ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill., June 28 /PRNewswire/ – The U.S. government's top doctor says the debate is over, second hand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard that leads to disease and premature death in children and non-smoking adults. "Second hand smoke kills people," stated Surgeon General Richard Carmona, citing a report issued this week.
smoking ban
Well, then, maybe you think it is fascist that can't pee in the concert hall either? You to have to go to the men's room.
Obviously, my previous post was meant for Screaming Eagle, not for anarchist
Originally posted by the sonick:Oh but youre so wrong, he does have them. I'll come down from NY and hang out with you, Relaxer, the night this is going to happen :)
Originally posted by Relaxer:you wouldnt have the balls.
Cool dude, Let's stand next to each other at the next sold out show and I'll spit my tobacco juice all over your shoes, shirt and stogie. Same thing, right? Right.
and btw, new yorkers are doing just fine without smoking. They all smoke outside, everywhere on the street, just not in the damn club. And yes, plenty of musicians get on stage and smoke to their hearts content. I don't think I've ever seen anyone flip out about it. And some of them even ask for cigs from the audience :)
Originally posted by xneverwherex:sorry to disappoint, but it wont happen, first of all, i dont smoke at sold out shows, unless i am in the hallway or something.
Originally posted by the sonick:Oh but youre so wrong, he does have them. I'll come down from NY and hang out with you, Relaxer, the night this is going to happen :)
Originally posted by Relaxer:you wouldnt have the balls.
Cool dude, Let's stand next to each other at the next sold out show and I'll spit my tobacco juice all over your shoes, shirt and stogie. Same thing, right? Right.
and also i dont really go to DC much and i bet Relaxer never comes to Baltimore. :)
and as i have said previously, i am not against the no smoking part of the bans, I am in non smoking cities often and i do as everyone else does, just goes outside. no biggie for me either, but it seems like they could have some smoking bars and some non smoking bars, i dont see why it ALL has to be one way or the other, thats all.
Originally posted by the sonick:damn now i have no reason to go to DC :D ok, well thats not true i might be doing some evicting. maybe relaxer can help me with that. sadly, i dont care about the ban one way or another. i lived in Cali with the smoking ban, now in NYC, and was in DC. and hang out with lots of smokers. at the rate im going ill be deaf before i have lung cancer.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:sorry to disappoint, but it wont happen, first of all, i dont smoke at sold out shows, unless i am in the hallway or something.
Originally posted by the sonick:Oh but youre so wrong, he does have them. I'll come down from NY and hang out with you, Relaxer, the night this is going to happen :)
Originally posted by Relaxer:you wouldnt have the balls.
Cool dude, Let's stand next to each other at the next sold out show and I'll spit my tobacco juice all over your shoes, shirt and stogie. Same thing, right? Right.
and also i dont really go to DC much and i bet Relaxer never comes to Baltimore. :)
and as i have said previously, i am not against the no smoking part of the bans, I am in non smoking cities often and i do as everyone else does, just goes outside. no biggie for me either, but it seems like they could have some smoking bars and some non smoking bars, i dont see why it ALL has to be one way or the other, thats all.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:And I will come out and hang with Sonick when this all happens, kind of even the odds a little.
Oh but youre so wrong, he does have them. I'll come down from NY and hang out with you, Relaxer, the night this is going to happen :)
[/QB]
But of course, as stated after your post, this will not happen. Too bad. :(
Originally posted by the sonick:As someone who sometimes becomes violently ill from being around too much cigarette smoke, I deeply thank you for your consideration.
sorry to disappoint, but it wont happen, first of all, i dont smoke at sold out shows, unless i am in the hallway or something.
The last time that I was at the 9:30 Club, I felt like I was being smoked at the stake since about 4 strangers were standing all around me chain smoking all night. The next morning, I puked my guts up for hours on end because of the 2nd hand smoke. It wasn't the alcohol because I only had 1 beer and that was before the show. This is not the first time that I've been in a room full of smokers and ended up with a horrid cigarette hangover the next morning.
Obviously, I wish that all bars and clubs, especially music venues, were non-smoking. In fact, there were many, many times when I did not go to some show or some club because I just couldn't expose myself to that nasty, unsafe air. I've known many other people to do the same. Rather interesting that our money never seems to be considered in this debate. At least by the pro-smokers' camp who are usually the first to bring up the money side.
Delaware is also a non-smoking state.
Originally posted by Jaguar:and the most anti-consumer pro-corporate state in the nation … i'll take smoking over that bullshit anyday
Delaware is also a non-smoking state.
and i like what sonick said, why does every last bar have to be non-smoking, why can't they ban smoking outright in restaurants, and come up with some kind of ratio of smoking bars to non-smoking bars, sell a certain amount of licenses to the smoking bars, and let the smokers and non-smokers figure it out? i think equating this kind of gov't regulation to the civil rights movement and 14th Amendment issues is pretty disingenous.
i'm sure most of the people hanging out in dan's cafe on a normal weekend night could give a fuck about second-hand smoke, so why not let a bar like that keep their smoking policy
just looking at this from an economic perspective, why haven't all bars and clubs gone non-smoking on their own if there is such a huge public outcry for a complete and outright ban on smoking in all bars? this question keeps being brought up and summarily shot down in these kind of debates, but i've never heard it really addressed
everyone's opinion on this topic seems to be completely self-serving and not looking at compromises or the broader picture, a truly great way to conduct public policy
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:Give me bullshit or give me death because that's what the cigarette pollution causes!
Originally posted by Jaguar:and the most anti-consumer pro-corporate state in the nation … i'll take smoking over that bullshit anyday
Delaware is also a non-smoking state.
Having certain bars or separate areas in some bars, etc., that are closed off and away from the main event is one thing. But to force a non-smoker to be subjected to someone else's filthy habit is down right unfair! Regarding concerts, everyone is (supposedly) there for the show. NOT the smoking. If one MUST have a cigarette, then it should be on the smoker to have leave the area to tend to their habit. The non-smoker should not have to be the one to miss out on any of the show because of others' inconsiderate choices.
The EPA can require pollution controls on businesses, cars and other polluters of air. Why not on human smoke stacks? After all, this does not just affect others' enjoyment but also their health!
Hoya, I'll remember the next time that cigarette smoke makes me vomit, to hold it long enough to find you and your shoes. Let's see how you feel.
I guess you can name the Black Cat and/or the 930 Club as defendants in a lawsuit if you develop lung cancer as a result of years of going to these clubs that permit smoking :)
I can't believe I'm wading into this mess…
The point alot of people seem to be missing is that the main (legal) reason for banning smoking is NOT to protect the health of the people that choose to go there, but to protect the health of the workers. It's mainly an enforcement of OSHA regulations.
In California, if you don't employ anyone, then you can allow smoking in your establishment. I was in SF last winter hung out at a small neighbourhood bar that was only staffed by people that had bought into the bar. Technically, they were all part owners so patrons could smoke there.
I'm not sure if that loophole exists here.
I know that people are going to argue that workers choose to work in places like the 930, etc. That argument is flawed on so many levels, but I'll let someone else take up that torch.
And as already stated, the ban will go into effect in a few months regardless of any complaining. Smokers - puff away while you can. Nonsmokers - hang in there for six more months.
The point alot of people seem to be missing is that the main (legal) reason for banning smoking is NOT to protect the health of the people that choose to go there, but to protect the health of the workers. It's mainly an enforcement of OSHA regulations.
In California, if you don't employ anyone, then you can allow smoking in your establishment. I was in SF last winter hung out at a small neighbourhood bar that was only staffed by people that had bought into the bar. Technically, they were all part owners so patrons could smoke there.
I'm not sure if that loophole exists here.
I know that people are going to argue that workers choose to work in places like the 930, etc. That argument is flawed on so many levels, but I'll let someone else take up that torch.
And as already stated, the ban will go into effect in a few months regardless of any complaining. Smokers - puff away while you can. Nonsmokers - hang in there for six more months.
at five guys, they sell peanuts and have warning signs to people who are allergic. should the government make a peanut ban so that people with peanut allergies can be served at five guys? i would hope that most people find this rediculous, because most five guys patrons are not allergic to peanuts. If most of their clientelle were allergic, five guys wouldnt serve peanuts. Why can't smoking be like this? If most people don't like smoking, then ban smoking at a particular place. I don't have a problem with clubs banning smoking, i have a problem with the government banning smoking. if a club is worried about its workers and possible lawsuits that could bite them in the ass, then they can ban smoking. i still fail to see where the government should get involved.
Man, Five Guys makes some good burgers! I wish they served milk shakes
Personally, I don't care either way; I'd love to not smell like smoke, but it certainly wouldn't stop me from going to a bar or seeing a show.
But comparing a peanut allergy to smoking is absurd. If I CHOOSE to eat something with peanuts in it, knowing I'm allergic, it's my choice. When non-smokers are breathing in smoke, it's not my choice; it's the choice of the smoker.
You're putting the choice out of the hands of people that may be affected, and I think that's what it all boils down to. If I were in the home of a smoker, that's one thing, but a public place it a completely different beast altogether.
But comparing a peanut allergy to smoking is absurd. If I CHOOSE to eat something with peanuts in it, knowing I'm allergic, it's my choice. When non-smokers are breathing in smoke, it's not my choice; it's the choice of the smoker.
You're putting the choice out of the hands of people that may be affected, and I think that's what it all boils down to. If I were in the home of a smoker, that's one thing, but a public place it a completely different beast altogether.
Originally posted by ScreaminEagle:
at five guys, they sell peanuts and have warning signs to people who are allergic. should the government make a peanut ban so that people with peanut allergies can be served at five guys? i would hope that most people find this rediculous, because most five guys patrons are not allergic to peanuts. If most of their clientelle were allergic, five guys wouldnt serve peanuts. Why can't smoking be like this? If most people don't like smoking, then ban smoking at a particular place. I don't have a problem with clubs banning smoking, i have a problem with the government banning smoking. if a club is worried about its workers and possible lawsuits that could bite them in the ass, then they can ban smoking. i still fail to see where the government should get involved.
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:two excellent points and since this smoking ban thing IS a civil rights violation, these issues will never be addressed.
i'm sure most of the people hanging out in dan's cafe on a normal weekend night could give a fuck about second-hand smoke, so why not let a bar like that keep their smoking policy
just looking at this from an economic perspective, why haven't all bars and clubs gone non-smoking on their own if there is such a huge public outcry for a complete and outright ban on smoking in all bars?
heres another one, if smoking is so fucking bad for everyone, WHY NOT MAKE THEM ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!
if i cant buy em at a store, trust me, i wont smoke em. and then, i wont smoke em at concerts, and if people do, it will be like pot smoke and you'll maybe get a waft every now and again.
Originally posted by ScreaminEagle:like steroids in baseball.
at five guys, they sell peanuts and have warning signs to people who are allergic. should the government make a peanut ban so that people with peanut allergies can be served at five guys? i would hope that most people find this rediculous, because most five guys patrons are not allergic to peanuts. If most of their clientelle were allergic, five guys wouldnt serve peanuts. Why can't smoking be like this? If most people don't like smoking, then ban smoking at a particular place. I don't have a problem with clubs banning smoking, i have a problem with the government banning smoking. if a club is worried about its workers and possible lawsuits that could bite them in the ass, then they can ban smoking. i still fail to see where the government should get involved.
welcome to the new republican age of big government!!!!
Originally posted by xcanuck:ding ding
I can't believe I'm wading into this mess…
The point alot of people seem to be missing is that the main (legal) reason for banning smoking is NOT to protect the health of the people that choose to go there, but to protect the health of the workers. It's mainly an enforcement of OSHA regulations.
In California, if you don't employ anyone, then you can allow smoking in your establishment. I was in SF last winter hung out at a small neighbourhood bar that was only staffed by people that had bought into the bar. Technically, they were all part owners so patrons could smoke there.
I'm not sure if that loophole exists here.
I know that people are going to argue that workers choose to work in places like the 930, etc. That argument is flawed on so many levels, but I'll let someone else take up that torch.
And as already stated, the ban will go into effect in a few months regardless of any complaining. Smokers - puff away while you can. Nonsmokers - hang in there for six more months.
its in the constitution that you can drive and talk on the phone at once. or the bill of rights at least