Those WILD Californians!

[RandFan]

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.

 

[mgidm86]

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?

I was showing hypocricy in the television spots I mentioned that portrayed waitresses pleading for the new law. Had you quoted my entire post, what I said would be in proper context.

Here is the line you deleted:

I remember when the "no smoking in bars and restaurats" idea was being proposed. There were TV commercials showing waitresses with sad faces literally begging us to vote yes, for their health.

THEN I followed with:

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.

Slavery? I don't understand your point here.

Yes, I believe adults can decide for themselves where they work and where they choose to spend their leisure time, which is why I stated that it should be up to club or bar owners whether or not they allow smoking in their establishments. I realize there is a slippery slope here, but I think these types of venues should be able to allow smoking. I am not a smoker.

There is a bar one block down the road that does allow smoking. Supposedly they are family owned and operated which make it legal. Hmmm.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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?

They aren't already involved in lobbying for these laws? Hmmm.. I'll have to do some checking now...

 

[CapelDodger]

Huh?

What?

I say tobacco is artificial, and that's obvious from the delivery method. "What's that Walt? You discovered leaves? Well, come Fall, Walt ... (Hey guys, it's Nutty Walt on the line) ... You roll them up ... and you stick them in your mouth ... and then you set light to them." (Not mine, can't summon up the guy's name.) Snuff. Anything you take up the nose. Anything you inject. It screams "artificial". And when addiction is involved, it screams "artificer".

Alcohol is delivered by mouth, with a perfectly normal drinking action, and occurs naturally. Monkeys and baboons get pissed eating rotted fruit, and seem, by some reports, to do it deliberately. There's a hypothesis - far short of a consensus, I'll admit - that the expansion of the human brain is explained by the quest for better hooch.

I buy (heavily-taxed) Virginian tobacco to smoke in my tobacco-pipe, a tool I bought that only exists as a delivery method. (My other pipe is also a delivery method, but that's a different matter entirely.) I have two pear-trees and make pear-wine entirely on the premises. I'm only human, after all.

 

[CapelDodger]

 

[Mephisto]

There is a bar one block down the road that does allow smoking. Supposedly they are family owned and operated which make it legal. Hmmm.

And this is my Mom, Trixie, and my sister Lolita, and my cousin Desireé, and my niece Vanessa and the big guy in the corner with all the muscles and the scars is my brother Bob . . .

As a manager in such an establishment, how would you feel if club owners WERE given the right to choose whether to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment? Why not both? Unless it were a small club, I could see sectioning off a segment for smokers (complete with exhaust fans and filtration).

To be honest, I think if it WERE up to the owners, they would definitely allow smoking as we've seen - much of the clientele and most of the employees are smokers. I wonder if a "non-smokers only" bar would fly?

 

[Mephisto]

They aren't already involved in lobbying for these laws? Hmmm.. I'll have to do some checking now...

I imagine the ACLU would be taking the stance for the non-smokers, but NORML is suggesting the repeal of marijuana laws; the current war on tobacco smokers can't be helping their cause any.

 

[elaine]

I was showing hypocricy in the television spots I mentioned that portrayed waitresses pleading for the new law. Had you quoted my entire post, what I said would be in proper context.

Here is the line you deleted:
THEN I followed with:
Slavery? I don't understand your point here.

Yes, I believe adults can decide for themselves where they work and where they choose to spend their leisure time, which is why I stated that it should be up to club or bar owners whether or not they allow smoking in their establishments. I realize there is a slippery slope here, but I think these types of venues should be able to allow smoking. I am not a smoker.

There is a bar one block down the road that does allow smoking. Supposedly they are family owned and operated which make it legal. Hmmm.

Sorry, I should learn to read more carefully before posting.

The slavery thing I should have put in a different post. I get frustrated with people I know who work in places like bars where smoking is allowed and complain that they don't have a choice. They do. They just don't want to take responsibility for themselves.

 

[elaine]

What?

I say tobacco is artificial, and that's obvious from the delivery method. "What's that Walt? You discovered leaves? Well, come Fall, Walt ... (Hey guys, it's Nutty Walt on the line) ... You roll them up ... and you stick them in your mouth ... and then you set light to them." (Not mine, can't summon up the guy's name.) Snuff. Anything you take up the nose. Anything you inject. It screams "artificial". And when addiction is involved, it screams "artificer".

Alcohol is delivered by mouth, with a perfectly normal drinking action, and occurs naturally. Monkeys and baboons get pissed eating rotted fruit, and seem, by some reports, to do it deliberately. There's a hypothesis - far short of a consensus, I'll admit - that the expansion of the human brain is explained by the quest for better hooch.

I buy (heavily-taxed) Virginian tobacco to smoke in my tobacco-pipe, a tool I bought that only exists as a delivery method. (My other pipe is also a delivery method, but that's a different matter entirely.) I have two pear-trees and make pear-wine entirely on the premises. I'm only human, after all.

So would chewing tobacco be natural, or artificial?

 

[CriticalThanking]

Part 1

Personally, I dislike smoking intently. But I also have no logically consistent argument for banning stuff in private homes. And I'd sooner ban gas guzzling vehicles than cigarettes if we are talking about prioritizing by impact.

I am strongly in favor of cities that have stringent ventilation requirements for bars and restaurants that allow smoking. It gives the smokers that ability to smoke, and the non-smokers the ability to not smoke. The whole "smoking section" was a joke when one could be right next to the other with neither physical partition nor venitilation.

CT

[edited for stupid spelling]

 

[CriticalThanking]

Part 2

re: banning alcohol because patrons might get rowdy

I just retook the Texas Alcoholc Beverage Commission (TABC) certification course. Here you have to take it every 2 years. It is 4 hours of how not to serve alcohol. Yep. All the reasons not to serve, from underage to intoxicated. The whole course is summed up by an officer in the introduction (that does not count toward the 4 hours ): serve illegally and you will go to jail.

The sports stadiums in the US are running scared, as are more and more bars. There have been several high profile cases in which someone drank and hurt themselves or someone else afterwards. They make it very clear that drinking at an establishment is a privilige, not a right.

TABC also strongly reminds people that being intoxicated in public is illegal. It does not matter if you are harmless or that you have a designated driver.

CT

 

[CriticalThanking]

Part 3

So which will be made illegal: alcohol or cigarettes? In fact, maybe the better question in the US is which will be made illegal first! My wild guess is that insurance companies (and by extension employers) will make drinking and smoking effectively illegal. They will be fireable offenses to cut down on health care costs. This is already true for smoking for a number of employers. And will Child Protective Services be coming to take the kids from parents who smoke? Not yet...

CT

 

[Tricky]

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.

Actually, voting is the reason smoking bans are going up everywhere. It really doesn't matter how dangerous your vice of choice is, the only thing that matters is how many people have it. The reason prohibition didn't work is because too many people like to drink. Smoking used to be a very popular vice, but its popularity has declined in recent years, mostly due to the connection with lung cancer. As a result, a sizable majority of people have voted anti-smoking regulations and anti-smoking politicians into office. This is America. They have the right to do it, and those politicians have the right to make laws that satisfy the majority of the people. If a majority of people ever start agreeing that marijuana is not bad for society, it will be legalized too.

I don't smoke, but I grew up in a family of smokers, so I don't find it particularly offensive, but I'll still vote for anti-smoking laws simply because I prefer smoke-free environments. Sorry smokers, there are more of us than there are of you, so we get to make the rules. It may not be fair, but that's how the game is played, and unless you're ready to argue that the government does not have the right to make any laws that are for strictly for the pleasure of the majority, then you haven't got a legal leg to stand on.

 

[rwguinn]

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'. So when you say 'fascism, liberal style', I understand a phrase much like 'vegetarianism, carnivore style'. And I go .

However I am aware that in the US, the word 'liberal' has become pejorative in some circles - kinda ironic dontcha think, given the Latin origin of the word 'liberal', and the professed principles of the US?

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?

Next up, "private ownership, communist style".

Well- Politically, the meanings in the US deal with the Constitution of The United States.
"Liberal"--politically, one who makes a liberal interpretation of what the words mean.
"Conservative"-politically, one who takes the Constitution literally --the words mean exactly what that say, and nothing more.
[begin tongue-in-cheek mode]
To a liberal, "The people" means everyone, except for Amendment 2, where it means "The military and cops only".
To a conservative, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to everything human, including cells that might be human someday.[/tongue-in-cheek mode]

 

[Mephisto]

I am strongly in favor of cities that have stringent ventilation requirements for bars and restaurants that allow smoking. It gives the smokers that ability to smoke, and the non-smokers the ability to not smoke. The whole "smoking section" was a joke when one could be right next to the other with neither physical partition nor venitilation.

I'm with you on all accounts, especially the ventilation requirements for "smoking rooms." Automotive paint booth technology has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Attention is even paid to which direction contaminants travel as they're being directed toward exhaust ports and filters. Most modern booths suck the air downward so particulate matter and contaminants are drawn downward, away from the nose and mouth.

There is no reason this technology couldn't be made available in a more aesthetic package.

http://www.autobodytoolmart.com/8560.html

 

[CriticalThanking]

Automotive paint booth technology has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Attention is even paid to which direction contaminants travel as they're being directed toward exhaust ports and filters. Most modern booths suck the air downward so particulate matter and contaminants are drawn downward, away from the nose and mouth.

There is no reason this technology couldn't be made available in a more aesthetic package.

http://www.autobodytoolmart.com/8560.html

Nice idea, but I am guessing expen$$$ive to retrofit. In fact, that was one of the pushbacks when the ventilation requirements went into effect in my area.

More asthetic? Why? With an open grate for a floor, all the smoke, spilled drinks, peanut shells, blood and vomit all go down the drain with no muss, no fuss. No barback need ever mop the floor again. High heels are a b*tch, though.

CT

 

[Art Vandelay]

It may not be fair, but that's how the game is played, and unless you're ready to argue that the government does not have the right to make any laws that are for strictly for the pleasure of the majority, then you haven't got a legal leg to stand on.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely my position. And unless you see nothing wrong with repealing the 13th amendment, I don't see how you have leg stand on.

 

[CapelDodger]

So would chewing tobacco be natural, or artificial?

How natural is chewing-gum? I don't doubt there are bits of the brain that associate chewing with good feelings, but mostly because the chewing is part of a chew-swallow-digest cycle. I don't doubt nicotene passes easily into the bloodstream from the mouth and into the brain, where it messes with some primordially evolved processes. I'd have to say that chewing-baccy is artificial.

 

[Mephisto]

More asthetic? Why? With an open grate for a floor, all the smoke, spilled drinks, peanut shells, blood and vomit all go down the drain with no muss, no fuss. No barback need ever mop the floor again. High heels are a b*tch, though.

CT

You're right about that, but I think most guys would miss the high heels though. Of course, having a grate from which to peer upwards at skirts might make up for it.

 

[Tony]

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.

Are you sure you want to go there? That same argument could be used make cars (with internal combustion engines) illegal.