NEWS: Pick Your Preferred Old Woman

CELEB: Pick Your Preferred Old Woman

Okay, I'm not honestly comparing the two, or advocating smoking, just thought it was... odd, that these two stories were positioned near each other on Drudge.

And then, two links down,

Still, the smoking ban in bars and restaurants is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. And I've heard of Ashton Kutcher. How is it possible this is what both sides seem to agree on?

They banned smoking... in a place designed specifically for smoking.

Or, let's take an activity comprised of smoking and drinking, cut out the smoking and then let in all the people in who didn't like half the activity in the first place. Hey let's also take rock-climbing, cut out the giant rock part, and make it safe for people who don't like heights.

As far as restaurants go... What was wrong with having a smoking and non-smoking section? Or even, if we must, creating smoking and non-smoking bars?

Nope, let's just ban everything.

I'll take the 100-year-old Winnie.




No, TheCoolerKing doesn't smoke.

Whatev. I love the smoking ban. I used to hate going to restaurants and breathing in smoke from the smoking section that would inevitably linger over to the other side. It would ruin the meal for me. Cigarette smoke smells fucking horrible. How is that supposed to enhance my dining experience?

Who the hell keeps count after the 85th birthday?


Eh, I personally don't care about restaurants.
I can save my cigarette for the car, as smoking when eating is just too much for my hands.

However, I feel like bars shouldn't be on that list...

People get wasted at bars.
Ever so often, one of those people drives away into a head on collision and is officially guilty of vehicular homicide.

At least cigarette smoke will let you linger longer than a car to the face.

But that's coming from a smoker.
Crucify me.

I am a smoker, and still support the ban. Call me hypocritical, but I see it as being responsible and respectful. Just because I choose to smoke doesn't mean I have the right to force my fumes on to others. I see it as a way for everyone to enjoy the same businesses without having half the customers being at least uncomfortable.

Can't we just play nice?

Banning it in restaurants is awesome. Gas expands to fill its container.

Banning it in bars is retarded.

Like most laws, it's okay in some places and not okay in others, so enforcing it unilaterally makes it stupid.

I smoke and I support the smoking ban in resturants. In fact. I think they need to take the next logical step and ban children under the age of 10. It would improve my dining experience greatly. I don't know how many times I've been waiting for my food and had to listen to the wails of some baby, or had my waitperson, bringing me my food, tripped by a couple of brats playing tag thru the tables while mom and dad ignored them. Children are the reason we have McCorprate Slaughter. So take them there for a Happy Genocide Meal, and let me eat my Bloomin Onion in peace.

as my friend says, it's like having a peeing section of the kiddie pool.

Restaurants are specifically for eating.

Bars are specifiically for drinking.

When somebody puts together the capital to start a chain (no pun intended) of smoking establishments.... well.... the people who go there will smell even MORE like an ashtray.

Sitting next to someone who is eating dinner does not harm you. Sitting next to somebody getting their drink on does not harm you, and may even be entertaining. Forcing someone to do either of those things against their will is, in most states anyway, a crime.

I believe you've got something there...I wonder if we could ban chintzy happy b-day songs and tinfoil wrapped leftovers shaped like animals?

My issue is more with bars than restaurants but, yeah. I'd hope the sections would be cordoned off with more than just a sign.

You're not forcing it on them, they're choosing to enter. I don't think things should be altered so that everyone can enjoy them. Everyone doesn't need to enjoy everything, everything is not for everyone. Removing a core element of an experience to please everyone is a bad idea.

But, again, I absolutely feel that someone should be able to start up their own place and make it non-smoking, just as the opposite should be allowed.

That's all well and good, but the prevailing justification for pretty much every smoking ban I've ever seen passed has been concern for the health of that bar or restaurant's employees, not their customers.

I don't smoke and I voted against it when "liberal" Seattle outlawed it last year.

It should be economic based, period. Don't like it, don't go there. Especially bars (Seattle even outlawed cigar bars.)

But it doesn't surprise me. When even supposed small government Republicans can spy on us, smoking bans slide by with hardly a ripple.

As a country, we're getting used to being treated more and more like babies.

didn't the health of employees in Ireland improve within one month of the ban there? I'm not fact checking so sue me if this is wrong.

For some strange reason when I walked in places that use to allow smoking and had separate areas for smokers and non smokers I still smelled smoke and coughed. I don't ever recall walking into vertical world and coughing because I smelled rock climbers, even with the sweat. I'm all for people having a the right to smoke. If they want to kill themselves (or not if you are a super women who can smoke till she is 100 or more with no real problems) thats fine with me. I'd just rather not be forced to join you in your habit. Or maybe I should have voted no on the smoking ban in Washington and just avoided places that allowed smokers. Although in that case I'd pretty much just have to stay in my apartment. I'm not really sorry i voted your smoke out of my favorite bars or restaurants or where ever. But I am sorta sorry you guys can't just enjoy your cancer sticks quite like you used to. At least now I don't come home from a night out smelling like smoke when I've never lit up myself. You can call me selfish if you want. I promise I won't care.

I think it can be reasonably argued that bars are also for smoking.

Well, that's my point. It's illegal to do so.

That's totally true... But, I think the individual employees should be able to make the choice to work there, or not.

There are also millions of smokers who would be happy to work in such places.

And if we left it up to the individual owners, as opposed to a blanket law, I'm sure there would be plenty of both non-smoking and smoking establishments for people to seek employment.

I was with you until I got used to going to restaurants and bars that do not allow smoking. Recently I traveled to a state that does not have this ban and let me tell you it was disgusting to go to a restaurant, no matter what section I sat in. The smoke was everywhere. I even like it in bars. I love the ban.

I've lived in two states that have smoking bans: California and Washington.

Both of them have designated smoking sections. It's called "outside."

I used to smoke when I drank....now, not so much.

Thats my way of looking at it as well (although I've smoked for a few years and am now trying to quit....again. :grrr
I wil lsay that the only good thing about the smoking ban that went into effect when I lived in Madison was; the smokers hung out side where it was quieter. It proved to be a good place to meet women

1. Haven't you got it yet? Smoking gives you cancer (and a multitude of other health related problems), that we, the general healthy public, have to pay for when you get ill - I'd rather my health money be spent on nice little kiddies or something.

2. The bans in Ireland, Australia etc. are prompted by workers. Why should wait staff be forced to get cancer (passive smoking) in their workplace?

That's the reality of it.

I wished I could walk around with a can of Radon Gas and happily spray it in the faces of smokers - if they can transmit cancer, why can't I - free country?

Call me an American capitalist pig, but why not let the Free Market decide? If there really are so many people out there who resent even restricted smoking in restaurants and bars, all someone has to do is make their establishment completely non-smoking. Then, all those people who want to avoid smoking all together can go there. And if the place does poor business, well, then there weren't enough people who really gave a shit enough to go to a different bar.

Vote with your dollars people.

I. Love. To. Smoke.

No, good idea. And while we're at it, why don't we just get rid of ALL of our occupational safety and health regulations. Minimum safety standards in factory jobs? Gone! Prohibitions against the use of lead, asbestos and other toxic substances in building and demolition? Gone! Mandatory safety equipment for people working in dangerous occupations? Gone! After all, the individual employees in those industries should be able to make the choice to work there, or not. If there's anything that the 20th century taught us about labor health and safety regulations, it's that the free market and a laissez-faire attitude will cure all ills!

For the record, it is up to the individual owners. In California and most other places who have enacted this ban, there's a provision that says if the bar is employee owned and has fewer than 4-5 employees, that patrons may smoke legally. So in a sense, what you're advocating is already the case in most jurisdictions. Now, you might say that such a small bar must not make much money, right?

Well, here's the problem with that argument: Prior to the smoking ban in California, restaurants, bars and small business owners freaked out about the inevitable parade of horribles that would happen should the ban be enacted. All smokers will feel excluded and will stay home, they said. As a result, all those wonderful bars and restaurants that we dearly love will fold and all of those employees that we seek to protect will lose their jobs. And that's not protecting them, is it?

Guess what? Didn't happen. Nor did it happen in New York. Nor did it happen in Minneapolis or Seattle or Milwaukee or Chicago or any of the other places where this ban was enacted. In fact, just the opposite occurred. MORE people, who previously stayed away from bars went to bars. Smokers still went to bars, they just popped outside for a smoke. Others, who didn't stay at bars as long because they were so smokey, stuck around and ordered more drinks. The owners of those places ended up making more money overall.

In other words, not only do smoking bans make sense from a health and safety perspective, but from a financial perspective as well. I know that people get scared when the government tells them they can't do something that they used to do, but the simple fact is that what people used to do in this case consistently harmed other people.

while having "smokers only" establishments for those who want to exercise their god given right to tempt cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc., sounds good in theory, it still runs the risk of being discriminatory. if, say, in one given town, the only job available for which an empoyee is qualified is in a "smokers only" bar that person may be forced to make the choice between risking cancer or not being able to feed his/her family. that is the basis for the various no-smoking statutes.

just because 15-20% of americans have drunk the phillip morris kool-aid, doesn't mean others should have to bear the consequences. the good news is that smoking will certainly be eliminated from the population in a mere few thousand years as it is certainly not a trait that will be selected for in the relentlessly logical march of evolution.