Finally!

[General Zod]

THANK YOU. Im an ex-smoker myself to, and it is damn near impossible to convince people that most of the rhetoric surrounding second hand smoke is a myth.

I know... it's bizarre. There's not a shred of evidence to support their claims. However, because they've told their lies often enough and loud enough, it's now impossible to get people to believe the facts.

Zod

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I kinda concur

I didn't much mind people smoking in bars and if there is anytime I want to smoke it's when I'm out drinking beer. Which is not all that often (so I won't die from 2nd hand smoke,) but yeah.

Bartenders and beer wenches be damned. If they don't want lung cancer, sux2bethem, they should have gotten an education and a better job

My ex-girlfriend is well-educated (college degree), a certified wine sommelier, and a head bartender at a fancy restaurant. She earned well over $125,000 last year.

You were saying?

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Zod, it has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel the government should have a say in private businesses, but since you brought it up, it's a bill generated & now passed by ELECTED state officials. Elected meaning, you know, you & I voted for them (well I don't know that for a fact, but you understand what I mean). Hell, NJ has long been a fairly liberal state...

But really, the only reason I love it is because, as someone who frequents bars, I absolutely cannot fucking stand coming home and reeking like smoke. I hate it on my clothes, I hate it in my hair, I hate how it makes my bedroom & bed linens smell the morning after a night out, I hate what it does to my contacts, it fucking sucks.

You only care because you love cigars, and cigar bars are being grandfathered so they can keep doing what they've been doing.

 

[Erik]

My ex-girlfriend is well-educated (college degree), a certified wine sommelier, and a head bartender at a fancy restaurant. She earned well over $125,000 last year.

You were saying?

i was saying if she doesnt want lung cancer shed better get another job or put up/shut up

oh or live in a state that passes smoking bans

either or

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

She smokes, so I doubt she cares. She also lives/works in NJ, so...

 

[Nate The Great]

People that think they have the right to smoke around others that don't should have horse shit flung at them every time they aren't looking. Why shouldn't the MAJORITY (non-smokers) have the right to NOT HAVE SMOKE ALL OVER THEIR CLOTHES, IN THEIR EYES, and IN THEIR LUNGS? Some of you guys think that the minority (smokers) should have a right to smoke in public places?

Now . . . I don't have a problem with a law that allows bars to designate whether or not they allow smoking, but I think NON-SMOKING bars should be the norm. If you want your bar to allow smoking, you should have to pay some big fee or something. That way the non-smokers get the preferential treatment, and bars are more likely to cater to the majorit than the minority.

In Manhattan, KS (where Kansas State University is - where I went to college) there is a bar that opened up a second building (right beside the original) that they designated as non-smoking. It was completely packed night after night. You'd think bars would figure out that being non-smoking might actually increase their business. Bars should have taken these steps long ago. Now they're being forced to.

By the way, I actually smoked quite often in high school and college.

 

[General Zod]

Zod, it has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel the government should have a say in private businesses...

You can say that if you like, but in essence, you're giving your approval to the government doing just that.

...but since you brought it up, it's a bill generated & now passed by ELECTED state officials. Elected meaning, you know, you & I voted for them (well I don't know that for a fact, but you understand what I mean).

It's a bill being signed by an interum governor, on his last day at the post. That doesn't raise any flags?

Hell, NJ has long been a fairly liberal state...

When did "liberal" come to mean intollerant?

But really, the only reason I love it is because, as someone who frequents bars, I absolutely cannot fucking stand coming home and reeking like smoke. I hate it on my clothes, I hate it in my hair, I hate how it makes my bedroom & bed linens smell the morning after a night out, I hate what it does to my contacts, it fucking sucks.

That's fair. But because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be illegal (assuming we're actually having a serious discussion). If you don't like to smell like smoke, don't go to bars that allow it.

You only care because you love cigars...

That's not true at all. I only offered up Pete's as a reference, to make a point of how it's hurting local businesses. I am against any and all government presence in my life. I don't think the government should be able to tell people to wear seatbelts, even though I wear one. I don't think the government should be able to tell people to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, even though I don't ride.

...and cigar bars are being grandfathered so they can keep doing what they've been doing.

Not true. My niece now works at Pete's, and they're part of an association that's fighting it They know they will go under if the legislation is allowed to stand.

Zod

 

[lizard]

I smoked for about five years but basically quit when I became a father.

 

[General Zod]

People that think they have the right to smoke around others that don't should have horse shit flung at them every time they aren't looking.

If I don't want to risk having horse shit flung at me, I won't go to horse shit flinging event. If I don't want to smell like smoke, I don't spend my evenings standing in a smoking establishment.

Why shouldn't the MAJORITY (non-smokers) have the right...

So, as soon as the majority feels one way, what the minority wants should be outlawed? Well, you can kiss Metal, Porn, alchohol, etc. good buy in the comming years with that line of thinking. 65% of the US considers itself Christian. I guess it should be the state religion?

but I think NON-SMOKING bars should be the norm.

If that sort of establishment generated the most revenue, it would be the norm.

If you want your bar to allow smoking, you should have to pay some big fee or something. That way the non-smokers get the preferential treatment, and bars are more likely to cater to the majorit than the minority.

That makes less than no sense.

Zod

 

[Ellestin]

Around here most public places have smoker / non-smoker areas. I think it's a good compromise.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

You can say that if you like, but in essence, you're giving your approval to the government doing just that.

It's a bill being signed by an interum governor, on his last day at the post. That doesn't raise any flags?

When did "liberal" come to mean intollerant?

That's fair. But because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be illegal (assuming we're actually having a serious discussion). If you don't like to smell like smoke, don't go to bars that allow it.

That's not true at all. I only offered up Pete's as a reference, to make a point of how it's hurting local businesses. I am against any and all government presence in my life. I don't think the government should be able to tell people to wear seatbelts, even though I wear one. I don't think the government should be able to tell people to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, even though I don't ride.

Not true. My niece now works at Pete's, and they're part of an association that's fighting it They know they will go under if the legislation is allowed to stand.

Zod

Pete's sounds like an extreme example. It's been documented 1,000x over that NYC businesses did not suffer after an initial adjustment period; in fact, NYC bar & restaurant revenue is identical to what it was 2 years ago before the ban.

The problem with saying "if you don't like smoke, don't go to bars that allow it," is that in a state where there is no ban, ALL BARS ALLOW SMOKING. It's just as easy for someone to take 5 minutes and step outside. Again, I feel 1,000,000% justified in saying this, because I am a regular smoker, and I could not care less about stepping outside. Hell, I smoke less and smell better.

 

[Nate The Great]

If that sort of establishment generated the most revenue, it would be the norm.

Not true. Smoking has been the norm in most public places for YEARS. Everybody knows it takes drastic measures to make a business change something that has been working just fine. Non-smoking bars would generate just as much revenue, if not more. Until some marketing genius can convince a smoking bar that non-smoking will do better for them, they have no incentive to change. Now that a law has been passed, they have that incentive.

It's just disrespectful when smokers feel that they can spew their filth all over the rest of us when we don't have a choice. I'm not talking about bars. There are plenty of other public places that non-smokers HAVE to go to that smokers feel they need to smoke in. Maybe that's just in the midwest.

Face it. Smoking is dying fast. In the 50's and 60's school bus drivers could smoke. Hell! There was a scool bus driver that smoked on the school bus when I was in grade school. That was in the late 80's and early 90's. Of course it was in Kansas.

Smoking will be pretty much eliminated from public view every where in the US within 20 years. Probably less.

I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't want to put up with smoke blowing in my face when I don't have a choice.

Don't tell me I'm just a conservative redneck or something. Because I think evolution should be taught in public schools.

 

[General Zod]

The problem with saying "if you don't like smoke, don't go to bars that allow it," is that in a state where there is no ban, ALL BARS ALLOW SMOKING.

It's somewhat ironic that you have an issue with "ALL BARS ALLOWING SMOKING" and no problem with NO BAR ALLOWING SMOKING.

Again, I feel 1,000,000% justified in saying this, because I am a regular smoker, and I could not care less about stepping outside. Hell, I smoke less and smell better.

Your own feelings of justification aside, explain to me the need for this ban. Not a single study has ever been done that concluded second-hand smoke poses a danger. Is that ban being legislated because people's clothes smell like smoke? No. It's being legislated based on junk science and lies. We open a pandora's box when begin to allow our government to legislate how we should live based on lies that lobby groups tell.

Zod

 

[General Zod]

Face it. Smoking is dying fast.

For starters, I don't think anyone should smoke (which is why I quit). Along a similar line, I don't think anyone should eat at McDonalds either, but I don't think there should be laws against doing either.

Keep in mind, that a huge part of why it's dying is directly attributable to two factors:

1. The anti-smoking lobby spreading the lie that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
2. The government posing a SIN tax on smoking, and trying to tax it out of existance.

The anti-smoking lobby being able to propegate their lies, unchecked, and have legislation based on them, is flat out dangerous.

The government levying an additional tax on anything, because they consider it to be "sinfull", is the most ludicrous, dangerous idea I've ever heard.

Zod

 

[lurch70]

i mean ... didn't you guys just want to blow smoke into that chicks face that annoyed us on Saturday night ... the tubby one bitching about the jukebox?

i still say ... that if it's a dive bar selling alcohol only ...no live events, no food, no dancing ... just a old school bar ... there should be smoking allowed.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

First point: to me, it's simple. A smoker can go outside and still have a cigarette, then continue on with their night in the bar or whatever. A non-smoker CANNOT escape smoking in that same bar, i.e. they can't go outside and have their beer, etc.

Second point: I don't know anything about documented studies, though I'm fairly certain the necessary info could be found if I had the time or energy to do so. BUT, what more proof needs to be provided other than people who have developed lung cancer, emphysemia (sp?) or other smoking-related illnesses and yet they themselves do not smoke? It's not really a leap in logic to draw the necessary conclusion, is it?

I sense your issue is with the government stepping in at all, and not so much with it specifically being about smoking. I'm fairly apolitical, so I can't really debate you on the pros/cons, I just know that it doesn't bother me, and I welcome the smoking ban.

 

[lizard]

man, smokers will pay anything when they're jonesing. Fucking carton is over 20 bucks!

First off, the Feds oughta stop being so hypocritical and stop subsidizing tobacco farmers.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

$20 liz?

Try $50+

 

[lizard]

well, that's for your hallowed city

 

[lurch70]

like some comedian said once ... I think it was Leary ...

"the way I see it ... second hand smokers owe me a half a pack"