So anyone voting for the yes no yes?
-
some of us that would vote in favor of the smoking ban are the same that would encourage the eradication of all tobacco products. get rid of all liquor establishments? sounds like a pretty good idea, when do we vote on it?
the views that i've read in this thread are only slightly intrusive to others' "rights" (notice the "", i don't consider things rights, i consider them privileges). i've been peacefully sitting back and reading this with some amusement at how you're all throwing the word "selfish" around as if it were some obscenity. seriously, you should all try picking up http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213123642&sr=1-1 and finding out just how ridiculous some of your arguments are.
i'm content to allow smoking, as long as it doesn't interfere with my breathing. i'm content to allow alcohol, as long as it doesn't put me at risk. because of the small numbers of people that think they have the freedom to consume liquor to excess and then take to the streets/restaurants/hotels/anywhere to infringe on my safety/reasonable comfort, i think it should be removed from society.
i'm fairly libertarian in my realistic ideas. if you want to ruin your life by spending it in a drunken stupor and alienating your family and friends - sure, go right ahead. if you enjoy burning your money ruining your body and shortening your life as well as reducing your quality of life, i couldn't care less. as soon as you start invading my space...
-
out there;221745 wrote:
i'm fairly libertarian in my realistic ideas. if you want to ruin your life by spending it in a drunken stupor and alienating your family and friends - sure, go right ahead. if you enjoy burning your money ruining your body and shortening your life as well as reducing your quality of life, i couldn't care less. as soon as you start invading my space...EX-fucking-ACTLY.
It's funny how Torbs is calling people hypocrites for wanting peoples' right to smoke in a bar taken away, but he says nothing about everyone elses' right to decide whether they want to breathe "clean" air or not. If that's not skewed/biased, I don't know what is. There are always two sides to a story, and smokers aren't the only ones being affected.
To those of you who oppose a smoking ban in bars: What would you do if, at a bar, I sat down next to you and ripped the nastiest fart you've ever smelled? Then I had a friend sit on the other side of you and do the same. Would you get up and move? What if, after every time you moved, someone walked up next to you and did it? Would you go to a different bar? Suppose every bar in town was the same way. That's the way I see it, though farting doesn't cause somewhere around 53,000 deaths per year.
-
come on torbs...I'm running outta popcorn...hurry up and respond.
-
mazdagurl;221739 wrote:
You sound just as selfish too, you said "what if I like smoking and disklike drinking" what does that sound like, ummm selfish, don't be pointing the finger at being selfish when you are just as guilty of it as anyone else is. and on top of it, bartenders and bouncers are suppose to watch out that people that are drinking to excess should get kicked out, you don't get kicked out from smoking too much and hurting others. but if you drink and start crap with other people, ya you are going to get asked to be removed. big difference.Holy moley did you take that out of context. I was using it as an example to COMPARE IT TO YOU. I could give two shits about drinking or not. But me saying that is just like you saying "i want to drink but don't like smoke"...It was simply a comparison. So, I'm not guilty at all, I don't care about drinking or smoking. Yeah, bartenders are supposed to blah blah...people still get blackout drunk and puke :icon_puke_r: at bars. It's what happens. The only time you get kicked out of a bar is if you've already made a big disturbance (which yes, effects other people)
Summary: I'm getting to the fact that drunk people can have a negative effect on others, just as smoking. Get rid of neither or both, it's only fair. Only voting for the one you WANT is, indeed, selfish. Think of it from the standpoint of somebody who has opposing views, that's all.BTW...This is all just political talk, don't take any of it too personlly...cuz remember, the internet is serious business
-
amicheze;221748 wrote:
EX-fucking-ACTLY.It's funny how Torbs is calling people hypocrites for wanting peoples' right to smoke in a bar taken away, but he says nothing about everyone elses' right to decide whether they want to breathe "clean" air or not. If that's not skewed/biased, I don't know what is. There are always two sides to a story, and smokers aren't the only ones being affected.
To those of you who oppose a smoking ban in bars: What would you do if, at a bar, I sat down next to you and ripped the nastiest fart you've ever smelled? Then I had a friend sit on the other side of you and do the same. Would you get up and move? What if, after every time you moved, someone walked up next to you and did it? Would you go to a different bar? Suppose every bar in town was the same way. That's the way I see it, though farting doesn't cause somewhere around 53,000 deaths per year.
I'd stop going to bars. I might punch a few people if I thought they were doing it just to fuck with me specifically.
But the world doesn't do what I'd do. Instead, people are getting their big-girl panties in a wad and saying "dear law man, please make things I don't like illegal".
-
Okay, thats enough of this shit. Half of these fucking posts are hurting my fucking eyes. Learn how to use the enter key people. Start a new fucking paragraph every once and awhile. Jesus.
Now, back on topic...I said it once and I'll say it again: If you don't like it, FIND A DIFFERENT FUCKING BAR.
-
tjamz;221731 wrote:
Yes seriously.We already have emissions standards on cars and fines for failing to comply with them.
I agree...kill all livestock and make them into tasty steaks....just to piss the tree hugging peta people off. I'm not 100% behind global warming. Do I think that humans have an affect on it? Sure...but is it measurable even?
Emission standards, psh...Yeah, tell that to the people in L.A. who deal with SMOG. I bet they'll agree with you fully that emission standards work...(BTW, I'm not a tree hugger...I'm using this as an example of what other person can think. I'm just trying to bring out all sides in this because an arguement that's all one sided just...sucks)
So, by your methodology, anarchy is the absolute best form of government? Let everyone do what they feel is right. Establish no laws for the overall good of all? Establish no laws for the protection of others health? So tell me, should OSHA be eliminated? I mean, all they do is force businesses to provide a margin of safety for their workers...fucking jerks! How about building codes/fire codes? Might as well get rid of them too....I mean, who cares how packed the concert is that you attend...if a fire breaks out and you die, it was your own damn fault for going into such a packed/crowded environment! Or maybe apartment buildings shouldn't be required to have commercial fire alarm systems and/or sprinkler systems (once they reach a certain size) as no one is FORCING anyone to live in those apartments. If you honestly think that getting rid of these regulations is good for the public interest than you are far less intelligent than I've given you credit for.
I should have made it more clear that I'm for a lot of the rules/regulations/laws out there already and not for anybody do anything anytime...No, I'm not for anarchy in any form. I just want people to be able to do as what they please, legally (Illegal aliens FTL). I'm not saying get rid of OSHA either. However, even in current construction jobs, there's still a risk of immediate death which the workers take head on. It's their choice to work in that environment. People get paid more to do dangerous jobs simply because they are dangerous (comparing a skyscraper construction worker to a local paved street)...People are willing to take risks in order to have more pay. That's how it works. Bartenders who work in bars that allow smoke get a higher salary because more people go to those places...You get my point. Also, when it comes to fire codes, those kind of accomodations are made not only because of safety reasons, but because technology has allowed sprinkler systems to be of a reasonable cost. The law states that only reasonable accomodations are required, and sprinkler systems are now reasonable, which is why they are required. That is, tall buildings are required to be handicapt accessable because things such as elevators have come down in cost.
BTW, I think if the smoking ban encourages one person to quit smoking, it is a success.
I really hope this isn't the major reason for you voting as you are. That's like saying I hope banning liquor in bars makes alcoholics quit drinking. Your intentions are good, but the way you are going about it is wrong. How bout we invest the money going into enforcing this ban into a state-wide tobacco treatment program (like MN has...maybe ND has one already and could just add a boost to it? I'm not sure). It's the same idea between national healthcare and national health prevention. How about instead of paying to treat all of these people we enstill in them healthy habits? (once again, just an example) Also, the local economy will suffer a bit from less people going to bars (drinks there are more expensive than liquor stores and are therfore charged more tax...plus bartender's wage will go down). I'd like to know what the opinion is on this of the majority of bar tenders that work in smoking-allowed venues. It'd be interesting.
We have laws against public drunkenness already.
We have laws against smoking in most establishments already...Why take away the few places that are left? Let the people have somewhere to go. BTW, with less people at bars and more people at home, be prepared to have more city disturbances because of loud parties.
matter of opinion of course...
Sure is.
Will do, looks like you've already started drinking the Kool-Aid
I'm all for having a serious/in-depth conversation and not getting teH uber mad over it. What you think is what you think...I can try to change it to what I believe is right and you can try to talk me into what you believe. Even if we argue back and forth forever and still don't agree at all, it's not like i'll say "Chuck sucks big floppy donky dick"...i'll just be like "Chuck's political views suck big floppy donky dick."
-
D S ohM;221766 wrote:
Okay, thats enough of this shit. Half of these fucking posts are hurting my fucking eyes. Learn how to use the enter key people. Start a new fucking paragraph every once and awhile. Jesus.
.Paragraphs are primarily meant for a change in subject, not necessarily to make the document easier on the eyes.
-
torbs;221768 wrote:
Paragraphs are primarily meant for a change in subject, not necessarily to make the document easier on the eyes.Suck it, Torbs. Ha. I'm sick of huge fucking paragraphs. I think most people will agree that it really is a pain in the ass on the eyes.
-
torbs;221767 wrote:
Emission standards, psh...Yeah, tell that to the people in L.A. who deal with SMOG. I bet they'll agree with you fully that emission standards work...(BTW, I'm not a tree hugger...I'm using this as an example of what other person can think. I'm just trying to bring out all sides in this because an arguement that's all one sided just...sucks)I'll have to find the study, but I believe smog has reduced in LA in recent years.....don't have link readily available, so I'll have to pass that off as word of mouth/hearsay.
I should have made it more clear that I'm for a lot of the rules/regulations/laws out there already and not for anybody do anything anytime...No, I'm not for anarchy in any form. I just want people to be able to do as what they please, legally (Illegal aliens FTL). I'm not saying get rid of OSHA either. However, even in current construction jobs, there's still a risk of immediate death which the workers take head on. It's their choice to work in that environment. People get paid more to do dangerous jobs simply because they are dangerous (comparing a skyscraper construction worker to a local paved street)...People are willing to take risks in order to have more pay. That's how it works.
To an extent, but there are regulations in effect to MINIMIZE the risk.
Bartenders who work in bars that allow smoke get a higher salary because more people go to those places...You get my point. Also, when it comes to fire codes, those kind of accomodations are made not only because of safety reasons, but because technology has allowed sprinkler systems to be of a reasonable cost. The law states that only reasonable accomodations are required, and sprinkler systems are now reasonable, which is why they are required. That is, tall buildings are required to be handicapt accessable because things such as elevators have come down in cost.
There is a LOT more to fire code than sprinkler requirements. There is occupancy ratings/types, construction material, modes of egress....seriously, i can go on and on on this subject for hours....I've only been working in the fire protection industry for the last 7.5 years or so... Sprinklers are NOT reasonably priced and are probably the worst form of life safety as there is ZERO pre-warning and the sprinkler head has to fuse before that particular head releases water. Sprinklers save buildings. Period. They don't save lives of the people in the buildings necessarily....and they destroy everything they get wet...sprinkler water is NASTY stuff.....
I really hope this isn't the major reason for you voting as you are. That's like saying I hope banning liquor in bars makes alcoholics quit drinking. Your intentions are good, but the way you are going about it is wrong. How bout we invest the money going into enforcing this ban into a state-wide tobacco treatment program (like MN has...maybe ND has one already and could just add a boost to it? I'm not sure). It's the same idea between national healthcare and national health prevention. How about instead of paying to treat all of these people we enstill in them healthy habits? (once again, just an example) Also, the local economy will suffer a bit from less people going to bars (drinks there are more expensive than liquor stores and are therfore charged more tax...plus bartender's wage will go down). I'd like to know what the opinion is on this of the majority of bar tenders that work in smoking-allowed venues. It'd be interesting.
It isn't the major reason I'm voting for it....but it is one benefit.
I'm all for preventive maintenance programs for health insurance. Wouldn't it be great if all insurance companies provided a discount to health clubs/smoking cessation programs/etc....
We have laws against smoking in most establishments already...Why take away the few places that are left? Let the people have somewhere to go. BTW, with less people at bars and more people at home, be prepared to have more city disturbances because of loud parties.
How about we make the rules fair for everyone? Either allow it EVERYWHERE including schools or ban it everywhere. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?
I'm all for having a serious/in-depth conversation and not getting teH uber mad over it. What you think is what you think...I can try to change it to what I believe is right and you can try to talk me into what you believe. Even if we argue back and forth forever and still don't agree at all, it's not like i'll say "Chuck sucks big floppy donky dick"...i'll just be like "Chuck's political views suck big floppy donky dick."
please tell me how someone destructive (to themselves and those around them) habits carry more of a "right" than the "right" to breath clean air. Smoking is a privilege, breathing is a right.
But yeah, just because Ron Paul wants people to be able to make bad choices and live with them, I don't interpret that to mean that they can make bad choices and force others who are out in public to deal with them. I mean, if you want to tie an M80 to your nutsack and set it off, I'm ok with that....just don't do it next to someone else.
-
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=65033
click on the download link in the upper left hand corner.....
-
Fargo Initiated Smoking Ban Ord. CITY OF FARGO TJAMZ NOTE THIS IS THE ONE BANNING SMOKING IN BARS
Vote for no more than 1
Yes - Means you approve. . . . . . 913 61.61
No - Means you reject th . . . . . 569 38.39
Total . . . . . . . . . 1,482
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 3
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 20Fargo Referred Smoking Ban Ordinance CITY OF FARGO ***TJAMZ NOTE: THIS ONE MODIFIES EXISTING LAW SLIGHTLY BUT DOES NOT PROHIBIT SMOKING IN BARS*** Vote for no more than 1 Yes - Means you approve. . . . . . 614 41.71 No - Means you reject th . . . . . 858 58.29 Total . . . . . . . . . 1,472 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 32 -
those are not final numbers btw...only 6 precincts reporting at that time
http://www.casscountynd.gov/departments/Auditor/08election/EL45.HTM
-
nearly 50% of all votes counted thus far....still 58% for the ban
-
59 for 41 against the ban w/ 54% of all districts in the county reporting (not all districts voted in cass vote on fargo issues....so actual percentage of pertaining districts may not be accurate at this point)
EDIT: at time of this post....11 or 20 fargo districts have reported in their results.
-
Beings I'm too lazy right now to pick it apart with quotes...
I used the sprinklers as AN EXAMPLE. I wasn't referring to everything else in safety when it comes to buildings. They are a part of safety codes though.Are sprinkler systems not cheaper now than what they were say 30-40 years ago (especially when comparing it to inflation)? The law states reasonable accomdations, that's all I was getting at...You took that one a wee bit too far. You blurted out a bunch of random and non-related facts in order to dumb down my arguement when they weren't even related to what I was attempting to get at. I see how your brain works...you saw one word you know a lot about and just decided to go off to make me look dumb...solid work.
Also, I don't care if smog has gone down or not...it's still there. That's like saying bars used to have 100 smokers at peak and now have 50. You'd still complain would you not?
This quote of yours really disturbs me, "How about we make the rules fair for everyone? Either allow it EVERYWHERE including schools or ban it everywhere. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?"
-You are basically identifying something that won't ever happen again (smoking everywhere, even though that used to be the case in the past). It's comparing apples to oranges, it's just not possible or reasonable. If you are going to make a statement, at least have it be a realistic circumstance...I am getting at the point that, over time, smokers have had places normally available to them slowly taken away. Now, when there's very few places left, you want to take that away too. I'd really like to know how often you go to the bar Chuck because honestly, unless you work at one or have some illness, you have little chance of being affected by the smoke there. If somebody with asthma can't go to a certain bar because of the obvious, they have several other choices of places to go.You speak of other's decisions effecting others. Hell, lets just start the prohibition of alcohol again because more people die from it through poisoning, automobiles, etc. than 2nd hand smoke BY FAR. Give me a break. Second hand smoke's damages are like peanuts to what alcohol's damages are...We all know how that went. This is an attempt at eventually going to the prohibition of tobacco, not a doubt in my mind.
I'm done debating you because you just can't ever lose an arguement and look at it from somebody else's perspective. I've tried looking at it from your way and just don't see it as a fair decision with respect to not just smokers, but also bar owners who depend on customer turnout, bar tenders who depend on the customer turnout/tips, people that smoke when they drink, people with friends that are smokers, and everybody else that enjoys going to bars for the atmosphere (Obviously, bars that allow smoke attract more people, and thus it creates a more social environment.)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login