SnyderShrugged Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The certainly do.The FDA controls it with an iron fist. For the betterment of public health. The FDA already "controls" smoking with an iron fist, despite this rule. No, that isnt really true. But to claim that the FDA can simply ban a food that causes say, obesity or colesterol is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 so extend the logic more. Say there is a smoker who feels the same about Baileys as you. Its the only place he likes to go. Do you see how his experience is diminished in bettering yours? I spend a LOT of money in Baileys. They have no direct access to outside. They are going to take a beating financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 so extend the logic more. Say there is a smoker who feels the same about Baileys as you. Its the only place he likes to go. Do you see how his experience is diminished in bettering yours? I think I already said I don't care. My opinion on this issue is completely selfish. I don't like being around smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Oh good lord, just stop. The freaken Boogey Man isn'g going to get you.Smoking is disgusting and not only effects you it effects everyone that has to around when you're sucking down that cancer stick. Just because a law is passed to keep people from doing something doesn't make it the next step in all our rights being gone. We are talking about smoking. I imagine if you were around when speed limits on the roads were made, you would have been screaming, "oh lord there goes the first step in me losing all my rights!" The government owns the roads. They arent private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The FDA already "controls" smoking with an iron fist, despite this rule.No, that isnt really true. But to claim that the FDA can simply ban a food that causes say, obesity or colesterol is false. Im not making that claim. Im just pointing out that the Govt DOES control food you can serve in a restaurant. So it's not a leap to now say they are controlling smoking in a restaurant. In fact, they already control other behavior in restaurants (as well as other public places). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If you have a problem with it DONT GO TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS! How hard is that seriously? Go to a place where there is no smoking. I dont go to places I dont like and try to make them change to suit me!That being said, I think it is good to keep smokers outside and I smoke. I dont mind stepping out. I just think that establishments (especially bars) should make more of an effort to cater to smokers outside. For example, a bar should have a outdoor patio connected to the bar so that I can take my drink outside when I smoke so I dont have to down it before I walk outside. Other than that, I do not mind keeping my choice away from others. Although I should be able to punch anyone in the face who gives me that smug look and asks "don't you know smoking is bad for you?" or tries to tell me I should quit smoking. you don't come to VA enough because you would know that most bars dont ban smoking (loudoun county). sure i can drive to DC or MD but thats too much time and effort to do on a consistent basis to avoid smoke. i'm just saying i'm glad this is going into effect so i don't have to inhale smoke from people's lungs and smell like ****. or drive 35 miles each way to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 no, not really. I dont think that behaviors that harm no-one but themselves should be regulated. (and no, I dont buy the second hand smoke argument)But I admit, at least it is a tad more paletable than a decision without the voice of the voter.:2cents: what gives you the authority to "not buy" the second hand smoke argument? Do you have any facts to back up your idea that 2nd hand smoke doesn't effect anyone and it's all just a myth? Are you a scientist? Once you figure out that 2nd hand smoke is harmful then tell me if its ok for parents to smoke in the car while their kids are on board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I spend a LOT of money in Baileys. They have no direct access to outside. They are going to take a beating financially. Bailey's will take a beating financially because their customer service sucks and Union Jacks opened up on the opposite end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I'm a smoker. Restaurants I completely understand having non smoking all over for health concerns. Plus I can hold off on a cigarette until after the meal. However, no smoking in bars is just plain stupid. I'm down in Tennessee for school, and the law here is no smoking in restaurants, but there are some bars that allow smoking. I get the restaurants, but no smoking in bars is stupid, because most people in there are smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Waiting for the proof that these restaurants/bars have higher a revenue based on a smoking ban. Somehow alienating a potential group of clients does not seem like a feasable business plan to increase profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Bailey's will take a beating financially because their customer service sucks and Union Jacks opened up on the opposite end Union Jacks isnt great for watching sports, and once the novelty of it being new wears of, Baileys would be fine. Especially if you could smoke in Bailey's and not UJ or Rock Bottom. If you cant smoke in any of the 3, Baileys is going to get killed because it has no direct access to the outside. Union Jacks has a nice patio that is perfect for smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Also people keep talking about losing customers and revenue due to the ban - you guys know tons of other cities have already passed smoking bans, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Oh good lord, just stop. The freaken Boogey Man isn'g going to get you.Smoking is disgusting and not only effects you it effects everyone that has to around when you're sucking down that cancer stick. Just because a law is passed to keep people from doing something doesn't make it the next step in all our rights being gone. We are talking about smoking. I imagine if you were around when speed limits on the roads were made, you would have been screaming, "oh lord there goes the first step in me losing all my rights!" despite your high horse, I belive I have explained my position clearly. Your rant is ineffective. There are literally millions of activities that could be considered bad for others around you when partaken in and they shouldnt be regulated out of existence either. Now, pick any one product that you chose to use, freely, and insert a government regulation that doesnt allow you to use it freely and you can see the point of view I am proposing. Do you play video games? How will you feel when they are banned for your own good? How about redskin games? maybe those someday are found to have poor effects on the heart (they always make mine go nuts! LOl), would you be OK if they were banned too? I realize that I am presenting things that most likely wont come to pass, but to say it isnt troubling to see overreach by any government into things we should be responisble for as individuals is outright wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 That is, until they decide to regulate what you eat there too. Maybe that burger you were craving is deemed a health hazzard and they need to ban it "for your own good" too? I suppose as soon as he starts shoving said burger down the throats of nearby customers, you'll have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Also people keep talking about losing customers and revenue due to the ban - you guys know tons of other cities have already passed smoking bans, right? name one...if you havent noticed the economy is in shambles right now... thanks to this red tape the government is putting on the free market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Waiting for the proof that these restaurants/bars have higher a revenue based on a smoking ban. Somehow alienating a potential group of clients does not seem like a feasable business plan to increase profits. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021003311.html Bar owners arent happy. But what do they know about running a business? Politicians know best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow24 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If I were a smoker I would hate this ban purely because it would inconvenience me as a smoker. I am not, so I like the ban purely because it removes the inconvenience of smelling like and inhaling other peoples smoke. And 99% of the restaurants I've been to with smoking and non-smoking sections, the sections have little difference in air quality . Smoke travels well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Waiting for the proof that these restaurants/bars have higher a revenue based on a smoking ban. Somehow alienating a potential group of clients does not seem like a feasable business plan to increase profits. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/newsroom/200603/20060320-nr_SmokingBanStudy.asp http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/03/14/news/local/150988.txt http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/470459_print http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/57/6/367 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6548/is_2008_August/ai_n28565892 http://tobacco.cleartheair.org.hk/2008/03/14/study-finds-that-smoking-ban-had-no-effect-on-revenues/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 name one...if you havent noticed the economy is in shambles right now...thanks to this red tape the government is putting on the free market You're right actually now that I think of it, California is in a complete ****hole. I bet if they bring smoking back, the governator would not have to fire anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 You're right actually now that I think of it, California is in a complete ****hole. I bet if they bring smoking back, the governator would not have to fire anyone. finally you open your eyes and stop putting your selfishness ahead of the good of the general public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 finally you open your eyes and stop putting your selfishness ahead of the good of the general public I would open my eyes if I wasn't standing in a cloud of disgusting yellow smoke every time I walked in to the bar!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 you don't come to VA enough because you would know that most bars dont ban smoking.sure i can drive to DC or MD but thats too much time and effort to do on a consistent basis to avoid smoke. i'm just saying i'm glad this is going into effect so i don't have to inhale smoke from people's lungs and smell like ****. or drive 40 miles each way to avoid it. And that should be their choice whether or not to ban smoking just like you have a choice whether or not to go to those bars. Do you have not go out to a bar and drink? No, you choose to. What if I decide that intoxicated people bother me and they impose on my good time because they are loud and obnoxious? Can I get a law passed so people are not allowed to be drunk in a bar too? Oh and if you are so worried about what you are inhaling, don't go outside ever again. Do you know how many toxins that car you dont want to drive 40 miles puts out? Like I said before, I do not mind one bit keeping my smoking away from others in public places but at the same time, I think private business owners should have a choice whether or not they want to be a smoking establishment. If so many people do not smoke, why is it that most of the bars do not ban smoking on their own? You would think a non-smoking bar would be more profitable if that were the case and people would open them up left and right! Just remember how you feel now when someone decides to try to take away or limit one of your choices for the good of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would open my eyes if I wasn't standing in a cloud of disgusting yellow smoke every time I walked in to the bar!!!!! i cant hear you over the sound of the collapsing restaurant industry in virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/newsroom/200603/20060320-nr_SmokingBanStudy.asp Restaurants did well, bars, not so much: For the remaining two categories of businesses, revenues decreased from 2004 to 2005. The rate of decrease for neighborhood bars was 4.15 percent, and for downtown clubs, 0.09 percent. Increases from 2003 to 2004 were small for both categories: 1.06 percent for neighborhood bars and 0.01 percent for downtown clubs. http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/03/14/news/local/150988.txthttp://tobacco.cleartheair.org.hk/2008/03/14/study-finds-that-smoking-ban-had-no-effect-on-revenues/ These 2 are the same study, and only counted restaurants and not bars. http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/470459_print Link doesnt work. http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/57/6/367 I dont think that source is unbiased. :laugh: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6548/is_2008_August/ai_n28565892 "However, it clearly stated that its data did not conclusively link the two issues and "did not attempt to establish a statistical correlation between the smoking ban and revenues, nor investigate why revenues changed as they did," the press release stated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 That is the one thing I have never been able to understand. If they want to cater to the smoking crowd... what is the issue ? Smoking is not illegal in any state. Let these businesses decide what clients they want and let the potential clients decide whether this is the environment they want to be in for whatever reason. Stop dumbing down America and taking away decision making abilities. There are still private clubs that can have smoking. Smoking is a legal form for people to not only harm themselves, but others. Everyone shouldn't be subjected to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.