Thank God for anti-smoking laws

[thesloppy]

As a result of the recent anti-smoking laws passed in Oregon I can finally go to a Portland bar, relax and enjoy a drink in a smoke-free environment.

...unfortunately I also have to carry a shiv, because the exits/entrances to every bar in the goddamn state is now packed with meandering, smoking drunkards, and once it gets past 6 o'clock on the weekend any busy/populated street is suddenly fucking THUNDERDOME, and venturing anywhere at night invariably involves wading through packs and packs of carousing drunks that have now been forced outside, for my 'convenience'. I'm sure the thought of 'Downtown Portland, Oregon' puts the fear of God into absolutely none of you, but trust me when I say that after dark that shit has turned into a Death Wish movie.

Score another 'win' for big bro!

[Buccaneer]

In an earlier thread, I mentioned about not being a "true" hardcore liberatarian. I think of my love for anti-smoking laws in public places and how that is contradictory to be political and philosophical beliefs. But that becomes more of a personal ideal. Here in Colorado, you cannot smoke within 15 feet of any exits or entrances.

[Noop]

I have nothing against smokers as I am one myself(only weed) I think doing it in places where people are eating is bad form though.

[SackAttack]

I got no problem with a business owner wanting to cater to smokers.

I just think that it's foolish at best to think that smoke stays in a 'non-smoking' section in an open-air restaurant.

Have the sections in separate rooms. Folks who wanna light up, can. Folks who don't want the smell of cigarette smoke coming from three feet away where an arbitrary invisible line has been drawn, can enjoy their own meals.

A common sense approach would solve the issue. Moving into a building that doesn't have such a separation? Either renovate it, go completely non-smoking, or go smoke-wherever. Arbitrary imaginary lines do nothing where people who are already inclined to get huffy over cigarette smoke are concerned.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

In an earlier thread, I mentioned about not being a "true" hardcore liberatarian. I think of my love for anti-smoking laws in public places and how that is contradictory to be political and philosophical beliefs.

Ugh. You're such a quisling.

[RainMaker]

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property. No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I got no problem with a business owner wanting to cater to smokers.

I just think that it's foolish at best to think that smoke stays in a 'non-smoking' section in an open-air restaurant.

Have the sections in separate rooms. Folks who wanna light up, can. Folks who don't want the smell of cigarette smoke coming from three feet away where an arbitrary invisible line has been drawn, can enjoy their own meals.

A common sense approach would solve the issue. Moving into a building that doesn't have such a separation? Either renovate it, go completely non-smoking, or go smoke-wherever. Arbitrary imaginary lines do nothing where people who are already inclined to get huffy over cigarette smoke are concerned.

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property. No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

I totally disagree.

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

So does driving a car.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I totally disagree.

Smoking in public infringes on the liberty of others to breath clean air.

In a public place it does. But someone's restaurant is their private property. You are not forced to eat at their restaurant.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While I'm not a smoker, I have a problem with the government telling private citizens whether their guests are allowed to do a legal activity on their property.

I definitely do as well but that's why I mentioned it being a personal thing, healthwise.

No different to me than the government telling you that you're not allowed to cook with sugar in your home.

People say that but yet they permit, encourage or vote for/support those legislations and politicians doing just that. Many of their rules and regulations come in the form of penalties (which gets passed on to consumers) or blackmailing (your state/locale won't get federal funds unless...). It is one thing for the federal govt to track down and recall bad peanut paste (good thing to do) but another thing to establish many contradictory, overlapping and costly one-size-fits-all rules that you cannot affect. You would have much more greater control, relatively speaking, if your city council/county commissioners/school board were to do the same thing.

But we're talking about anti-smoking laws, which so far, are done state by state, which I think came out of city laws. Will it only be a matter of time before it becomes a federal law? We are allowing a lot of things to be dictated by Washington, why not this?

[cthomer5000]

The best side effect has certainly been that you don't need to incinerate the clothes you were wearing to the bar. The stench used to be so unreal the clothes had to be immediately washed, thrown out, or quarantined in their own garbage bag until on of those two eventual outcomes occured.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In a public place it does. But someone's restaurant is their private property. You are not forced to eat at their restaurant.

A private place that is opened to the public, much different then someones home.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

The best side effect has certainly been that you don't need to incinerate the clothes you were wearing to the bar. The stench used to be so unreal the clothes had to be immediately washed, thrown out, or quarantined in their own garbage bag until on of those two eventual outcomes occured.

you are so right.

I bartended for 12 years on the Jersey Shore and the day that law was passed was a great day.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Noop

as I am one myself(only weed)

Sounds like you are proud of that.

Originally Posted by Florida Law

Possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

I hate walking through packs of smokers also, but I'll make that trade to breath clean air once I am inside.

But hey, at least you're pretty.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sounds like you are proud of that.

There is nothing wrong with weed.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I believe this is the impetus behind the Oregon law as well, which is certainly understandable.

My rant was somewhat spurred on by encountering a bum this evening, on my way back from the post-office, who began furiously shadow boxing at me, while screaming at the top of his lungs "LET'S DANCE, PRETTY BOY!". He proceeded to scream at me as I walked past and for another few blocks, beyond the range of my hearing, he could still be going for all I know.....anyhow, that on its own wouldn't be that unusual, bums abound around here, but AFTER that I had to walk home and fight through a crowd of smoking, swanky drunks in front of the local hipster-bowling-alley, had to wade through a crowd of drunk, smoking bikers in front of the strip bar, a crowd of loud, smoking boys at the gay bar, and it was only 7 o'clock at night.


...so, maybe (a big) part of my problem could be that I live within walking distance of like 5 million crappy bars......but I'm going to stick with blaming it on the government.

A bum wanted to fight you? That is hilarious to me.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The reason these laws are in place really have nothing to do with people wanting to smoke, etc...

The whole point of the law is to protect the employee from a hazardous work enviorment.

At least in NJ thats why the law was passed

Cool I can dig that. Apropos of nothing, isn't NJ one of the states that requires gas to be pumped by a gas station attendant? Seems like long-term exposure to gasoline fumes would be dangerous too, wouldn't it?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Cool I can dig that. Apropos of nothing, isn't NJ one of the states that requires gas to be pumped by a gas station attendant? Seems like long-term exposure to gasoline fumes would be dangerous too, wouldn't it?

It is, but all the gas station attendants are middle eastern, so they are really doing us a favor.

i kid i kid

Oddly enough, I think Oregeon is the other state. Not being able to pump your own gas is maybe one of the most annoying things ever.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Noop

A bum wanted to fight you? That is hilarious to me.

He was SUPER PISSED! The worst part about that entire encounter is that, as a red-blooded American male (even a pansy west-coaster), there is still a very small, very distant voice in my head telling me that I am totally a pussy for not throwing down with that crusty old bum.

"YOU WANT A PIECE OF THIS OLD MAN? YOU'VE GOT IT!"

Unfortunately, I am all too aware that could've opened the door to this being an "I got my ass kicked by a crusty old bum" story.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

A private place that is opened to the public, much different then someones home.

No it's not. They are both private property. One simply has a more open invitation to their property.

By your example, restaurants that accept reservations should not have to abide by the law since they aren't technically open to the public.

[dubb93]

I just love the people who say they can go to the bar now. Yea, your right to get drunk in public should supersede someone elses right to smoke in public. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

I understand some of the arguments, but that is the one that always gets me. Its a bar. I've been to alot of bars where the most dangerous thing in there was not the second hand smoke but the drunk hillbillies.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. They are both private property. One simply has a more open invitation to their property.

By your example, restaurants that accept reservations should not have to abide by the law since they aren't technically open to the public.

It's apples and oranges.

I have worked in restaurants for a long time, and upper level managment for a good part of that.

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I just love the people who say they can go to the bar now. Yea, your right to get drunk in public should supersede someone elses right to smoke in public. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

I understand some of the arguments, but that is the one that always gets me. Its a bar. I've been to alot of bars where the most dangerous thing in there was not the second hand smoke but the drunk hillbillies.

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Lathum

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

And the gentleman smoking his cigarette enjoys the fact that he can have a drink and a smoke.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It's apples and oranges.

I have worked in restaurants for a long time, and upper level managment for a good part of that.

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

Really? Then why were there literally no bars that were smoke free? Why did most restaurants and bars fight heavily against these measures?

Like I said, I don't smoke, but I also don't like people telling other people what they and their guests can do on their private property.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah that whole no competition between a restaurant that had smoking and one that didn't is such BS. My regular bar is one that allows smoking (after 9 PM), less than mile away from bars in a city that doesn't allow smoking.

No "crushing" going on there.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

not everybody who goes to a bar gets drunk.

I enjoy the fact I can have a drink after a movie without having to burn my cloths afterwards.

I think the point is that a bar is filled with alcohol and greasy unhealthy food. It's funny to see people going to a bar so concerned over some second hand smoke while they put down a few beers and eat some chicken wings.

And if you don't want to have to burn your clothes afterward, just have a drink at a bar that is non-smoking.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Noop

There is nothing wrong with weed.

Except for the fact that it is illegal and it is a hallucinogen that can sometimes cause significant paranoia and other psychotic symptoms.

[Lathum]

I'm talking about restaurants, not bars

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Your argument is mute either way. There would be no competition between a restaurant that allowed smoking and one that didn't, the one that didn't allow smoking would crush the one that allowed it.

That VERY much depends on where you live. The anti-smoking measure was up for vote in my town this last election(maybe 2 elections ago). It lost....in fact it couldn't even get over 30% of the vote.

I will say the measure did do one though. It got one of the regulars at the local bar elected mayor. That has just done wonders for us.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

And the gentleman smoking his cigarette enjoys the fact that he can have a drink and a smoke.

why are there noise ordinates?

I mean, if I want to listen to my music in my front yard on full blast at 3:00 AM I should be able to, right?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Except for the fact that it is illegal and it is a hallucinogen that can sometimes cause significant paranoia and other psychotic symptoms.

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

[Lathum]

There have also been econimic studies done that show a restaurants buisness goes up following the smoking ban.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

just because A is worse then B doesn't mean A isn't bad also.

That being said I'm not anti weed

[Lathum]

dola- the government tells us we can't do alot of things in out private establishments

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- the government tells us we can't do alot of things in out private establishments

Doesn't mean it's right.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh God.

Weed has far less negative effects than alcohol.

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

why are there noise ordinates?

I mean, if I want to listen to my music in my front yard on full blast at 3:00 AM I should be able to, right?

Because you are then infringing on the rights of others on their own private property to be in peace. With a bar or restaurant, you are actively entering an establishment where you know what the conditions are.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not a dola -

Besides which it is illegal. You would think a soon to be lawyer wouldn't want to publicly admit that he is breaking a law which he will soon to be sworn to uphold (or is that only for public defenders? I admit I'm not exactly sure what is included when one becomes a member of the bar.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

There have also been econimic studies done that show a restaurants buisness goes up following the smoking ban.

Economic studies or not, it's their business and they should be able to run it how they want.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

just because A is worse then B doesn't mean A isn't bad also.

But it does point out hypocrites.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because you are then infringing on the rights of others on their own private property to be in peace. With a bar or restaurant, you are actively entering an establishment where you know what the conditions are.

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Try telling that to a family I treated whose daughter became psychotic "only on weed" and committed a serious crime because she was floridly psychotic. It is relatively rare, but it does happen.

Can I tell the opposite to a family whose loved one got killed by a drunk driver or became an alcohol and destroyed their life (add to the fact that alcohol is physically addictive and marijuana isn't)?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Economic studies or not, it's their business and they should be able to run it how they want.

so should they be allowed to deal weed and coke or allow 14 year old girls to give blow jobs?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

When someone gets charged with assault for smoking next to someone, your point will be well taken.

[dubb93]

Now its just getting silly.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lathum

last I check it was illegal to physicaly harm someone on public or private property.

Like I pointed out before, what about people who drive cars?