Colorado - about to be a much nicer place to live

[TheAnvil 0]

Clicky

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Clicky

Lemme see. I'll have to sit back and light a BIG FAT CIGAR and ponder this oneP.S. Where is Monica when you need her?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[JohnnyD 0]

Hell yes! I've been counting the days.
Now if they would just teach people how to drive............

[JohnRich 4]

So, forbidding business owners from allowing their voluntary patrons to smoke is "better". That sounds like an usurpation of private property rights to me.

Let's see, the logic goes: smoking is bad for you, therefore we are going to make it illegal to do it in public.

To continue with where this might lead: drinking alcohol is bad for you, ah, well, you draw your own conclusion with slippery slope reasoning...

I think freedom dictates that we should let the market decide on this issue. If some enterprising bar owner wants to open a non-smoking bar, he'll be rewarded with lots of business. Government shouldn't be deciding it for everyone.

[davedlg 0]

Personally...I can't wait. I cannot stand going out to bars and stinking like an ashtray when I get home. It will be great to spend a night out not have to take a shower so that I don't have to smell that nasty odor all night.

Comparing smoking and drinking and the negative health effects of each is apples and oranges. The negative health effects of secondhand smoke was doccumented long ago. It is espically hurtful to those who work in the bars and have to deal with it 40 hours a week. The fact is that drinking is only directly harmful to the person who is doing it (excepting the obvious problems of drunk driving and the like). If someone wants to sit down and drink 17 shots of tequilla next to me, be my guest. But if they want to smoke a cigarette next to me, I'm not happy.

Edited to add: The one thing that I really wonder about is there is a provision in the bill that allows for smoking to continue in casinos...hmmm there must have been some great lobying to get that written into there.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

The one thing that I really wonder about is there is a provision in the bill that allows for smoking to continue in casinos...hmmm there must have been some great lobying to get that written into there.

Serious case of "follow the money", I would think.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[n23x 0]

It's a pretty bitch move.

Lead with your money. Don't feel like "smelling like an ashtray"? Then go to a bar that has minimal to no smoking. (Trust me, this is not a hard thing to find in Denver.)

Cigarettes are still a legal drug available in the US. It is rediculous that bar owners cannot have the choice to either permit or deny smoking in their own establishment.

As for all you folks that will come to me with emotional pleas, I don't need to hear them. I am aware that smoking has noticable long and short term health benefits. I am aware that you feel you should be able to go ANYWHERE without being around cigarette smoke. I am also aware that you don't HAVE to go into THAT SPECIFIC BAR.

Once again, I'm not a smoker, but I absolutely support their right to smoke in a BAR (read: a place where adults go to consume adult products).

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 3,084]

> So, forbidding business owners from allowing their voluntary patrons to smoke is "better".

I disagree with the idea behind prohibiting smoking in any establishment that does NOT have employees. If a barowner opens a bar and runs it himself, or with a co-owner, then they should be able to have any rules they choose on smoking.

However, if they have employees, they have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment. We prohibit garment manufacturers from nailing fire doors shut even if all the workers are free to quit if they don't like it - because that's a risk you should not take with other people. We require fire supression systems and ventilators in kitchens - even if the workers there are free to leave. We require protective equipment for radiological workers - even if the workers in the facility are free to quit if they get asked to expose themselves to high levels of radiation. This isn't much different. It's an employee safety, not a civil rights issue.

But again, if someone wants to open a bar that they run by themselves (or with their business partners) then they should be able to do so.

[n23x 0]

I would tend to both agree (a little) and disagree with that statement. Up to a point, I believe it is the emloyer's responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employee's.

Beyond that, it is a matter of risk assessment (on the employee's part) to be involved with a certain job. They don't HAVE to work in that environment, but they may say, "I don't mind the smoke and I like the job, to me the benefits outway the costs".

Perhaps something along the lines of a skydiving arguement: DZO's should provide safety lines to all instructors, so that if there's an accident, we can "reel 'em back in"! It's a dangerous job, why should those skydiving instructors have that risk applied to their job? What is the difference?

I think a similar comparison might be miners (coal in particular). Their exposure to a variety of nasty's (even diffused through OSHA approved devices) is a hazzard that they accept while doing their job.

(BTW, I am not sure if there is a link between coal and hard labor/reduced income/people not having other job options, so I picked skydiving instructors as a comparison, because I think we can agree skydivers aren't getting rich off of instructing. )

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Rookie120 0]

I know of a few cigar bars in Denver that I will have to visit now. I dont smoke cigarettes but I do love the occasional cigar.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Colorado - about to be a much nicer place to live

Colorado is about to become a place where there is more government intrusion directly in the form of REMOVING PERSONAL CHOICE from ALL people.

I'm surprised you're in favor of it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[TheAnvil 0]

Actually, the logic goes something like this: second hand smoke is harmful to the health of those who inhale it involuntarily, so we'll make watering holes safer for all patrons by eliminating it.

If smoking were bad for the smoker alone, and bothered nobody else, then such bans wouldn't be going into effect. That's not the case. It is bad for those who do NOT smoke as well and very offensive to many of us - especially within the confines of a restaurant or bar. If you support the right of a smoker to pollute my lungs by engaging in a habit they enjoy in a public environment, then would you support the right of a someone to spray DDT into the air in a public environment as well? Both are carcinogenic. Who knows - sprayiing DDT into the air might be an enjoyable habit to some people - just like puffing on a cancer-stick is to others.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I'm heavily in favor of it.

Some people are wackos who enjoy murdering, stealing, and the like. Laws prevent them from doing things - legally, at any rate.

If somebody wants to inhale second hand smoke in the confines of their own home - be my guest. If they want to produce them in public where others who actually care about their health would be exposed involuntarily, then I have a problem with it. I was reading on the beach today for a short while and some fucktard decided to light up a cancer stick upwind of me. What right does that asshole have to expose me to carcinogens? He's not just harming himself - he's harming me; and pissing me off. 'If you don't like it, go somewhere else, Vinny.' is bullshit. If I stand on the beach spraying DDT into the air, should other beachgoers leave if they don't like it? The answer is no, neither I nor anyone else should put others at risk by releasing carcinogens into the air unnecessarily. Those who would do things that hazard the health of others should do them privately where they don't harm anyone other than themselves.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Rookie120 0]

Is there any places that wont be affected by the ban besides the damn casinos?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Is there any places that wont be affected by the ban besides the damn casinos?

This is just the beginning. Soon they will make it illegal to smoke in parks, public streets etc.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

This is just the beginning.

I dont doubt it. Why does the damn casino get a free pass on this? I thought they were worried about the health of the people. This is such bullshit. I only smoke cigars on occasion. I hope my cigar bar in Denver wont have to close because of this. They should get an exemption of this new law.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[n23x 0]

Do you HAVE to be in that bar? No, you don't.

Conversly, if I want to go to the pub and have a couple of beers, or even smoke a cigarette, (though I imagine this would be a rare occurance), I shouldn't have to listen to a couple of people get the sniffles about it. (As food for reference, I am imagining the Zoolander little bitch cough)

I said it before and I'll say it again: Bars are locations for adults to go and consume adult products. That doesn't mean that ALL bars have to have ALL products, it simply means that the gub'ment shouldn't be eliminating the option.

Promote change with your money. If enough people don't like it, that bar will either:

a.) close down because of reduced business.

b.) see the "error of their ways" and option to remove smoking from their establishment.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[jakee 1,565]

Quote

I dont doubt it. Why does the damn casino get a free pass on this?

Good question. My guess would be massive, massive bribes - oops, I meant campaign donations

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I dont doubt it. Why does the damn casino get a free pass on this?

Good question. My guess would be massive, massive bribes - oops, I meant campaign donations

My guess would be they are run by Native Americans who are exempted to many of the laws of this country.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Good question. My guess would be massive, massive bribes - oops, I meant campaign donations

My thoughts were going in that direction also. So the man who owns a small rest-pub trying to make a living gets fucked here. Nice!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[TheAnvil 0]

Do smokers HAVE to smoke in bars? No, they don't.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Do smokers HAVE to smoke in bars? No, they don't.

DO you have to go to a bar that has smoking? No you dont.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[TheAnvil 0]

Correct. Nor do smokers have to smoke in bars...and pretty soon in CO, they won't be.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Correct. Nor do smokers have to smoke in bars...and pretty soon in CO, they won't be.

I just did some searching on the law and my cigar bars are exempt so I'm happy about that.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[TheAnvil 0]

Cool. Figured they would be exempted. I support that.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!