View Single Post
Old 03-09-2009, 06:45 AM   #13
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Good one, Tommycat.
I dunno. I'm not a smoker. While some cigars are nice smelling and tasty... I just don't know. On the one hand I want health in the forefront of concern.

On the other, I'd say establishments ought to make rules individually so that way individual liberties endure for places like bars and apparently vaunted clubs. We'll just hafta see where the thread goes, won't we?

Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
Because smoke obeys the rules of the sign and absolutely never drifts over into the nonsmoking sections.
By certain considerations for laws of physics re: smoke, it can possibly be worked around. Not every case though. Staff? That's a good question. Though I doubt in most cases that restaurants make it a critical thing about whether or not employees are smokers. So I'd have smoker waiters go there I guess...I know, still that doesn't quite do it... 'Course if IN the restaurant included both inside and outside, and I owned my own restaurant, smoking would be relegated to the outside in that specific case. So it would not be much of a problem there.

I dunno. Then again I was just volunteering an answer and the question wasn't directed at me anyway. Just giving you a few answers, maybe not what all you were looking for, though.

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I think it's pretty simple. The owner of the establishment should decide whether they allow smoking or not. I know a lot of bar owners here in Phoenix. Most of them smoke. A good 90% of their staff smoke. I miss being able to smoke in restaurants. it was a great way to ensure my meal would get there faster..
Then you should visit CA sometime where they are more temperamental about it. Or vindictive. I can go into details if you'd like.
seems my meal would always get there as soon as I would light a cig. But I was ok with that.
Did you ever check your food for tampering, I wonder?

I have no problems personally other than I'd just rather not have to be all up in it--especially if I am theoretically wearing a leather jacket. (Sadly I had to sell that in order to feed myself one time). I don't smoke.

still it was nice to have the option of smoking or non. Sometimes it was better that way. Some places there were less smokers, so there was always a table available.
On the liberties side of the issue I am against the ban. On the health side I am for. If effective provisions can be made then it ought to be the choice of the restaurant owners. However, that isn't always the case. Sadly.

No ban means I make due. Ban means I don't have to smack someone around for smoking around kids. Since I'm a "surrogate uncle", I have to be protective when I watch them. Their dad is a smoker, but careful not to do it around the kids.

However bars were always a haven for smokers. I mean I shoot pool a lot. There is just something wrong about a pool hall not having smoke.
Casinos, more like. However, that's in NV. Which is a ways away.
Heck even in California the place that banned smoking in bars first, I went to a pool hall there. The place was smokey as heck. I asked the bartender where everyone got their ashtrays. the bartender reached behind the counter and pulled out an ashtray and said with a wink, "You brought your own." So regardless of the law, there will be smoking.
Especially true that last part and there will always be rebellious types...I'd guess a ban would wind up ineffective like the prohibition.

I can attest to that in here CA. It's actually an erratic mix here and there. OF both extremes in with middle of the road'ers on the issue everywhere.

I'd say, nobody really gives a flying monkey **** anyway. They want pot to be legal here in if those same people also wanted a ban on public smoking, they would be double speaking. What is a word for that? ...Oh right, hypocrisy. Far as that, what you do is your business. Don't drag me into it.
I would prefer that the owner make the decision as to whether the establishment is smoking, or not. Perhaps with a tax break for those that go smoke free. Seems more fair to me.
Now THAT sounds like a deal I could go for. A conditional tax code instead of a ban would work. Just like taxing marijuana. I hate to admit it but laws against weed are not working. Taxes through the roof would. It's being done similarly for sodas and energy drinks. People will bitch about it but it won't stop them from buying a six and crackin' 'em open. I'd say much is the same for any kind of smokes.

I live by the old saying about smoking at my living space or work:
If you smoke, you'll die; If you smoke HERE, you'll die SOONER.

I guess I am a wild card.

Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
I actually like the ban. I especially like the ban in bars. It is nice to come home at 2:00 am and not have to take a shower before going to bed. Is my opinion selfish and self-centered? Yes, but no more than those that cannot go to a bar for three or four hours without lighting up and sharing their smoke with the rest of us.
Good point.

BTW: I am addicted to a Tobacco product. However, I can go to a ballgame, a bar or any other place for three or four hours without taking a dip of Skoal. Now if they decide to ban alcohol from bars, then I will get upset.
Well, just don't be spitting the Skoal on my furniture or in my house and you'll be fine. Uhh, well alcohol is okay in my book long as it is responsible. I don't drink anymore, though. Bars without smoking and alcohol? What's the point of THAT?!?!?!?

--Well, I suppose you could hold raves. Got any lasers I can fix for ya? I'll tolerate the "Poppers" stench if only to play with the device, and get paid for having a good time.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: