Originally posted by le sonick:actually, sonick, i see it the other way: your team is on the losing end of a fair, logical call - and you're crying injustice for any reason you can attach to it :p
this whole thing equates to: your favourite team having a horrible call go its way, to win a big game.
sure, technically the whole thing was gone about in an unfair, sour, and in a basically cheating manner, but since your team won….
Positive effects of the DC smoking ban
Originally posted by sweetcell:I would have gladly voted for that one at last night's Scissor Sisters show.
- people who spill beer on you
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by le sonick:actually, sonick, i see it the other way: your team is on the losing end of a fair, logical call - and you're crying injustice for any reason you can attach to it :) :)
this whole thing equates to: your favourite team having a horrible call go its way, to win a big game.
sure, technically the whole thing was gone about in an unfair, sour, and in a basically cheating manner, but since your team won….
I hope they ban standing at all concerts. I have the right to enjoy the show just as much as the taller people in front of me. Every concert in DC should be seated only.
Originally posted by floyd:but i have bad circulation and i cant sit for that long!!!!
I hope they ban standing at all concerts. I have the right to enjoy the show just as much as the taller people in front of me. Every concert in DC should be seated only.
vote? what, you think you're in a democracy?!? when you set up the analogy (a bad call going your way), there's no talk of voting. when i flip the analogy around to something closer to the truth, in my opnion, all of a sudden it has to go to a vote?!? :)
yup, i'm a part-time smoker. i had 2 cigs on saturday night, first ones in a week, haven't had any since. while i enjoy an occasional cigarette, i'm not waxing over what i'm doing - it's smelly habit that kills. doing it indoors means that i'm hurting others who never asked for my smoke. i'm completely opposed to the notion that one has a "right" to smoke in public places or places open to the public. i realize others disagree. that said, i doubt that i'll completely give it up anytime soon.
yup, i'm a part-time smoker. i had 2 cigs on saturday night, first ones in a week, haven't had any since. while i enjoy an occasional cigarette, i'm not waxing over what i'm doing - it's smelly habit that kills. doing it indoors means that i'm hurting others who never asked for my smoke. i'm completely opposed to the notion that one has a "right" to smoke in public places or places open to the public. i realize others disagree. that said, i doubt that i'll completely give it up anytime soon.
Originally posted by le sonick:nope, you never complained, and indeed those conversations are a lot of fun. look at it this way - the ban makes us smokers pariahs - instant community!
did i complain at the forum party when we stepped outside for cigarettes on occasion. personally i kinda like using the cigarette break as an excuse to step away from the party/show whatever.
besides, smoking conversation is always better, something the non-smokers just dont get :) :)
Word.
Originally posted by floyd:
I hope they ban standing at all concerts. I have the right to enjoy the show just as much as the taller people in front of me. Every concert in DC should be seated only.
Originally posted by sweetcell:exactly, because had their been a vote, it wouldn't have been a "bad call".
vote? what, you think you're in a democracy?!? when you set up the analogy (a bad call going your way), there's no talk of voting. when i flip the analogy around to something closer to the truth, in my opnion, all of a sudden it has to go to a vote?!? :)
call it down the middle and say "a questionable call"
and as much as i'd like to discuss this AGAIN…i'm going for a smoke break!
Originally posted by sweetcell:maybe. . but smoking isn't illegal.
doing it indoors means that i'm hurting others who never asked for my smoke. i'm completely opposed to the notion that one has a "right" to smoke in public places or places open to the public. i realize others disagree. that said, i doubt that i'll completely give it up anytime soon.
frankly, what i am more upset with is the crusade that anti-smoking activists are on these days. a vocal minority is imposing it's view and will upon a disinterested majority. each and every day, bit by bit, the ability of all of us to make our own choices is being taken away, be it from one side of the aisle or the other, in the name of national security or in the name of the children.
Sounds like the same crusade the anti-War protestors were on when they started.
I think the vast majority of Americans are disinterested in the smoking in bars issue because the vast majority of Americans don't frequent bars.
Of those who do frequent bars, I would hazzard a guess that they ARE in favor of having smoking banned, but not to the point where they'd actually have to do be politically active to get it accomplished.
I think the vast majority of Americans are disinterested in the smoking in bars issue because the vast majority of Americans don't frequent bars.
Of those who do frequent bars, I would hazzard a guess that they ARE in favor of having smoking banned, but not to the point where they'd actually have to do be politically active to get it accomplished.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
.
frankly, what i am more upset with is the crusade that anti-smoking activists are on these days. a vocal minority is imposing it's view and will upon a disinterested majority.
Originally posted by Jack Black, Caucasian American:i don't think they are trying to limit the ability of an individual to make their own decisions. i mean what has war solved, other than ending nazism, fascism and slavery.
Sounds like the same crusade the anti-War protestors were on when they started.
Of those who do frequent bars, I would hazzard a guess that they ARE in favor of having smoking banned, but not to the point where they'd actually have to do be politically active to get it accomplished.maybe, but there is something much more powerful than politics involved, and that's their pocketbooks. as a consumer, you have the ability to choose where to go, if you want a smoke-free bar, ask the owner, talk to other patrons, and if a smoke-free bar opens up, go there.
But the smoking ban is for the benefit of employees, not the general public. If we really wanted to benefit the general public, we'd make smoking illegal.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:how does one explain the fact that a majority of washingtonians support the ban? if banning smoking was unpopular with the majority, it wouldn't happen.
a vocal minority is imposing it's view and will upon a disinterested majority. each and every day, bit by bit, the ability of all of us to make our own choices is being taken away, be it from one side of the aisle or the other, in the name of national security or in the name of the children.
to me, sounds like a vocal minority won't accept defeat and is trying to turn this into "the sky is falling!". today, they take your cancer-causing cigarettes… tomorrow, your rights to vote and marry who you chose!!! imposed gay marriage is around the corner! STOP THE FASCISTS! THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!! BRAAAK!!! :)
Originally posted by sweetcell:whoops, i was about to use a hitler defense.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:how does one explain the fact that a majority of washingtonians support the ban? if banning smoking was unpopular with the majority, it wouldn't happen.
a vocal minority is imposing it's view and will upon a disinterested majority. each and every day, bit by bit, the ability of all of us to make our own choices is being taken away, be it from one side of the aisle or the other, in the name of national security or in the name of the children.
if there was so many people in support of having smoke-free establishments, why weren't there more of them? that's my point. all that statement proves is that the majority is still disinterested, and simply allows itself to be lulled and follow the piper, wherever he may lead.
Originally posted by sweetcell:you are starting to annoy me….sweetie, claiming victory like you actually passed the smoking ban yourself! did you sign any petitions? go to any rallies? and if you did, were you having one of your occasional cigarettes?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:how does one explain the fact that a majority of washingtonians support the ban? if banning smoking was unpopular with the majority, it wouldn't happen.
a vocal minority is imposing it's view and will upon a disinterested majority. each and every day, bit by bit, the ability of all of us to make our own choices is being taken away, be it from one side of the aisle or the other, in the name of national security or in the name of the children.
to me, sounds like a vocal minority won't accept defeat and is trying to turn this into "the sky is falling!". today, they take your cancer-causing cigarettes… tomorrow, your rights to vote and marry who you chose!!! imposed gay marriage is around the corner! STOP THE FASCISTS! THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!! BRAAAK!!! :)
so, some people are killing themselves because they have an addiction, whats your stupid excuse?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:I double-dog-dare you to prove this point.
all that statement proves is that the majority is still disinterested, and simply allows itself to be lulled and follow the piper, wherever he may lead.
Be the piper, gather the signatures and get a ballot initiative in CA to repeal the smoking ban. There will be plenty of money from the toboacco companies to support your initiative, so that won't be an issue.
I also predict you lose nearly 2-1.
What you are calling "disinterested" is simply a misnomer. Just because they don't place the same value that you do in protecting a right from government intrusion, does not mean that they are disinterested when it comes to smoking in public places.
Originally posted by vansmack:it would be safe to say that the majority of americans are against smoking in their places of employment, right?
But the smoking ban is for the benefit of employees, not the general public. If we really wanted to benefit the general public, we'd make smoking illegal.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Hitler was anti-smoking. Even field marshals were verboten to smoke around der Schickelgruber.
whoops, i was about to use a hitler defense.
<img src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/images/hitler_adolf.jpg" alt=" - " />
Macht SMOKE FREI !
Originally posted by le sonick:Then you can get up and go outside. Don't try to ruin it for the rest of us.
Originally posted by floyd:but i have bad circulation and i cant sit for that long!!!!
I hope they ban standing at all concerts. I have the right to enjoy the show just as much as the taller people in front of me. Every concert in DC should be seated only.
Originally posted by vansmack:if they were interested in creating smoke-free public places, there would be no need for government action. do businesses need to be pushed and prodded to do something- sure.. . but i do have a problem with the ability to ban an individual to do something that is not illegal at the behest of small band of vocal partisans (that goes both ways, i freely admit). admittedly, i'm assuming an informed and educated population, and that is something that is sorely lacking in this country today; hence a very large disinterested electorate.
Be the piper, gather the signatures and get a ballot initiative in CA to repeal the smoking ban. There will be plenty of money from the toboacco companies to support your initiative, so that won't be an issue.
I also predict you lose nearly 2-1.
What you are calling "disinterested" is simply a misnomer. Just because they don't place the same value that you do in protecting a right from government intrusion, does not mean that they are disinterested when it comes to smoking in public places.
i'm sure i could get it on the ballot. . .and it would probably lose- california voters like nothing more than to vote yes on policy goals and pronouncements and vote no on funding those goals.