Smoking in Bars

[Dancing Mustard]

The usual hypocritical bollocks

This irritates me to no end. If I own a crack-den, or a homosexual friendly-church who is the government to tell me I can't allow smoking crack or gay-marriage in MY establishment? I own it and I want crack-smoking and gay-marriage to be legal, just like they were before legislation prevented them. You can easily inform applicants who want to work there that it is a crack-smoke, and gay-friendly friendly establishment and if they do not want to work there they can go elsewhere to work! If you come in for a drink and do not like the crack-smoky, homo-friendly atmosphere, go somewhere else! Its ludacris, when are the people going to stand up and tell the government to "butt out"?

[jay_a2j]

The usual hypocritical bollocks

This irritates me to no end. If I own a crack-den, or a homosexual friendly-church who is the government to tell me I can't allow smoking crack or gay-marriage in MY establishment? I own it and I want crack-smoking and gay-marriage to be legal, just like they were before legislation prevented them. You can easily inform applicants who want to work there that it is a crack-smoke, and gay-friendly friendly establishment and if they do not want to work there they can go elsewhere to work! If you come in for a drink and do not like the crack-smoky, homo-friendly atmosphere, go somewhere else! Its ludacris, when are the people going to stand up and tell the government to "butt out"?

Crack is ILLEGAL. And as of now, in most states, so is gay marriage (not recognized by the government) Now, banning smoking would be perfectly fine, if cigarettes were illegal.

[Dancing Mustard]

Smoking in bars is ILLEGAL, so your argument doesn't fly.

Here, let's try this one:

This irritates me to no end. If I own a bar who is the government to tell me I can't allow stabbing non-consenting people in the eyes with forks in MY establishment? I own it and I fork-stabbing to be legal. You can easily inform applicants who want to work there that it is a fork-stabbing-friendly establishment and if they do not want to work there they can go elsewhere to work! If you come in for a drink and do not like the being-stabbed-in-the-eye-with-a-fork-repeatedly atmosphere, go somewhere else! Its ludacris, when are the people going to stand up and tell the government to "butt out"?


The point is that just because you're used to something being legal in the past, it doesn't make it legal forever. And it doesn't make it wrong to illegalise it now.
Sure, crack and gay-marriage are 'illegal' now, but they used to be unregulated... just like smoking in bars; what's the difference between them and tobacco? It's not the absolute prohibition of the substance which matters, that's a completely false-dichotomy. You simply have to accept that sometimes things you want to do are going to be prohibited by the state... You can either say that the government has no business regulating such things at all (and thereby allow crack and gay-marriage), or you can accept that sometimes you don't get it all your own way and allow the State some interference with your lifestyle.

[Norse]

But, I am of the opinion that if people are dumb enough to go to pubs, and pay extortionate prices for piss-water beer, then they deserve to die from my second hand smoke.

[Symmetry]

Smoking in bars is ILLEGAL, so your argument doesn't fly.

Woah- you were the guy pretending to be an underage boy on another thread, right?

Anyway- illegality:
No it's not. In a few places around the world it is, but generally it's not. What I did was not illegal. I really can't see how you've interpreted it as such. You've claimed that smoking in bars is illegal, you've thus called smokers criminals, and you've likened smokers to crack dealers and murderers (or whatever you intended by your bizarre fork analogy).

I'll be generous and think that you've simply failed to read the original post. It's a generous leap for me to make with a two page thread, but I'll make it.

Dancing Mustard- admit that you were wrong, and let's get on with the thread.

[Dancing Mustard]

Anyway- illegality:
No it's not. In a few places around the world it is, but generally it's not.

Hi there nice to meet you too.
Actually in the UK it is illegal to smoke in bars (and it's illegal in several areas of the United States too). It's these restrictively legislated areas that Jay was talking about, and it is in the context of those areas that my reply was made. Perhaps you didn't notice that and thought that we were just having fun and talking in the abstract about some imagined fantasy laws that don't exist, just for the joy of arguing about made-up crap... or who knows, perhaps you thought that we were just having a good old natter about the laws of Japan, what with us both being experts on that and all...
Anyway, now you're informed to the contrary (shame you didn't get that from the posts we were making, but hey, we can't all be geniuses with the power to apply logic to simple internet arguments eh?) we can continue.

The point is this: Obviously I wasn't saying that smoking in bars was illegal worldwide, I was in fact discussing the merits of anti-smoking legislation in the areas where it has been made in some way illegal. But I commend your powers of creative misunderstanding all the same...

What I did was not illegal. I really can't see how you've interpreted it as such. You've claimed that smoking in bars is illegal, you've thus called smokers criminals, and you've likened smokers to crack dealers and murderers (or whatever you intended by your bizarre fork analogy).

No... I haven't called you a criminal, and no I haven't claimed that smoking in bars is illegal worldwide. Please try again.

Here is what I was saying for people, like you, who didn't get it the first time:
If you smoked in a bar in the UK (or the aforementioned parts of the USA) then you would be a criminal. Why? Because it's a criminal offence to smoke in bars here. Would this 'criminal' status equate you to drug-users and murderers? Only as much as it equates people who drive with a broken brake-light, to rapists.

As such I haven't called you a criminal, and I haven't called all smokers worldwide criminals. Got that? Good. It certainly took long enough.
Now let's try moving onto my simple analogy, which you appear to have had some serious (and concerning) difficulties understanding.

The point of my analogy was this: Many people (like Jay) screech "It's my choice what I do on my property, why should the government interfere. Smoking isn't illegal!".
My response is "The Government can interfere for exactly the same reasons they can interfere when dealing with other illegal substances (i.e. crack). Just because smoking tobacco was legal last year (in the UK), and because smoking tobacco is legal in some places within the jurisdiction, doesn't deprive the restrictive legislation of any force, nor does it take the state into a realm that it has no power to legislate over. If you're going to argue that we should be able to do what we like on our own property where smoking is concerned, then you have to take the argument to its logical conclusion and include all restricted substances. The fact that some substances have been more or less tightly restricted for longer or shorter lengths of time has no relevance. If you think publicans ought to be able to permit smoking if they want to, then they logically ought to be able to permit smoking marijuana, crack, and heroin; hell they even ought to be able to permit other prohibited acts, such as gay marriage and serious violence. After all, it's their property... right? Furthermore, just because it's legal to have an article in some areas of the jurisdiction, and to use it in certain ways in those areas, it doesn't follow that no restrictions can ever be passed to limit its use. Forks for example are not 'illegal', but it is 'illegal' to ram one into somebody's eye without their consent. Just as it is legal to own and smoke tobacco in some areas, but not in public houses. As such Jay's 'crack is ILLEGAL' argument is reliant on a false dichotomy, and is quite irrelevant here."

Got that now? Or do you have some other bizarre illogical things to say? It's a terrible shame you didn't quite keep up with that fairly simple train of thought the first time though... would it help if I broke my points up into bullet-points for you in the future?

I'll be generous and think that you've simply failed to read the original post. It's a generous leap for me to make with a two page thread, but I'll make it.

I'll be generous and think that you're not usually so pompous and arrogant as to think that every single post in this thread will be couched around the context of the original example that you gave in your first post. I'll also be generous and imagine that you'll learn to actually read posts that other users make to one another, rather than just skimming them and proceeding to make wacky illogical deductions before launching into blustering personal attacks.

Dancing Mustard- admit that you were wrong, and let's get on with the thread.

Symmetry - admit that you just didn't understand what I wrote, acknowledge that nobody has so far logically rebutted what I've said, and then try typing something that has some logical, coherent content, and that isn't a borderline flame.

Cheers.

[ParadiceCity9]

smokings retarded.

[Symmetry]

I made no personal attack- you did pretend to be a schoolboy on another thread. It was merely an observation.

As such, it's really hard for me to take you seriously. I certainly didn't call you "pompous", "arrogant", or imply that I was a genius beyond your understanding.

I had no idea that simply asking you to admit that you were wrong would upset you so much. For that, I apologize.

You mentioned no context- you said that smoking in bars is illegal. When I corrected you, and noted that it's illegal only in a few places. You replied that I was wrong, and that it's only illegal in a few places. It's a strange thing to agree with someone while insisting that they're wrong.

Your other arguments still have nothing to do with whether smoking should or shouldn't be allowed in bars. Saying that it is illegal has no bearing on whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. If people choose not to take up your long analogies about forks in eyes, then it may be a crisis of credibility on behalf of the argument itself.

Finally- calm down, dude!

[Dancing Mustard]

I had no idea that simply asking you to admit that you were wrong would upset you so much. For that, I apologize.

Upset? No.
Wrong? Nope... it's just that you appear to be having trouble understanding what I'm writing. Bad luck...

You mentioned no context- you said that smoking in bars is illegal. When I corrected you, and noted that it's illegal only in a few places. You replied that I was wrong, and that it's only illegal in a few places.

People tend not to mention 'context', you see that's something of a contradiction in terms... is English your first language? I wonder if I'm expecting too much from you here?

Now, read this very slowly, because it appears to be proving difficult for you to understand: I didn't say what you keep insisting that I did. You took my words out of context, a context which ought to have been fairly obvious to you. I never intended to state that smoking was illegal worldwide. I only intended to state that it was illegal in certain jurisdictions. Do you understand that yet? You haven't 'corrected' me on anything, because you didn't understand the very thing you claim to have 'corrected'. You are talking at cross-purposes to me, the things you claim to be 'correcting' are not the things that I said.

Your other arguments still have nothing to do with whether smoking should or shouldn't be allowed in bars. Saying that it is illegal has no bearing on whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. If people choose not to take up your long analogies about forks in eyes, then it may be a crisis of credibility on behalf of the argument itself.

Are you even reading the words in my posts? Or are you just imagining things that might be there and then replying to them? Shadow-boxing is a good form of calisthenics, but it's not really going to help you debating.

Now, let's say this in simple words so that you have a hope of understanding it this time: I never said that smoking should or shouldn't be illegal in bars, I have not expressed an opinion on that topic; have you got that yet? I am also well aware that illegality is not self-justifying, I do not need you to point that rather simple fact out. That's why I never stated anything to the contrary. Understand?

The point that I was making (which you appear to have spectacularily missed twice now) is that legislation which does ban smoking in public places is not an example of a state legislating beyond its competence or into a realm that it ought not regulate. People, like Jay, who complain that it is such a thing are both misguided and confused in their thinking. Please stop attempting to read my posts as if they are replies to your original question, they are replies to Jay, and they deal with a seperate (though related) issue. Attempting to reply to them as if they are replies to a different question will just make you look like an imbecile.

Now, please get it into your head that not everybody here will be responding to the precise question that you raise in your first post. They may, like myself and Jay, be conducting seperate discussions about questions which your original point raises. To understand this thread's progression you will be required to read posts in the context of other earlier posts, and you will need to apply simple powers of reasoning as to what it is each poster is speaking about.

Please don't keep wasting my time by writing erroneous trite tosh about how I am calling 'all smoking illegal' and about how 'illegality does not prove it should be illegal'. Arguing at cross-purposes with me is just a waste of everybody's time.

[Pedronicus]

I don't go to the pub much anymore since they banned it. The pubs are missing out on me and my fish like drinking technique that was only matched by my ability to smoke 3 cigarettes at once

[Symmetry]

You definitely write as if you're upset. It reads like a tirade against the world.

Good luck in all that you do.

[AlgyTaylor]

What really pisses me off is people that go on about secondhand smoke. f*ck the secondhand smoke, what about first hand alcohol and your liver.

Get to f*ck. If I (or anyone else) chooses to destroy their liver than that's their lookout. Doesn't mean they should also have to f*ck up their lungs at the same time.

Also, if I drink it doesn't affect anyone else in the bar - it's only my liver that I'm damaging. Unlike smoking, which damages everyone indiscriminately.

Don't think it should be illegal, but totally agree with the idea that YOUR choice to become a nicotene addict shouldn't be forced upon me. As long as it's only you that it's affecting, it's fair game.

I hold exactly the same views on drugs, sex, alcohol, religion, ..

[Symmetry]

Also, if I drink it doesn't affect anyone else in the bar - it's only my liver that I'm damaging. Unlike smoking, which damages everyone indiscriminately.

Don't think it should be illegal, but totally agree with the idea that YOUR choice to become a nicotene addict shouldn't be forced upon me. As long as it's only you that it's affecting, it's fair game.

I hold exactly the same views on drugs, sex, alcohol, religion, ..

That's similar to my opinion. I don't think I force my choice on others by going to a bar where they know people will smoke, and where people know there is a non-smoking section.

I think it's rude to force people into an environment where they have to smoke. As long as people choose to go to a smoky environment then I don't think smoking in bars should be banned. It's your choice.

[Dancing Mustard]

. You definitely write as if you're upset. It reads like a tirade against the world.

Good luck in all that you do.

That's right, now that you realise how badly you've been caned, drop back into personal attacks and wild speculation about me being upset and angry at the world. Have fun sulking with your loss.

Trust me, the only thing I'm upset about is that my printer is broken right now.

[riggable]

Symmetry, you sound like someone who got addicted to ciggaretes when they used to make you 'cool', and now that when you smoke you look and smell like a tool, you start pouting and whining.

So, the government is stopping you from doing an action that has been proven to be life threatening, and you get angry at them?

Try this: stop bitching, and try quitting your disgusting habit. Because, now adays, if you smoke in a bar like that, legal or not, you will hurt someone else whose trying to have a good time, and, not matter how self-righteous you try to be, you will always end up looking like the dousche.

[The1exile]

Its ludacris, when are the people going to stand up and tell the government to "butt out"?

It's ludicrous, when is the government going to stop being chosen by illiterate morons?

[The1exile]

Oh, and for the record, I'm of the opinion that smoking should either be banned outright or other smoked illegal substances should be legalised (e.g. weed).

[Snorri1234]

I think it's fucked up. If you go to a bar to have a bunch of drinks and then complain that someone smoking is bad for your health, you're just being silly.
I mean, I can understand that the smoke is annoying sometimes, but so are a lot of things.

In the end, the choice should be up to the bars themselves. It's their fucking building.

Now, smoking in restaurants is different. I have no problem with banning it there, since smoke ruins the taste of your food if there is enough of it.

[The1exile]

In the end, the choice should be up to the bars themselves. It's their fucking building.

*points at DM's posts*

[mandalorian2298]

Neither alcohol nor cofein are healthy. Thus, if you are obsessed with your health, don't go to a bar.

[graeme89]

When I go to a resturaunt I politely ask people to stop eating while I'm smoking, tut tut some people have no manners.

[Snorri1234]

In the end, the choice should be up to the bars themselves. It's their fucking building.

*points at DM's posts*

I read it. The problem is that while banning smoking in bars is not something the government can't do, I feel it's something they shouldn't do.

[Stymie]

What really pisses me off is people that go on about secondhand smoke. f*ck the secondhand smoke, what about first hand alcohol and your liver.

Get to f*ck. If I (or anyone else) chooses to destroy their liver than that's their lookout. Doesn't mean they should also have to f*ck up their lungs at the same time.

Also, if I drink it doesn't affect anyone else in the bar - it's only my liver that I'm damaging. Unlike smoking, which damages everyone indiscriminately.

Don't think it should be illegal, but totally agree with the idea that YOUR choice to become a nicotene addict shouldn't be forced upon me. As long as it's only you that it's affecting, it's fair game.

I hold exactly the same views on drugs, sex, alcohol, religion, ..

I have to disagree with you on this point you made. I own a bar and believe you me, I have seen my fair share of people hurting people when they drink.
Yes, smoking can harm you and the other people around you, but so can drinking. There are some people who think they are 10 foot tall and bullet proof when they drink and those are the type you really have to watch. There is no telling what they will do to hurt someone and not even realize it.
Don't go saying stuff like we should cut them off from the booze. Sometimes it doesn't take but on drink to make these people go berserk.

[Ham]

If you go to a bar and complain about smokers you are retarded.

Thats like calling getting attacked by a bear worse than getting attacked by a lion.

In the end they both f*ck you up.

[soundout9]

smoking is ewwwwwwwwwyyyyyyyyyyyyy