GTAVercetti 0 #76 June 27, 2006 Quote Thoughtful, well reasoned, intelligent and sensible. This is precisely the sort of rubbish that'll get this thread kicked into The Bonfire! Mike. I KNOW! I have been sitting here trying to think of why it sucks. I am at a loss.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #77 June 27, 2006 QuoteI KNOW! I have been sitting here trying to think of why it sucks. I am at a loss. It would suck if you were a control freak that wanted the ability to go anywhere, anytime, and never encounter smoke. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #78 June 27, 2006 QuoteI KNOW! I have been sitting here trying to think of why it sucks. I am at a loss. I like it because I'd like the default to be no-smoking also. And it kinda punishes the smoking establishments by making them "pay up" to the city for a license. So, I like punishing those that don't agree with my views (hell, maybe I just won't spend my money in there)...... Smoking is the only thing where I'm a stereotyped self righteous liberal I think (I want to force others to live by my prejudice). But what sucks about it is that the business now has to give revenue to the government for a "permit". Why not let businesses just post a sign ("the air sucks in here and your clothes will stink" or "we do not allow smoking in here") and keep the government out of it altogether? I'd rather see serious criminal penalties for those few smokers that insist on smoking in areas clearly designated as non-smoking. Those guys are assholes. And restaurants just need to choose one way or the other - a half and half restaurant is just a smoking restaurant in denial. Also, fines and penalties for throwing butts on the ground and from cars. And if cell phones while driving are an illegal distraction, then the exact same penalty should apply to putting on makeup, smoking, and eating while driving. I'd also like to see a law that says if you are smoking and driving, the car windows should all be closed - no matter how fast or what road one is on. that'll do for now. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #79 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteI would like to see the default be no smoking, and that specific permission has to be sought to allow it (e.g. a "Smoking permitted" sign is required to light up). I'd also support its being a separate license, kind of like a liquor license. Wendy W. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Wait, let me think about some more and I am sure I can find a good reason why it sucks. Because once the govt. starts issuing licencing for something, over time, they will start to attach all kinds of stipulations like requiring an inspection of the heating and a/c systems for toxicity, seperate ventilation in the food preparation area, stricter building codes requiring flame-retardant construction, monthly air quality inspection etc. They could also require placards every 15' or so with a govt. approved warnings on them. They might also disallow bringing your own cigarettes and require you purchase them at the bar, much like they do with alcohol now. I don't smoke, but I know how the govt. likes to keep passing laws anytime they see an opportunity to collect more taxes or expand it's size. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #80 June 27, 2006 QuoteBecause once the govt. starts issuing licencing for something, over time, they will start to .......collect more taxes or expand it's size. I was going that way but got lost on other stuff. Thanks for putting it down clearly. Businesses don't need the government to tell them to post a sign. And they certainly don't need to then pay for the "privilege" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,553 #81 June 27, 2006 QuoteBusinesses don't need the government to tell them to post a sign. And they certainly don't need to then pay for the "privilege"Then nothing will change. Because that's how it is right now. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #82 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteI KNOW! I have been sitting here trying to think of why it sucks. I am at a loss. I like it because I'd like the default to be no-smoking also. And it kinda punishes the smoking establishments by making them "pay up" to the city for a license. So, I like punishing those that don't agree with my views (hell, maybe I just won't spend my money in there)...... Smoking is the only thing where I'm a stereotyped self righteous liberal I think (I want to force others to live by my prejudice). But what sucks about it is that the business now has to give revenue to the government for a "permit". How about a rebate to non-smokers to compensate? Quote Why not let businesses just post a sign ("the air sucks in here and your clothes will stink" or "we do not allow smoking in here") and keep the government out of it altogether? . Can we have the smokers ring bells and wear signs saying "Unclean" too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #83 June 27, 2006 Yeah, I know. But the fact of the matter is is that no smoking is slowly becoming more of the norm instead of the oddity. So the permit to allow smoking seems to be a compromise. The key would be to ensure that such abuses (high fees, strict rules, etc) can't occur. So it would require careful wording in the law. And in that case, because of my HIGH faith in the ability of lawmakers to do the correct thing, I hereby rescind my support of a permit. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely in favor of NOT having a smoking ban, but we have to work with what we get.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #84 June 27, 2006 Quote If an establishment earns the majority of its profit off of the sale and consumption of cigars or cigarettes, I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with people killing themselves via carcinogenic inhalation therein. I think it is sad that they left the cigar option. Some people will work there and get exposed. There are also other workers like cleaners, fire inspectors and other poeple who visit the establishment for "work" purposes who will get exposed. Lung cancer cost a lot of money to treat, and it is usually fatal, and guess who picks up the bill when the insurance runs out, guess who pays disability as the person slowly dies. Smoking is an activity that can kill others, all that CO has done is make it harder to kill someone through selfish negligance, good for them. It is comparable with other laws that prevent behavior that is likely to harm others, speed limits, stop signs etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #85 June 27, 2006 QuoteHow about a rebate to non-smokers to compensate? Can we have the smokers ring bells and wear signs saying "Unclean" too? it would just result in an excess of dingy and smelly bells and signs - not fair to the signs, really ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davedlg 0 #86 June 27, 2006 And the Headline Story for CNN today... Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke 3 days left! I can't wait. I think in another 20 years, this won't be a big deal at all...smoking in enclosed public places is simply something you don't do. Just like smoking on an airplane is today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #87 June 27, 2006 A nice story from Fox News today about second hand smoke: Clicky If it's non-meaningful then it shouldn't hurt you to answer my questions, then should it? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #88 June 28, 2006 To continue with the questions. Why CAN'T you avoid a "smoking allowed" establishment. Is it really too complex and painful to go buy cheap tequila somewhere else. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #89 June 28, 2006 QuoteA nice story from Fox News today about second hand smoke: Clicky If it's non-meaningful then it shouldn't hurt you to answer my questions, then should it? I guess I don't understand your questions. But then, I discount the image of some guy spraying DDT on the beach. Could you restate? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #90 June 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteA nice story from Fox News today about second hand smoke: Clicky If it's non-meaningful then it shouldn't hurt you to answer my questions, then should it? I guess I don't understand your questions. But then, I discount the image of some guy spraying DDT on the beach. Could you restate? I can remember seeing DDT being sprayed on all kinds of places when I was a kid. I don't discount the image at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #91 June 28, 2006 If one wanted to never go shoot pool or to the majority of popular bars and dance clubs, it would be possible to avoid bars that allow assault via second hand smoke. Vice CO society telling non-smokers to either accept lung pollution & increased cancer risk or f-off and die, they've opted for the better option - eliminating smoke in bars. Are farmers who cease using DDT and switched to other incesticides bending their lives around the rest of us? And is there any difference between me spraying DDT into the air on the beach and a smoker lighting up a cigarette on a beach? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #92 June 28, 2006 QuoteIf one wanted to never go shoot pool or to the majority of popular bars and dance clubs, it would be possible to avoid bars that allow assault via second hand smoke. Vice CO society telling non-smokers to either accept lung pollution & increased cancer risk or f-off and die, they've opted for the better option - eliminating smoke in bars. Are farmers who cease using DDT and switched to other incesticides bending their lives around the rest of us? And is there any difference between me spraying DDT into the air on the beach and a smoker lighting up a cigarette on a beach? DDT does have a useful function and persists longer. Other than that, I see no difference.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dancingdolphin 0 #93 June 28, 2006 Here in Ireland the smoking ban has been working really well. Although a few people have taken up smoking!! Nobody saw that coming!!! Cute guy goes outside pub for a ciggie, hopeful girl follows...lits up....conversation starts ....... opposite is true also of course!! If you're holding anyone else accountable for your happiness, you're wasting your time." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 June 28, 2006 So I presume you're also fine with the FAA coming in and doing ramp checks for reserve repacks on every load flown, then...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #95 June 28, 2006 You persist in making emotional pleas, and yet nobody is interested. The "offending" states that allow smoking in bars aren't telling you to "fuck off or die" or deal with "cancer sticks" etc. They are telling you to resolve the issue with YOUR money. DDT is a largely banned substance. Cigarettes (while regulated) are a legal adult product for adult consumption. With regard to your beach comment, where do the byproducts go. Assuming the smoker isn't directly upwind of you, how does that effect you? If someone sprays DDT (non water soluble) and it sticks around 2-years? How does that effect you. With regard to your two heartwrenching questions, I will provide more specific answers as soon as I get to work. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #96 June 28, 2006 And how would you extrapolate that from a ban on smoking in bars in CO? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 June 28, 2006 QuoteAnd how would you extrapolate that from a ban on smoking in bars in CO? No crazier than the DDT comparison...it's still .gov putting it's nose into a private company's business... except in this case, FAA *does* have the right to do ramp checks, as I understand it...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #98 June 28, 2006 Ahhh...the decay time for the by products. That's a difference, I suppose. But perspective of the health of the victim downwind, there really is no difference between a smoker lighting up on the beach upwind of someone exposing them to carcinogens and another person upwind of them spraying carcinogenic chemicals in equal concentration into the air. I repeat - CO is about to become a much nicer place to live.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #99 June 28, 2006 QuoteI repeat - CO is about to become a much nicer place to live. It was already a pretty cool place to be, but I agree it will be even better. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #100 June 28, 2006 If we can keep out all the short lil' fellers and them folks from canadia, i might agree with the last part. edited to add: I have never been a regular smoker, and probably haven't even touched a cigarette in over 3 years. I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to smoke in an adult (or open air) establishment. I simply feel that it is foolish to remove the choice from the people (business owners). Probably enough running around in circles though, ehhh? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
