dingoes8 said:
I read this short story by Jack Ketchum where this bar full of smokers take two non-smokers hostage, handcuff them to the bar, and start smoking in their faces. Then they steal the non-smokers' drivers licenses and threaten to track them down and kill them if they report them.
It was the worst piece of fantasy wish-fulfillment fiction I've ever read. Jack Ketchum is usually a pretty good writer, but I just imagined him channeling all his frustrations over not being able to smoke in bars into this terrible, uninteresting story and then masturbating to it afterwards. It was really sort of pathetic. It's funny how smokers see themselves as these persecuted martyrs.
One day when I was feeling particularly chubby I threatened to put my skinny friend in a cage and feed her nothing but deep fried twinkies until she exploded.
fuckfuck said:
maybe instead of just banning everything we don't agree with we can find other ways of dealing with these problems
This would be the put up or shut up moment in this argument, and yet you failed to offer any counterproposal. Clearly this is a winning argument.
no shit its winning, because like most people in this country today you are completely oblivious to the concerns of people who feel differently than you do, the funny thing is i completely agree with what you want, and cant stand to be around smoke myself, but how people are going about changing things is still wrong we don't have to run to mommy everytime we see something going on we don't like, even if we are 100% in the right, there are other ways to bring about change than force. couldent we try compromise first? how about you start a petition asking your local bar owner to change his policy, even if it's only on certain days / hours, if it's really what a large portion of their customers want and they stand to profit from it, im sure some will oblige, and if they say "fuck off", stop lining their pockets every saturday night and take your money elsewhere because if we cant find ways to get along with each other by ourselves our government is way too eager to "look out for us".
fuckfuck said:
no shit its winning, because like most people in this country today you are completely oblivious to the concerns of people who feel differently than you do,
No, I'm perfectly capable of empathy, I just see you engaging in an identical line of reasoning whether its smoking, guns, or any other political issue, and burying your head in the sand and being an asshole about it at the same time. You're not exactly winning me or anyone else over.
the funny thing is i completely agree with what you want, and cant stand to be around smoke myself, but how people are going about changing things is still wrong we don't have to run to mommy everytime we see something going on we don't like, even if we are 100% in the right, there are other ways to bring about change than force. couldent we try compromise first?
No, you see, we don't agree. I think it's a matter of public health policy, you think it's some kumbayah grassroots movement. I think you don't have the slightest understanding of government regulation in either the market or the public health spheres, so thanks but your ridiculous scheme is both naive and completely counterintuitive.
MessyJessy said:
The thing is, is it really that big of a fucking deal to go outside to smoke? Seriously, quit your bitching...
It's different in Britain where sitting in a pub with a pint and a cigarette is pretty much a rite. I'm not looking forward to July 1st.
Once again...will it really be that big of a deal to go outside?
Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban in restaurants and everywhere else - just not pubs (that don't serve food). I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
MessyJessy said:
The thing is, is it really that big of a fucking deal to go outside to smoke? Seriously, quit your bitching...
It's different in Britain where sitting in a pub with a pint and a cigarette is pretty much a rite. I'm not looking forward to July 1st.
Once again...will it really be that big of a deal to go outside?
Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban in restaurants and everywhere else - just not pubs (that don't serve food). I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
that makes no sense. what the hell is the difference between banning smoking inside of restaurant and banning it in bars?
also, "I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway."
MessyJessy said:
The thing is, is it really that big of a fucking deal to go outside to smoke? Seriously, quit your bitching...
It's different in Britain where sitting in a pub with a pint and a cigarette is pretty much a rite. I'm not looking forward to July 1st.
Once again...will it really be that big of a deal to go outside?
Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban in restaurants and everywhere else - just not pubs (that don't serve food). I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
that makes no sense. what the hell is the difference between banning smoking inside of restaurant and banning it in bars?
also, "I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway."
A general stance is that smoking in dining conditions is pretty nasty, plus the possible presence of children.
My second statement was pretty badly worded. Pubs are hardly health bars even without smoking. The non-smoking sections of pubs I frequent are practically empty the great majority of the time. However, I guess a partial ban would make more sense.
dingoes8 said:
I read this short story by Jack Ketchum where this bar full of smokers take two non-smokers hostage, handcuff them to the bar, and start smoking in their faces. Then they steal the non-smokers' drivers licenses and threaten to track them down and kill them if they report them.
It was the worst piece of fantasy wish-fulfillment fiction I've ever read. Jack Ketchum is usually a pretty good writer, but I just imagined him channeling all his frustrations over not being able to smoke in bars into this terrible, uninteresting story and then masturbating to it afterwards. It was really sort of pathetic. It's funny how smokers see themselves as these persecuted martyrs.
fuckfuck said:
somebody forced you into a bar against your will! thats pretty fucked up, man, now i completely understand where your coming from! sorry about the confusion.
We're going round and round on this but here goes again. No one forces a construction worker to go to his job, but if the contractor is allowing unsafe working conditions (violating OSHA standards), shouldn't they be forced to create an acceptably safe working environment, rather than just expecting the workers to quit and fine new jobs? It's attitudes like "people should feel privelaged to even have a job" that gave us things like The Jungle. Cigarette smoke is a health hazard that affects everyone in its presence (unlike peanuts) and is not necessary to running the business (like the dangers inherent in, say, fighting fires).
i work in an machine shop where there are many hazards all around and my employer has to provide me with the equipment to do my job safely like respirators, ventilation and vacuum systems etc... and if i don't want to use them i can either quit or be fired. maybe instead of just banning everything we don't agree with we can find other ways of dealing with these problems
It's hard to imagine that you didn't notice that you've provided an example of mandator safety regulations to argue that safety regulations shouldn't be mandatory.
How's that? I can't believe that people are arguing that bars are a place where everyone is drinking, and because drinking isn't healthy, any other unhealthy agent in that environment is par for the course, or consensual by some type of bizarre association.
This is how the argument resonates with me:
"Hey, man, you're already eating a candy bar. What's the big deal with having a little strychnine?"
wildswan said:
How's that? I can't believe that people are arguing that bars are a place where everyone is drinking, and because drinking isn't healthy, any other unhealthy agent in that environment is par for the course, or consensual by some type of bizarre association.
This is how the argument resonates with me:
"Hey, man, you're already eating a candy bar. What's the big deal with having a little strychnine?"
hello madam i notice the shoes youre wearing dont provide proper arch supports. how about a punch in the tits as well?
Oren said:
Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban in restaurants and everywhere else - just not pubs (that don't serve food). I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
That's why I go into bars* and beat people up with an iron bar*.
I really don't see how having the crap whacked out of them with an iron bar is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
Trevallion said:
As a part time smoker and resident of an extremely rainy state with an indoor smoking ban I'd just like to say suck it up.
As a full time smoker who occasionally visits very cold places (like Gallup, New Mexico in December, or Illinois in January, as a matter of fact), I would also like to say suck it up. If it's so fucking cold that bundling up doesn't help, the business that stays open will be the one with the outdoor heater. There's your fucking free market.
Oren said:
My second statement was pretty badly worded. Pubs are hardly health bars even without smoking. The non-smoking sections of pubs I frequent are practically empty the great majority of the time. However, I guess a partial ban would make more sense.
Please clarify "non-smoking section" for me. Are they actually entirely separate environments, or are they like the "non-smoking sections" I used to encounter in restaurants, which had no actual separation from the smoking section in any way that prevented smoke from wafting happily across the divide. The main difference was a lack of ashtrays.
'cause if it's the latter, I wouldn't use it either.
Trevallion said:
As a part time smoker and resident of an extremely rainy state with an indoor smoking ban I'd just like to say suck it up.
As a full time smoker who occasionally visits very cold places (like Gallup, New Mexico in December, or Illinois in January, as a matter of fact), I would also like to say suck it up. If it's so fucking cold that bundling up doesn't help, the business that stays open will be the one with the outdoor heater. There's your fucking free market.
Note to self: Invest in outdoor heater sales and service in Illinois.
Oren said:
Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban in restaurants and everywhere else - just not pubs (that don't serve food). I really don't see how second-hand smoke is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
That's why I go into bars* and beat people up with an iron bar*.
I really don't see how having the crap whacked out of them with an iron bar is going to do much damage when everyone inside is drinking themselves into oblivion anyway.
Please clarify "non-smoking section" for me. Are they actually entirely separate environments, or are they like the "non-smoking sections" I used to encounter in restaurants, which had no actual separation from the smoking section in any way that prevented smoke from wafting happily across the divide. The main difference was a lack of ashtrays.
Please clarify "non-smoking section" for me. Are they actually entirely separate environments, or are they like the "non-smoking sections" I used to encounter in restaurants, which had no actual separation from the smoking section in any way that prevented smoke from wafting happily across the divide. The main difference was a lack of ashtrays.
Seperate environments, in my area anyway.
Here in Phoenix, our nonsmoking sections were as malkav described them. And in many places, the nonsmoking sections were significantly smaller than the smoking sections.
Because of this, I wholeheartedly support my local smoking ban. I would have supported stricter laws regarding nonsmoking sections, such as separate ventilation and separate spaces, but that would have been so prohibitively expensive for most businesses that it would never pass.
DhD_No_Pants
Katy, TX
May 2006
MAY 14, 2007 11:36 AM