Those WILD Californians!

The Colorado in Pasadena was a smoking room last time I checked... a couple of years ago... :D but definitely way after the ban went into effect.
 
I don't have a problem with this. People should never be compelled to inhale other people's carcinogens, and sometimes you have to go through certain public areas.

I suppose that banning motor vehicle traffic is next, as it pollutes the air. If you don't allow a car to run its exhaust pipe into a restaurant or cinema, why allow it to do the same outdoors?
 
As soon as there's an alternative energy source, cleaner burning than gasoline, gasoline-burning engines will most likely be banned. In the meantime, they're the best we've got.
 
Bjorn said:
Are there any legal smoking rooms in any pub or bar in California? I could have my fix there, and then go back to the bar to finish my beer ... but I can't find them.

Most people drinking in bars are smokers. Yeah, I know it has been claimed that that's because the non-smokers don't like the athmosphere and stay away, but if non-smokers were a significant share of the people drinking in bars, how come most bars are not smoke-free by choice?

I think the "no smoking outdoors" is a lot more logical than "no smoking in bars and pubs". I can decide not to enter a pub, but I wouldn't like not to wait for my bus as a bus stop, or not bring my kids to the beach, because there are too many smokers there.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all accounts, Bjorn. There are NO smoker's rooms or areas anywhere. Smokers are being gradually pushed away from society as undesireables, and while I'm not a smoker or a drinker, I can't abide by the hypocrisy that promotes a multi-million dollar product that is addictive yet shuffles users into dark corners.

The idea of allowing smoking in bars, but not in public sounds reasonable (as it keeps everyone enjoying their non-healthy vices together ;)) simply because it would keep smokers away from the general public, but accomodating non-smokers who care about their lungs but not their liver could be a problem.
 
peptoabysmal said:
Another problem I see with this is that a law to ban smoking outdoors is that it is not so much a law created to right a wrong or promote safety as it is a law designed to regulate unacceptable social behavior. Will smoking become a hate crime?
Click to expand...

Bingo! This is exactly what I was thinking. It's enough that the simple act of "lighting up" is a crime, just wait until some self-righteous non-smoker decides that people smoke out of hate for his health.

I wonder what groups like the ACLU and NORML think about these new laws?
 
Skeptic said:
I suppose that banning motor vehicle traffic is next, as it pollutes the air. If you don't allow a car to run its exhaust pipe into a restaurant or cinema, why allow it to do the same outdoors?
Click to expand...

You're right, Skeptic. It's one of those slippery slopes we've been warned about. As a self-confessed "health nut," I would like to propose the following laws for Californians just to see how serious they are about their health:

Ban fatty food in restraurants - Americans are a bunch of slobs anyway.

Ban pastry - see above

Ban soft drinks - no nutritional value

Ban coffee - it might cause heart disease and some cancers

Ban red meat - it's bad for cholesterol levels, bad for your heart and could possibly harbor "Mad Cow Disease."

Ban chicken - not as bad for you as red meat, but promoting chicken consumption encourages the chances of bird flu

Ban any food with thick, creamy sauces - these sauces are typically laden with fat and calories

Ban hot dogs - made from all the parts of the cow that you wouldn't eat if you knew what they were

Ban ANY tobacco product - because we don't want you to think that spitting in a used Coke can is socially acceptable

Ban automobiles - do you KNOW how many people die each year in car accidents?

Ban Fast Food - because you deserve a break today

Ban condomless sex to the unmarried - everyone knows sex is dangerous unless you're monogamous

Make extramarital sex punishable by prison time - this is the biggest culprit when it comes to a cheating spouse bringing home a little surprise like an STD, it's also a quick way to ruin a family - do it for the children.

Start Community Exercise Programs - make it law that ANYONE (people with terminal diseases waived) between the ages of 6-86 gather in predesignated exercise yards for aerobic exericises and strength-boosting exercises.

Ban popular actors from becoming politicians - in spite of their sometimes popular appeal in kicking the bad guy's butt, they are no smarter or adept at politics than the President. ;)
 
The idea of allowing smoking in bars, but not in public sounds reasonable (as it keeps everyone enjoying their non-healthy vices together :xwink) simply because it would keep smokers away from the general public, but accomodating non-smokers who care about their lungs but not their liver could be a problem.
Click to expand...
If we wanna get technical, not all people go into bars to drink alcohol. Where I work it is very common for non-alc drinkers to come in and watch the show (of course our bar is a bit different and maybe not the norm). They drink coffee, soda, juice, water.

Point is, just because someone wants to go into a bar does not mean they are out to pollute their kidneys any more than their lungs.
 
schplurg said:
If we wanna get technical, not all people go into bars to drink alcohol. Where I work it is very common for non-alc drinkers to come in and watch the show (of course our bar is a bit different and maybe not the norm). They drink coffee, soda, juice, water.

Point is, just because someone wants to go into a bar does not mean they are out to pollute their kidneys any more than their lungs.
Click to expand...

I realize that, and I also realize the various combinations that would make segregation according to vice-combination would have these establishments dotting the landscape;

a bar for people who don't drink and don't smoke

a bar for people who drink, but don't smoke

a bar for people who smoke, but don't drink milk

a bar for people who smoke, but don't inhale and drink, but don't swallow ;)

a bar for people who drink and like sports, but only smoke cigars

a bar for people who only drink beer, and like ballet

a bar for people who drink only wine and play chess, but are fans of Jerry Springer

a bar for people considering suicide, but don't smoke or drink for health reasons

a bar for the terminally ill where anything goes

;)

It seems the only logical recourse is to make tobacco illegal. Isn't that sort of encouraging drug use? I mean, if you have to sneak and hide just to smoke a cigarette, why not just spark a dube?
 
drkitten said:
There's no question of property rights any more than there's a question of property rights when the board of health demands that a bartender use clean glassware and keep food properly refrigerated.
Click to expand...
You're simply begging the question. If people want to use dirty glassware, what right does the government have to prevent them from doing so?

To do otherwise is a hazard to public health, and the state has the authority to override property rights in the name of public health.
Click to expand...
Authority, maybe, but not right.

Nancarrow said:
Dear Og, this always confuses the hell out of me. Are you American perchance? I just say because I'm British, and in general, for us the idea of 'liberal fascism' is a contradiction in terms. 'Liberal' means 'not authoritarian', and therefore, obviously, 'not fascist'.
Click to expand...
"Liberal" means "letting people do what they want". And for many people, "doing what they want" means "telling other people what to do". We therefore have the odd situation of the American Civil "Liberties" Union suing to stop a law which prohibits discrimination, people being fined for not supporting gay advocacy groups, "hate" being criminalized, and censorship, all in the name of "liberalism". And it's not just Americans; true to his name, Orwell (Canadian) has argued that censorship promotes liberty.

I guess the question I'm slowly assembling in my brain is, what do you understand by the term 'liberal', and would a dictionary support your meaning?
Click to expand...
When used by Americans, it basically means "the sort of thing that Democrats, rather than Republicans, support". As for your second question, there is this definition: "Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."
 
You know, this whole thing is crap. Seriously. If I want to allow smoking in my bar or restaurant, it's my business. People who don't smoke can take their business elsewhere.

It's insulting to have this nanny-state attitude, with California trying to run every nitpicky detail of our lives. Frankly, I wish the state assembly would concentrate on the stuff they were elected to deal with, like fixing roads and getting the state's debt under control. Ditto city councils, who seem to groove on wasting time voting themselves "nuclear free zones," and passing pointless resolutions against the Iraq war.

It's childish, it's wasteful, and frankly, if voters were paying any attention to what the hell is going on, they would vote these people out of office.
 
Roadtoad said:
You know, this whole thing is crap. Seriously. If I want to allow smoking in my bar or restaurant, it's my business. People who don't smoke can take their business elsewhere.

It's insulting to have this nanny-state attitude, with California trying to run every nitpicky detail of our lives. Frankly, I wish the state assembly would concentrate on the stuff they were elected to deal with, like fixing roads and getting the state's debt under control. Ditto city councils, who seem to groove on wasting time voting themselves "nuclear free zones," and passing pointless resolutions against the Iraq war.

It's childish, it's wasteful, and frankly, if voters were paying any attention to what the hell is going on, they would vote these people out of office.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Roadtoad said:
You know, this whole thing is crap. Seriously. If I want to allow smoking in my bar or restaurant, it's my business. People who don't smoke can take their business elsewhere.

It's insulting to have this nanny-state attitude, with California trying to run every nitpicky detail of our lives. Frankly, I wish the state assembly would concentrate on the stuff they were elected to deal with, like fixing roads and getting the state's debt under control. Ditto city councils, who seem to groove on wasting time voting themselves "nuclear free zones," and passing pointless resolutions against the Iraq war.

It's childish, it's wasteful, and frankly, if voters were paying any attention to what the hell is going on, they would vote these people out of office.
Click to expand...
Rather, we're voting the SMOKERS out.
 
I can't stand smoking because it looks stupid with a cigar or cigarette dangling out of your mouth. Due to my Fire Tec 3 class at college (Hazardous Materials and Fire Chemistry), here is a little tidbit on the main gas that is released from smoking.

Carbon Monoxide:

Specific Gravity: .97
Molecular Formula: CO
Molar Mass 28.01 g/mol
Appearance: Colorless, odorless gas
NFPA 704 Tag: Health 4
Flamability: 2
Reactivity: 2
100-800 ppm (Parts Per Million): Severe headache in 2-3 hours
12,800 ppm: Fatal in less than 3 minutes

Creepy huh?

And should we care? Not really. If a smoker wants to smoke, hey, all the more power to him/her. If they want to smoke in a bar, I could care less! Let them keel over and attempt to croak, its more work for me, cause sittin around doin' bupkiss gets DULL.

Stupid Legislature. I oughta send Richard Simmons to deal with em.
 
DigitalHoser said:
I can't stand smoking because it looks stupid with a cigar or cigarette dangling out of your mouth.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've never seen a young Sharon Stone in the interrogation scene in "Basic Instinct."

I agree regarding how dangerous the various gases are, but can you provide stats on the breakdown of poisonous gases in a major city on a smoggy day? If the government were indeed worried about our health because of airborne gases and poisons you'd think we'd have weaned ourselves from fossil fuels a long time ago, as least discouraging American auto makers from making four-wheel drive living rooms for soccer moms to drive to the convenience store . . . to buy cigarettes. :)
 
Renfield said:
This is a small example of fascism, liberal style. There is that faction of the left that wants to tell people how to live just like there is on the right.
Click to expand...

Except that there are plenty of professed conservatives who back the smoking bans in bars and restaurants as well. The Colorado legislature just passed a statewide ban in restaurants and bars (a couple of exceptions snuck in, i.e. casinos, cigar bars, the smoking lounge at DIA). Just waiting for the Guv's sig. This bill was definitely a bi-partisan effort.
 
schplurg said:
Funny thing is, I work in a nightclub/bar. Everyone smokes except for me and one other manager. All the bartenders, all the bouncers - smokers.

My friend owns a restaurant. Every server/waitperson (no exaggeration) is a smoker. Every single one. Most of the cooks are too, maybe all of them, I'm not sure. Those commercials made me laugh.

Strictly anecdotal, of course. I personally am SO glad there is no smoking in the club I work at. I believe it should be up to the owner to decide. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Click to expand...

I've worked many years in the industry. It's been a while too. And yes, from my experience, many of the staff were smokers, myself included.

Having said that, so what? Last I checked, slavery was unconstitutional. Aren't adults capable of deciding for themselves what environment they're most suited to work in?
 
Roadtoad said:
You know, this whole thing is crap. Seriously. If I want to allow smoking in my bar or restaurant, it's my business. People who don't smoke can take their business elsewhere.

It's insulting to have this nanny-state attitude, with California trying to run every nitpicky detail of our lives. Frankly, I wish the state assembly would concentrate on the stuff they were elected to deal with, like fixing roads and getting the state's debt under control. Ditto city councils, who seem to groove on wasting time voting themselves "nuclear free zones," and passing pointless resolutions against the Iraq war.

It's childish, it's wasteful, and frankly, if voters were paying any attention to what the hell is going on, they would vote these people out of office.
Click to expand...

Sing on Roadtoad, sing on :-)

-RE: Colorado
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom