nicotine...6 days and counting!!!) The problem is that the local government essentially made a legal substance or a legal right illegal. I have a major problem with that. What if the CoMo city counsel decided that we don't want abortions in this community because it kills unborn, helpless children? Or what if they decide that we are no longer going to allow drinking in Columbia because the number of drunk driving accidents, arrests, and injuries to non drunk parties is unacceptable (and Nation wide I am sure much greater than those caused by second hand smoke). What if we decided that parents giving fast food to their children is unhealthy and therefore they ban all fast food restaurants in Columbia to protect the children. (you would probably be in favor of that to!). Or what if CoMo city counsel suddenly decided that from now on girls are forced to take home ec classes in school and are not allowed to take industrial arts? or prayer in school? or curfew? or raise the drinking age to 25?

The greater picture is that you are supporting the government’s institution of a law that is not acceptable to a majority of the people. That is not the city counsel's job, that is the job of the courts. You may support this specific instance, but like I said at one point they will pass something you are against and there will be nothing you can do about it. Just another instance of the government depriving people of personal responsibility.

Lori Burger

10-11-2006, 02:41 PM

cuscus

10-11-2006, 03:49 PM

To those who claim that bars will suffer financially due to smoking restrictions, I respectfully ask you to please do some research and find if that has happened in California and New York (I'll save you the time: IT HASN'T).

People who don't smoke shouldn't have to suffer because other people do. I think that this is the real issue here, but also, I think our country is taking steps to build healthier habits (that includes eating, too). Again, I can understand those who are against this smoking ban, but I think SQ makes a good point by reminding us of former habits, which included smoking in all public places (I remember smoking in the mall, for instance). I personally think our society, overall, has become more tolerable for the greater good since smoking has become more and more illegal.
The ban in bigger cities wont efect business the same way cause it is not as easy for people to move to a nearby place that allows smoking. Madison WI has had a ban for about a year now. Middleton WI(where I live) Fitchburg WI where I work are about a five minute drive from the middle of downtown madison. Both of these cities still allow smoking. These two cities have taken a huge portion of business from the city bars that lie on the outskirts. In one case there is a non smoking bar that is less than a mile from a smoking bar. If you were a smoker where would you go. I think thats bullshit.
Ultimately the smoking ban is an alright thing. Keep in mind that I am one of the heaviest smokers that some of the people on this board know. It is nice to go to a bar and not reak like smoke afterward. The ban keeps my overindulgence to a minimum. Smoking is bad on all counts, except our small pleasure. I don't like that government would force the issue, but in most cases like Wisconsin a statewide ban was proposed but was voted down, however ultiamtely we all wish we could stop smoking, and this is here to help. Plus its big governent or big busness(Tobacco). Two sided sword. IF you wanna bitch about smoking you can join me outside, Ill be there freezing my ass off, calming my nerves, they havent made that illegal yet.....have they?

cuscus

10-11-2006, 03:50 PM

Sorry for my bad typing and spelling, my boss was watching over my shoulder, I tried to hurry.

JVO

10-11-2006, 05:14 PM

I know in California that local bars just completely ignore the law (this may not be true everywhere in California, but at least at some bars it is true). My step dad used to go to Cali every month and he said that all the bars just let you smoke anyway. He also said that the only worry was that they did have undercover cops that would hang out in bars and write people tickets for smoking. He got 2 or 3 of these tickets. I think they were about $200 a pop.

I wonder if the law will hold the establishments responsible for enforcement. In other words, will a bar be fined if there are people inside of it smoking? Might have to do some research into that. Andi Kay probably knows.

poofdogg

10-11-2006, 05:19 PM

hmm...to smoke or not to smoke...that is the question...i like the discussion here. i'm usually one to side with the smokers. i do hate being in a bar with smokers, seeing as i don't smoke. However, i don't like removing people's rights. anywho...if the laws were to pass nationally, i wouldn't complain. then again, if they didn't, i'm not gonna say a word either. i guess i'm non-committal on this one.

hotfoot

10-11-2006, 05:21 PM

i think it's ridiculous. smoking bans are for squares.

Ag Au

10-11-2006, 05:44 PM

this isn't big government, it is small government. we are talking city council here folks, people that the city of columbia elected. and they are taking on big tobacco all on their own. i am all for it.

there are plenty of instances where certain substances are allowed in certain places. you can drink in a bar, your house, a restaurant, but you can't drink in the street, your car, your boat, etc. so why is it a big deal that cigs can only be allowed in certain places? because this particular substance effects everyone in its immediate vacinity, it becomes regulated. just as alcohol comsumption while driving effects other people on the road.

matty

10-11-2006, 05:44 PM

As a smoker, I'm okay with it. This will make me smoke less, and help my chances of successfully quitting someday. Also, it's good for non-smokers so they don't have to smell it and recovering smokers so they're not tempted while drinking, which is my personal weakest area. I can't drink and not smoke, so maybe this will condition me.

I see your point JVO about having rights taken away, but you still have the RIGHT TO SMOKE, just in your own home or on the skreet. We're hemorraghing rights every day with this administration, and SMOKING is the thing you want to get all bent out of shape about??

I say GREAT! Fuck the smoking companies and they're political payoffs! IN YOUR FACE, PHILLIP-MORRIS!! You've peddled your death for too long, and we're slowly but surely not going to take it anymore!!!

larryhead

10-11-2006, 06:00 PM

hotfoot

10-11-2006, 06:20 PM

while we're at it, why don't we go ahead and make it illegal for people to wear too much perfume or fart in public. smoking bans are silly. how about addressing the quality of the air we're breathing outside instead?

working in a smoky bar (#2 smokiest in chicago, according the sun-times), i certainly take in my fair share of second hand smoke. but i don't have to work there if i don't want to. and the people i see who are in the bar often enough to really be affected by it have far bigger problems that a bit of secondhand smoke.

smoking bans go hand in hand with our culture's slow descent into big fat lameness.

JVO

10-11-2006, 06:26 PM

smoking bans go hand in hand with our culture's slow descent into big fat lameness.

:iagree:

andikay

10-11-2006, 09:41 PM

working in a smoky bar (#2 smokiest in chicago, according the sun-times), i certainly take in my fair share of second hand smoke. but i don't have to work there if i don't want to.

Precisely! I wish more people thought this way.

Ag Au

10-11-2006, 10:12 PM

wow, i forgot how really really cool smoking is.

CaDi_LaCkLaNd

10-11-2006, 11:17 PM

I can definately feel the argument for the 'slippery slope' political reasons that you bring up JVO. It IS easier for someone to take away a person's right after they desensitize you to a previous right that they have revoked. However, in this case I think that smoking laws have beefed up a lot over the past years and as long as it stays in the smoking realms I have no problems with it.

As a side note, poof and I went to NYC, and in their bars there was a smoking ban. So when I got really smashed and needed some nicotine in my body, I simply walked out to the front of the bar and smoked. It honestly wasn't that inconvenient and I actually enjoyed stretching my legs. Besides, I didn't have all of those 'holier than thou' people you were talking about, evil-eyin me because I was smokin...

hotfoot

10-11-2006, 11:29 PM

As a side note, poof and I went to NYC, and in their bars there was a smoking ban. So when I got really smashed and needed some nicotine in my body, I simply walked out to the front of the bar and smoked. It honestly wasn't that inconvenient and I actually enjoyed stretching my legs. Besides, I didn't have all of those 'holier than thou' people you were talking about, evil-eyin me because I was smokin...

One positive is that while standing outside a bar to have a smoke I've struck up conversations with people I never would've talked to w/o our mutual banishment to the sidewalk. Helpful to singles, that's for sure.

zero2056

10-12-2006, 12:27 AM

Non-smoker here.

Anti-smoking law = bad in my book.

Just hate it when the whining minority wins. Would have been different if it was actually left to the voters to decide.

MigueL

10-12-2006, 04:29 AM

Bout time Columbia got their act together

MigueL

10-13-2006, 05:29 PM

What if we decided that parents giving fast food to their children is unhealthy and therefore they ban all fast food restaurants in Columbia to protect the children. (you would probably be in favor of that to!). Just another instance of the government depriving people of personal responsibility.

Everyone made some good points on this topic. JVO I feel your passion on this issue but call me a communist I think the government should step in and do something. In Davis Fast food is ban mostly to protect the children and it is WONDERFUL!!!!!!! I am starting to feel that people are morons and many of them cant take personal responsibility especially with the corporations desensitizing us to issues that are not only harmful to ourselves but our environment. People should not eat fast food ITS BAD FOR YOU people should not smoke ITS BAD FOR YOU. Now that is not to say i believe these things should be made illegal I am all for personal freedoms but if small communities want to take large steps to providing healthier living environments for their citizens than I support that. I think we have become to lazy and comfortable in this country and I think we should take better care of our people. I fully support socialized medicine for example in this country. I think its possible for the government to make healthy decisions for its people without taking away our rights. If you need medical help go to a doctor. If you want special treatment go to a private doctor and pay for it! Everyone should not be exposed to toxic chemicals because they are in a bar, if you want to smoke just step out side. The idea of fast food is a good one but should we allow the restaurants to market to our children and then feed them extremely unhealthy food. Why not force them to raise their standards and provide healthier food. Its not that you don’t have the power not to take your kid their if you don’t want but isn’t it better for the majority of our citizens as a whole if we are realistic about our nutrition and health.

Anyway I just want to slap myself around with a large trout as I see myself write these arguments but I must say I believe there is some good in them. I realize im a hypocrite when I write this because I would be upset if they outlawed alcohol which is not the healthiest of decisions and hurts many more than it helps. :huh:

JVO

10-13-2006, 06:42 PM

I understand what you are saying. I just have a real problem with the government trying to protect people from themselves. I don't think they have the authority to do so, and in this case especially, where the people who they are supposedly trying to help are AGAINST the law, I think that they contravened the normal democratic process to instigate a law that a majority of people are against. If there had been a referendum vote and the results showed that a majority of people were in favor of the law, I could live with that, but that is not at all what happened. The proponents of this law knew they would lose in a popular vote so they came in through the back door. I understand that smoking hurts other people and that it should be banned in most public places. But surely we can agree that there are some places in which a vast majority of the customers want to smoke and will not be bothered by second hand smoke. So why do we need a law, made by people who will never feel its effect, to limit something that is legal? The people who are for this law are not the ones who are going to the bar on a Friday night. What if I decided that SUV’s should be prohibited from driving on public roads because their abnormally high pollution content hurts the general health of the community? I guarantee you the same rich asshole lawyers who were in favor of this law would go apeshit in opposition to the anti-SUV law. Why? Because they drive SUV’s.

Socialized Health Care: I am against it in theory, but would not mind if it ever happened. I think there would be many seen and unforeseen bad things that would happen as a result, but the good may outweigh the bad.

fiddup_(is_a_midduP)

10-13-2006, 07:57 PM

Don't even start with the Socialized Health Care, You don't want the Government Running Hospitals. Just think about it and remember the last time you went the the DMV

bubz_bluez

10-13-2006, 08:40 PM

phil JVO seriously i agree with both sidess in some ways but its not worth having this kind of sweeble wheeble you know? lmaoay

anyways i mostly agree with phil but jvo has made good points as well

madri nice advatar !

im still looking for new one its time to retire sephiroth

bubz

i think kids in glasgow get sick all the time coughing their lungs out because they go to perry's to meet up with their friends.........nick was always sick even though he never went in there but he cut tobacco and the smoking that was going on in the barns was horrible

i stipped and cut myself and smoked at the time and did not realize it

Talking Sandwich

10-13-2006, 08:41 PM

In Madrid, they made all restaurants and bars decide on a certain date if they will be smoking or non smoking . .and they had to stick with it. . if there was a market for non-smoking bars, then they would have existed before the ban right?

I don't smoke anymore, but I think having a choice is more important than telling people what to do to be healthy.

Maybe they will ban overweight people from having fast food and soda next.

On the plus side, this is forcing all of the smokers to go outside to get a fix. .which is creates an new social scene exclusively for smokers.

andikay

10-13-2006, 10:40 PM

In Davis Fast food is ban mostly to protect the children and it is WONDERFUL!!!!!!!

Why can't parents take it upon themselves to "protect" their children from fast food? When I was a kid and I whined to go to McDonald's and my parents thought I had had fast food recently enough, they simply said "no." End of argument.

I think parents today are too scared of psychologically scarring their children to deny them anything. That doesn't mean the government should step in and do it for them.

Fast food marketed directly to children in the 70's and 80's too, but parents back then knew how to set limits.

Soul Queen

10-14-2006, 05:51 PM

I never got to eat fast food as a kid. My mom hated it. The only time was when our class went on field trips. I loved it then. Mainly for the fries and the happy meal toys.

Its funny to think about now. Because now I would NEVER eat at a fast food joint. Haven't in several years.

CaDi_LaCkLaNd

10-25-2006, 06:24 AM

Not to drag it back up but I thought that this article from the Columbia Tribune kind of fits into what JVO was saying. Crazy fools wanting to take away all rights...

From a letter to the editor:

Editor, the Tribune: I see all the comments about banning smoking in public places in Columbia. Also, University Hospital and now the entire campus. I don’t smoke, but I see another great health risk that is being ignored.

Has anybody looked at the rate of alcohol-related deaths every year and loss of work time? Drunken drivers kill as many people every year as are killed in homicides. Yet the university allows tailgating at all the sports events, knowing full well that some of these partygoers are going to climb behind the wheel when leaving. Not only drunken drivers, though. Alcohol-related liver disease, pancreatitis, gastric and esophageal cancer all can be blamed on alcohol consumption. Is nothing going to be done about this? Why just pick on the smokers?

Ah, only in Columbia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Couchman

Lori Burger

10-25-2006, 12:22 PM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.smoking25oct25,0,5474138.story

It's going on in Baltimore, too. If the states as a whole would ban smoking, then business wouldn't be lost because ALL bars would be non-smoking, which is a healthier and more enjoyable environment for the greater good.

JVO

10-25-2006, 01:51 PM

mrjohnchimpo

10-25-2006, 02:00 PM

The next step will be to make all bars non-drinking.

and then they'll implement the no talking rule.

Lori Burger

10-25-2006, 02:37 PM

The next step will be to make all bars non-drinking.

You seem like a smart guy, so I'll skip telling you how silly that comment is... :taunt:

007

10-25-2006, 02:50 PM

The next step will be to make all bars non-drinking.
You're not alone, JVO. I'm with ya!

Freedoms are being lost everyday. The system will continue to chip away until everything is controlled.

I think that the smoking issue should be a business owner's choice. If there was such a demand for non-smoking bars, why didn't they exist without a law?

Lori Burger

10-25-2006, 02:58 PM

You're not alone, JVO. I'm with ya!

Freedoms are being lost everyday. The system will continue to chip away until everything is controlled.

I think that the smoking issue should be a business owner's choice. If there was such a demand for non-smoking bars, why didn't they exist without a law?

Yeah, I know, you're right. I mean, during caveman times and even later, people were allowed to kill due to the need for survival. My freedom to kill is no longer: woah is me!

Sarcasm aside, I understand the 'personal freedom' argument, but where is the line drawn? To me, it's drawn when you infringe upon the rights of others, and smoking a cigarette around people is certainly infringing on their right to have have healthy lungs.