930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: anarchist on December 04, 2006, 03:08:00 pm
-
does this mean all dc clubs will be smoke free starting on jan 2 2007?
-
The District's ban on public smoking goes into full effect Jan. 2, expanding to bars and nightclubs, and the American Cancer Society Action Network wants to make sure everyone knows.
People should start noticing ads promoting the ban when passing a bus or using the restroom in a bar or restaurant.
A Metrobus ad reading, "Hold Your Breath. January is Coming," shows a man holding his breath and folding his arms. Another ad shows a tree-shaped air freshener with the words, "New Bar Scent."
-
Awesome.
-
can't wait!
-
It's about time.
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
whatever will the "eagle" do? they love to smoke over there.
-
thats so retarded. its a bar for crying outloud.
-
are they going to take another freedom away each January?
who needs those pesky freedoms anyway!!
-
ban the ban!
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
ban the ban!
Ban ban banning!
-
Smoke people opposed to the ban.
-
Personally I'll be more comfortable at shows and will be happier on a purely selfish level, but I firmly believe that whoever owns the building should be able to dictate what can and can't be done within its walls, so long as it's legal for the public to do so, which smoking is last time I checked.
I can't help but chime in with this statement on these threads, even though I've probably done so a half dozen times.
Personally, I think we should ban smoking ban threads. Even the incubus threads are better reading.
-
Originally posted by Señor Carlos:
Personally, I think we should ban smoking ban threads. Even the incubus threads are better reading.
we'll ban everything sooner or later. :)
I am looking forward to the cigarette bars to start opening, like the secret bars did during Prohibition!!
-
we should ban gasoline running cars. theyre far more dangerous than tabacco.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Smoke people opposed to the ban.
you don't have to be a smoker to oppose the ban. . .if you like having the ability to choose, as an adult, what to do without the government telling you what you can and can't do.
-
When people are too stupid to figure out what is the right proper thing to do for their own good and for the good of others, it's quite fine for the government to intervene. That is one of the functions of government, to make laws that work to create a better world.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Smoke people opposed to the ban.
you don't have to be a smoker to oppose the ban. . .if you like having the ability to choose, as an adult, what to do without the government telling you what you can and can't do. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
you don't have to be a smoker to oppose the ban. . .if you like having the ability to choose, as an adult, what to do without the government telling you what you can and can't do.
I believe the people have spoken, determined smoking has begun to interfere with or endanger another's person, and thus the ban meets...wait for it...libertarian muster.
Since you won't tax them more to penalize them, we are left with no alternative.
-
So long as they keep their laws off of my dip, I'm okay with it.
-ptoop-
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I believe the people have spoken,
no one ever asked me, i can tell you that.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
no one ever asked me, i can tell you that.
Just like your money and your army, nobody takes you Canadians seriously.
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Princess Patricia's Light Infantry....???
The name alone must strike fear in the heart of Islamo-fascists throughout the Hindu Kush.
-
BOUT DAMN TIME! Kill yourself if you want. Go for it, makes more room on the planet for me. Just don't take me with you. Actually I look at it as nature's way of weeding out the stupid people.
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
BOUT DAMN TIME! Kill yourself if you want. Go for it, makes more room on the planet for me. Just don't take me with you. Actually I look at it as nature's way of weeding out the stupid people.
Except some people figured out a loophole by only smoking when they drink at bars!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
no one ever asked me, i can tell you that.
Just like your money and your army, nobody takes you Canadians seriously. [/b]
ok, i'll rephrase that.
was there a vote on this smoking ban in DC?
this was on the ballot?
-
It's like I've always said...
<img src="http://www.ppcli.com/background.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Princess Patricia's Light Infantry....???
The name alone must strike fear in the heart of Islamo-fascists throughout the Hindu Kush.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
When people are too stupid to figure out what is the right proper thing to do for their own good and for the good of others, it's quite fine for the government to intervene. That is one of the functions of government, to make laws that work to create a better world.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Smoke people opposed to the ban.
you don't have to be a smoker to oppose the ban. . .if you like having the ability to choose, as an adult, what to do without the government telling you what you can and can't do. [/b]
[/b]
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
for example, i think it's stupid that there are vegetarians. . .do i think government should outlaw vegetarianism? no. . while it's a stupid and poorly thought out choice, you are free to make that choice, just as i am allowed to eat meat, lots and lots of meat.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
you don't have to be a smoker to oppose the ban. . .if you like having the ability to choose, as an adult, what to do without the government telling you what you can and can't do.
I believe the people have spoken, determined smoking has begun to interfere with or endanger another's person, and thus the ban meets...wait for it...libertarian muster.
Since you won't tax them more to penalize them, we are left with no alternative. [/b]
as sonick points out, where did the people make this decision? far as i can tell, it a bunch of anti-smoking nuts who are doing all they can not for the health of people, but simply to punish tobacco companies. anyway, for the people to have spoken, business should make the decision- if the people want this change, then business should make that decision, for the sake of profits. since they are still making money from tobacco smokers. . . . . .the people apparently haven't spoken loud enough.
-
How do you explain laws regulating rape, murder, robbery, etc. or do you think that business or common people should regulate those things, not government?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
-
Our current administration is exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
How do you explain laws regulating rape, murder, robbery, etc. or do you think that business or common people should regulate those things, not government?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
[/b]
i think numbers 6, 7, 8 and 10 cover those.
1. I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have other gods besides me.
2. Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy Father and Mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet.
-
Originally posted by econo:
Our current administration is exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
[/b]
well, as with everything, it depends on the context. our current administration is in support of the above if it deals, generally, with education and overall economics. as for social issues, well, then. . yeah, you're right, and i am well aware of it. its like friedman's monetary policy- cutting taxes is the easy part. . .
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
How do you explain laws regulating rape, murder, robbery, etc. or do you think that business or common people should regulate those things, not government?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
[/b]
rape??? are you serious.
well, put it this way, rape is forceable sex. meaning someone who wants no part in the sex, is forced to take part in it.
consentual sex, however, is legal.
smoking can be thought of the same way. when you go to a place that allows smoking, you are consenting to secondhand smoke.
if the government forced people to smoke in your house, or car then you would have an issue, but they are NOT. you are choosing to go to places that allow smoking, thus, consenting to being around it.
you cannot ever and will not ever convince me that its the popular decision to have no smoking everywhere when its been the choice of business owners since the dawn of time and most of them choose to allow smoking, and people still go to bars last time i checked.
you know what i dont like? i dont like children at baseball games. they are dirty, have lots of germs and you cant swear nearby them, but i choose to go to baseball games and therefore knowingly subject myself to germ ridden kids
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
How do you explain laws regulating rape, murder, robbery, etc. or do you think that business or common people should regulate those things, not government?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the government is not here to regulate behavior. if you think someone is doing something rude, blame the parents. as for doing something stupid- just because its stupid doesn't make it illegal or require the government to step in and control people's lives.
[/b]
and as far as robbery goes....wouldnt robbery be taking something of someone elses without their permission.
again, this involves permission.
giving things away in the paper is the same thing as robbery only both parties have consented to the act.
-
Wouldn't the more apt comparison be that smokers are putting something in the air that non-smokers haven't consented to breathing?
Originally posted by le sonick:
rape??? are you serious.
well, put it this way, rape is forceable sex. meaning someone who wants no part in the sex, is forced to take part in it.
consentual sex, however, is legal.
smoking can be thought of the same way. when you go to a place that allows smoking, you are consenting to secondhand smoke.
if the government forced people to smoke in your house, or car then you would have an issue, but they are NOT. you are choosing to go to places that allow smoking, thus, consenting to being around it.
you cannot ever and will not ever convince me that its the popular decision to have no smoking everywhere when its been the choice of business owners since the dawn of time and most of them choose to allow smoking, and people still go to bars last time i checked.
you know what i dont like? i dont like children at baseball games. they are dirty, have lots of germs and you cant swear nearby them, but i choose to go to baseball games and therefore knowingly subject myself to germ ridden kids
-
I'm glad you agree. Every time I go someplace that allows smoking, I feel like my lungs are being raped.
That is why I'm glad my government is enacting anti-smoking laws to protect my lungs, just like they have anti-rape laws to protect my ass.
Originally posted by le sonick:
]
rape??? are you serious.
well, put it this way, rape is forceable sex. meaning someone who wants no part in the sex, is forced to take part in it.
consentual sex, however, is legal.
smoking can be thought of the same way. [/b][/QUOTE]
-
This (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html) is old news, but apparently not everyone is aware of it.
Case for prohibiting smoking in publc places=closed.
-
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
I'm glad you agree. Every time I go someplace that allows smoking, I feel like my lungs are being raped.
That is why I'm glad my government is enacting anti-smoking laws to protect my lungs, just like they have anti-rape laws to protect my ass.
so, why do you frequent places that allow smoking? you made the choice to go and have given your consent by going to that place. you can choose not to go.
-
That would be a good thing, but it's an altogether different matter than protecting nonsmokers against secondhand smoke.
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
-
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too!
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Wouldn't the more apt comparison be that smokers are putting something in the air that non-smokers haven't consented to breathing?
like mr. venerable just stated. you went to a place that allows smoking. so you consented.
just like when you go to 930 you consent to hear loud music. (which damages your ears!)
-
Fortunately, I live in Baltimore (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.smoking05dec05,0,7886222.story?coll=bal-local-headlines)
Citywide smoking ban stalled
Proponent sends bill back to committee; council might reconsider matter next month
By John Fritze
Sun reporter
Originally published December 5, 2006
In a major setback for Baltimore's proposed smoking ban, its chief proponent unexpectedly yanked the legislation into a committee to shield it from a vote last night - a move supporters said was intended to save the controversial bill from defeat or being weakened.
City Councilman Robert W. Curran, who said the bill faced several hostile amendments at a City Council meeting yesterday, made the last-minute decision to pull the measure back into a committee at least until next month, when he said the legislation might have a better chance.
"This bill is not dead by any means," Curran said shortly after the council voted unanimously to return the bill to the five-member Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee, which he chairs. "It's just a pause."
However, the dynamic at City Hall next year is uncertain, and the potential for such a proposal to advance, as many members of the council seek higher office, is unclear.
Anti-smoking advocates who have been lobbying council members, meanwhile, are expected to redirect their attention to Annapolis to push for a statewide smoking ban.
Similar debates have played out in cities across the country and usually pit owners of small restaurants and bars against health advocates. Opponents argue the ban will affect business, while supporters say patrons and servers should be protected from secondhand smoke.
Fourteen of the nation's 20 largest cities, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, have imposed smoking restrictions on restaurateurs or are covered under a statewide ban. The remaining six, including Baltimore, Memphis, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C., have not approved a ban.
Late yesterday, Curran appeared to have the votes required to clear the ban through the procedural vote - especially if, as expected, many who oppose the legislation abstained rather than openly voted against it. But Curran said he was concerned about the possibility of last-minute amendments to weaken the bill, as well as the timing of a final vote.
Like the General Assembly, the City Council holds "second reader" votes on legislation approved in committee. To advance, bills need a majority of those voting "yes" or "no," meaning that members who abstain, or "pass," are not considered.
Theoretically, if 14 of the council's 15 members abstained and one voted yes, the bill would have advanced.
If Curran had managed to get the smoking ban over the second-reader hurdle, he faced a tougher battle on the final vote. Curran - a former smoker who has pushed the measure for more than a year - needs eight votes for final approval, regardless of abstentions, and that threshold has been difficult to achieve.
Curran said the ban could be considered again on second-reader as soon as Jan. 22.
But by then, City Council President Sheila Dixon, who has voiced her support for a ban, will no longer vote on the council, because she will serve out the remainder of Gov.-elect Martin O'Malley's mayoral term. Also, the council will likely include a new member to replace Vice President Stephanie C. Rawlings Blake, who is expected to replace Dixon as president.
"The fact of the matter is that we're just going to keep working to shore up the support so that we can pass a strong bill," said Johanna Neumann, a policy advocate with Maryland PIRG, a group that has lobbied heavily in favor of the ban.
Melvin R. Thompson, vice president of the Restaurant Association of Maryland, could not be reached for comment late yesterday. The group has fought against the legislation, arguing that it could be especially devastating for small corner bars and restaurants.
Maryland counties with bans include Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's and Talbot.
Baltimore's proposal would prohibit smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants, bowling alleys and taxicabs. Cigar bars, outdoor seating areas of restaurants, private clubs and certain tobacco shops would be exempt if owners apply for a waiver.
Late last month, the council added an amendment that could have a significant impact on the legislation - a waiver that would allow businesses to be exempt if they could demonstrate that the ban would cause "undue financial hardship." The legislation allows the city health commissioner, currently Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, to set the rules for how, and why, waivers would be granted.
After yesterday's vote, advocates said they were disappointed but that they would not give up.
"I don't consider the bill dead," said Kari Appler, director of the Smoke Free Maryland Coalition. "Baltimore may be slow to adopt, but Baltimore is going to be smoke-free."
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too! [/b]
soylent green is people.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too! [/b]
why?
-
The smoking isn't just protecting the patrons of bars, but was established to protect the employees, bartender, bouncer, waiter, waitress etc. It's the same fight people were having when smoking was banned on airplanes. How many of you think it's ok to smoke on an airplane? Again, that ban went into effect to protect the employees who are directly affected.
-
So if your girlfriend went to Africa, would she be consenting to having her clit removed?
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by nkotb:
Wouldn't the more apt comparison be that smokers are putting something in the air that non-smokers haven't consented to breathing?
like mr. venerable just stated. you went to a place that allows smoking. so you consented.
just like when you go to 930 you consent to hear loud music. (which damages your ears!) [/b]
-
Originally posted by attache:
The smoking isn't just protecting the patrons of bars, but was established to protect the employees, bartender, bouncer, waiter, waitress etc. It's the same fight people were having when smoking was banned on airplanes. How many of you think it's ok to smoke on an airplane? Again, that ban went into effect to protect the employees who are directly affected.
then address air quality rules. . .that's the more relevant environmental issue anyway.
-
exactly the point, smoking affects the air quality. Simplest way to fix the problem...remove the smoke.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
So if your girlfriend went to Africa, would she be consenting to having her clit removed?
if she went to africa and had her clit removed, could she have said clit removers arrested?
if so then no she wasnt. if not, then i suppose in a creative way, she was consenting to the possibility, sure.
-
Originally posted by attache:
The smoking isn't just protecting the patrons of bars, but was established to protect the employees, bartender, bouncer, waiter, waitress etc.
whatever.
whenever i am in new york, i notice i have to wait an extra long time to get a drink because the bartender is ALWAYS outside SMOKING!!!!!
in fact, almost everyone i know who works in the bar/restaurant business smokes.
-
almost, but not everyone. And at your job, I assume you are allowed to take cigarette breaks, so quit complaining.
-
Originally posted by attache:
exactly the point, automobiles affect the air quality. Simplest way to fix the problem...remove the cars.
-
Originally posted by attache:
almost, but not everyone. And at your job, I assume you are allowed to take cigarette breaks, so quit complaining.
i wasnt complaining about bartenders smoking.
so you're agreeing that almost everyone who works in bars, smokes?
oh, and i only smoke on my lunch break. :)
-
with an automobile you are rarely in a confined space
-
Originally posted by attache:
with an automobile you are rarely in a confined space
i walk home from work everyday and have to breath in exhaust from the buses and idling cars all the way home.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too! [/b]
why? [/b]
because trans fats have no redeeming nutritional value and are just a cheap substitute for butter, olive oil, etc.
I say ban high fructose corn syrup, too
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too! [/b]
why? [/b]
because trans fats have no redeeming nutritional value and are just a cheap substitute for butter, olive oil, etc.
I say ban high fructose corn syrup, too [/b]
Alternatively, people could simply buy products that don't use trans fats and HFCS and thus obviate the need for the paternalistic hand of the bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy.
-
Yes, but how do they know whether restaurants use trans fats in their recipe or not?
Perhaps the better alternative to an outright ban would be to require nutritional information to be posted on restaurant menus so that the restaurant patron can make the same informed decision that a grocery shopper can make.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by terry:
This is next... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500225.html)
And I support this too! [/b]
why? [/b]
because trans fats have no redeeming nutritional value and are just a cheap substitute for butter, olive oil, etc.
I say ban high fructose corn syrup, too [/b]
Alternatively, people could simply buy products that don't use trans fats and HFCS and thus obviate the need for the paternalistic hand of the bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Perhaps the better alternative to an outright ban would be to require nutritional information to be posted on restaurant menus so that the restaurant patron can make the same informed decision that a grocery shopper can make.
great idea rhett. suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!!
Like the signs that used to say "Whites Only?"
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!!
Like the signs that used to say "Whites Only?" [/b]
now you're just being silly!!!! :)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!!
Like the signs that used to say "Whites Only?" [/b]
now now. . .their market share and disposible income make that a non-starter.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!!
Like the signs that used to say "Whites Only?" [/b]
They still have those.
<img src="http://twoday.net/static/rahrah/images/dennys.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Perhaps you failed to read my post above where I said banning trans fats in restuarants and banning smoking in bars are two separate issues.
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Perhaps the better alternative to an outright ban would be to require nutritional information to be posted on restaurant menus so that the restaurant patron can make the same informed decision that a grocery shopper can make.
great idea rhett. suppose if there were signs outside of bars stating whether smoking was allowed inside, so that one may make an informed decision on what bar to attend!!!! [/b]
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Perhaps the better alternative to an outright ban would be to require nutritional information to be posted on restaurant menus so that the restaurant patron can make the same informed decision that a grocery shopper can make.
Yeah...that's a good idea. Still, I wouldn't mind if they were banned. Alot of people are too stupid to know or care that they're bad for them. Then they get sick and are a drain on the healthcare system (same for smokers).
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
now you're just being silly!!!! :)
Easy for the smoker to say....
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
well, put it this way, rape is forceable sex. meaning someone who wants no part in the sex, is forced to take part in it.
consentual sex, however, is legal.
smoking can be thought of the same way. when you go to a place that allows smoking, you are consenting to secondhand smoke.
if the government forced people to smoke in your house, or car then you would have an issue, but they are NOT. you are choosing to go to places that allow smoking, thus, consenting to being around it.
Your argument has a lot of merit, but it falls down in one critical area and that's the employees of the smoking establishment. The employee doesn't give their consent. Their only option is to find a different job. If you only hired smokers or non-smokers who consent to be around smoking, that would be discriminatory hiring practices and illegal. It's also an OSHA issue.
-
Most of the bars I've been to in Brooklyn and on Manhattan lately ignore the "no smoking" thing after about 1:30 AM. The bartenders will gladly give you an ashtray. The bartenders I've met in NYC pretty much hate the smoking ban.
I wonder if any of the people pushing for a smoking ban and saying it's because it's to protect the bartenders actually ARE bartenders???
Next they're going to ban caffeine.
-
Smoking and drinking go together like smoking and drinking and live music go together. I'm all for health, but that's a fact.
-
What really annoys me is that I can't get moonshine at the 9:30 club.... I was planning on Rock n' Roll making me Deaf, Dumb and Blind!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
now you're just being silly!!!! :)
Easy for the smoker to say.... [/b]
come on! saying "whites only" and saying "smoking allowed" is not the same thing.
perhaps if the sign said "smokers only" it would be closer.
-
Originally posted by Darth Ed:
If you only hired smokers or non-smokers who consent to be around smoking, that would be discriminatory hiring practices and illegal. It's also an OSHA issue.
excellent point and since i dont know shit about OSHA...
but wouldnt being around smoke just be part of the job? like you wouldnt hire landscapers who were allergic to grass or were intolerable of the summer heat, would you? or truck drivers who hated traffic jams?
i just cant see any other reason for this ban other than that anti-smoking lobbyists lobbied and lobbied and eventually won. nothing more, nothing less. (is lobbied the correct term here?)
(oh, and in inpatient rehab, fyi, they let you smoke, but caffeine is not allowed...just thought i'd throw that in there to whoever mentioned banning caffiene next)
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
(oh, and in inpatient rehab, fyi, they let you smoke, but caffeine is not allowed...just thought i'd throw that in there to whoever mentioned banning caffiene next)
Chocolate is banned sometimes too. Damned therapeutic communities!
-
Originally posted by Señor Carlos:
Originally posted by le sonick:
(oh, and in inpatient rehab, fyi, they let you smoke, but caffeine is not allowed...just thought i'd throw that in there to whoever mentioned banning caffiene next)
Chocolate is banned sometimes too. Damned therapeutic communities! [/b]
lol. no drugs, no chocolate, no caffeine, but....smoke em if you got em!! makes perfect sense. :)
-
I always love it when you get into it with these DC types because it becomes a talk between know it all DC shitheads and a don't know shit but like to pretend I do Baltimoron. And it's totally funny! :D
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Darth Ed:
If you only hired smokers or non-smokers who consent to be around smoking, that would be discriminatory hiring practices and illegal. It's also an OSHA issue.
excellent point and since i dont know shit about OSHA...
but wouldnt being around smoke just be part of the job? like you wouldnt hire landscapers who were allergic to grass or were intolerable of the summer heat, would you? or truck drivers who hated traffic jams?
i just cant see any other reason for this ban other than that anti-smoking lobbyists lobbied and lobbied and eventually won. nothing more, nothing less. (is lobbied the correct term here?)
(oh, and in inpatient rehab, fyi, they let you smoke, but caffeine is not allowed...just thought i'd throw that in there to whoever mentioned banning caffiene next) [/b]
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
I always love it when you get into it with these DC types because it becomes a talk between know it all DC shitheads and a don't know shit but like to pretend I do Baltimoron. And it's totally funny! :D
fuck you rhett. at least i have some social skills.
not like you, you fucking hick.
-
Just like drinking and driving go together.
Originally posted by Mobius:
Smoking and drinking go together like smoking and drinking and live music go together. I'm all for health, but that's a fact.
-
Sorry, I have that disease that makes you blurt out your true thoughts when you shouldn't.
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
I always love it when you get into it with these DC types because it becomes a talk between know it all DC shitheads and a don't know shit but like to pretend I do Baltimoron. And it's totally funny! :D
fuck you rhett. at least i have some social skills.
not like you, you fucking hick. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Sorry, I have that disease that makes you blurt out your true thoughts when you shouldn't.
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
I always love it when you get into it with these DC types because it becomes a talk between know it all DC shitheads and a don't know shit but like to pretend I do Baltimoron. And it's totally funny! :D
fuck you rhett. at least i have some social skills.
not like you, you fucking hick. [/b]
[/b]
-
Speaking of trans-fat related issues, has anyone noticed how often bloggers and reviewers seem shocked that LCD Soundsystems "45:33" track is intended for running?
From stereogum: James Murphy's been a busy boy; this year he gave us the surprisingly awesome though impossible to actually enjoy in one run -- 45 minutes?! Nike collaboration 45:33, which we're seeing pop up on year end lists from bloggers and Kevin Barnes alike (#1!).
From gorilla vs. bear: My one major problem with 45:33 is that, like the Crystal Method mix, it's too damn long.
Are indie rockers really that out of shape? 45 minutes, including cool-down time, is NOT that long.
-
They start wheezing 20 minutes in from all of that second hand smoke they inhale at bars and clubs.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Are indie rockers really that out of shape? 45 minutes, including cool-down time, is NOT that long.
-
Originally posted by econo:
They start wheezing 20 minutes in from all of that second hand smoke they inhale at bars and clubs.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Are indie rockers really that out of shape? 45 minutes, including cool-down time, is NOT that long.
[/b]
:D
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
will musicians be able to smoke on stage? i have seen this in nyc + ca.
-
God help Ian McCulloch if musicians aren't allowed to smoke on stage.
<img src="http://www.cluas.com/images/music/gigs/ian_mcculloch.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.stacymunn.com/blog/img/ian05.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.soundgenerator.com/pix/articles/2003/05/McCulloch_GaryLornie.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.rockarchive.com/images/em001kwt.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Are indie rockers really that out of shape? 45 minutes, including cool-down time, is NOT that long.
Clearly, you've never tried to run with a scarf on...
-
Le Sonick, you can bitch all you want but it's already too late.
This discussion has run it's course on this board over the year, and nothing you do will change the fact that DC will be non-smoking next month. Stay in Baltimore if you must smoke.
By July '07 it won't even be an issue any longer.
Until Baltimore catches up of course, but then you'll be the only one bitching. Again.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Le Sonick, you can bitch all you want but it's already too late.
This discussion has run it's course on this board over the year, and nothing you do will change the fact that DC will be non-smoking next month. Stay in Baltimore if you must smoke.
By July '07 it won't even be an issue any longer.
Until Baltimore catches up of course, but then you'll be the only one bitching. Again.
thank you captain obvious!!!
thanks for telling me the conversation is over about a day after i stopped discussing it.
thanks for letting me know that i cant change the law by talking about it on the internet.
thanks for reminding me i can still smoke in bars in baltimore.
and finally, thanks for reminding me that i am the only person on earth who earth who still smokes and/or cares about this ban.
i realize that this is all just a discussion but its pretty frustrating to see people blatantly disregarding your point ot view and your thoughts.
i thought vansmack was bigger than that but i suppose not.
sorry i stated my stupid, canadian, baltimoron point of view. i wont do it again.
-
Hit a soft spot, did I?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Hit a soft spot, did I?
well, it just kind of irks me when i think we are having a discussion and one person calls me stupid and another person implies that i'm just bitching and no one cares.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Hit a soft spot, did I?
well, it just kind of irks me when i think we are having a discussion and one person calls me stupid and another person implies that i'm just bitching and no one cares. [/b]
<img src="http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/10180/200.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I can not wait to see a non smoking 9:30 club show, that is going to be awesome +1!
-
I thought this applied somewhat to discussion in this thread. I had an email conversation with somebody from a local pizza chain about providing nutritional info, I just asked if they offered it and this was their detailed reply. Gives the point of view of a local business (I think they have 30 or so locations in the northwest)
Unfortunately, we're just not in a position to
have nutritional information at this time. It may
seem at first that one of the simple nutritional
programs that are available on the internet would
make this a simple and easy process. Or it's just
a simple matter of reading the labels provided by
the manufacturers of our inventory items.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. FDA
regulations regarding labeling require that we be
very accurate. Many of the inexpensive programs
use approximations for the nutritional values of
the different ingredients where we need the actual
values of the items we carry. We would need to get
nutritional info on every item we carry then
derive the final nutritionals for the mixtures of
ingredients in our processed items.
I talked to Don Pickering of the American
Institute of Baking (AIB) because they provide a
nutritional labeling analysis. Many of our items
would have to be reverse engineered in a lab to
get accurate levels. We even have to adjust for
the true yields after processing and cooking to
comply with the FDA labeling rules. You might
think it seems funny since we are not required to
even have a label but the FDA wants consumers to
know that if there is labeling, it is accurate.
Also, there are really two distinct label issues:
Nutritionals that list the amount of vitamins and
minerals etc, and then ingredient labeling that
would let you know if there is MSG or chicken
stock in the product. Each of these is a separate,
expensive, and equally difficult project.
On top of all this if we change any ingredient, or
a manufacturer changes it (which happens more then
you might think) we have to update all the
information related to that product. I know this
detail seems extreme, I just want you to know that
it really is a daunting task that we are concerned
with, we just do not have the resources to create
the information and then maintain it at this time.
I am very sorry for this inconvenience!
-
Regarding the restaurant labeling, I am dead set against that. It's just absurd! It's nice when one chooses to include some info for others, but they should not be required to hire a damned chemist for every little thing on the menu! People need to learn to take a little responsibility on their own. Christ, drink a glass of red wine and chill out a bit.
Yes, I'm for the smoking ban because that does directly affect others while it is happening. Food choices don't. And don't give me the crap about medical bills because we could give you a load of other things that mount up those bills like sitting hours in traffic breathing their polluted truck air or consuming all that flouride in the water, being bombarded by cell phone and other waves, etc, etc..
This is yet another perfect example of what happens when we allow politicians to enact certain kinds of laws. The only thing they know how to do is whore themselves out and nothing whatsoever about immensely important issues that take professionals years of study and research to know their specific field. Even then, there are still lots of questions left unanswered. But God forbid the professional have a say regarding any of these things! :roll: It's all money and votes.
-
Thank God, now my clothes won't smell like I died!!!
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Regarding the restaurant labeling, I am dead set against that. It's just absurd! It's nice when one chooses to include some info for others, but they should not be required to hire a damned chemist for every little thing on the menu! People need to learn to take a little responsibility on their own. Christ, drink a glass of red wine and chill out a bit.
Yes, I'm for the smoking ban because that does directly affect others while it is happening. Food choices don't. And don't give me the crap about medical bills because we could give you a load of other things that mount up those bills like sitting hours in traffic breathing their polluted truck air or consuming all that flouride in the water, being bombarded by cell phone and other waves, etc, etc..
This is yet another perfect example of what happens when we allow politicians to enact certain kinds of laws. The only thing they know how to do is whore themselves out and nothing whatsoever about immensely important issues that take professionals years of study and research to know their specific field. Even then, there are still lots of questions left unanswered. But God forbid the professional have a say regarding any of these things! :roll: It's all money and votes.
oh please, jag, dont be so contradictory.
these laws arent any different in principal other than the fact that your views happen to make you for one and against the other.
both laws revoke the freedom of business owners and consumers alike.
if either was controlled enough, no one would have to be around them that didnt want to! but thats not good enough for small special interest groups with lots of money and nothing else to do.
-
How do you propose one take responsibility if you're not told what the ingredients are? I suppose anybody who is health conscious should just cook for themselves every day of the year?
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Regarding the restaurant labeling, I am dead set against that. It's just absurd! It's nice when one chooses to include some info for others, but they should not be required to hire a damned chemist for every little thing on the menu! People need to learn to take a little responsibility on their own. Christ, drink a glass of red wine and chill out a bit.
-
Sonick, you are just pissed because you can't continue your addiction in DC clubs anymore. I explained myself above. Go reread it if you need to.
Rhett, you are just being your typical pain in the ass self. If the fucking French fry is dripping in grease and you are concerned about fats, don't eat the damn thing. If you have a reason to be extra food conscious, go the the library and do a little research about various foods or, better yet, do us all a favor and stay home and prepare your own foods!
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
No, I'm not. Don't you know the difference between healthy fats and trans fats?
It's not what's in the food, it's how they cook it and what they add to it.
Are you that ignorant?
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Rhett, you are just being your typical pain in the ass self. If the fucking French fry is dripping in grease and you are concerned about fats, don't eat the damn thing. If you have a reason to be extra food conscious, go the the library and do a little research about various foods or, better yet, do us all a favor and stay home and prepare your own foods!
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Then ask the chef or have the waiter/ess ask for you. What's wrong with swaying a restaurant by market demand as oppossed to political muscle?
Or have you lived in DC too long and think that everything should be left up to the government? :roll:
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Sonick, you are just pissed because you can't continue your addiction in DC clubs anymore. I explained myself above. Go reread it if you need to.
oh, i can read.
you want restaurants to be able to choose what food they sell, but not if their patrons can smoke...why? cause you dont smoke, thats why!!!
if you meant something else by your post, you did a pretty poor job of stating it.
and no, i am certainly not "pissed" because i cant smoke in DC. in fact, the last time i was in DC for something other than a hockey game (which i couldnt really smoke at before) was like......maybe 2005!!!! i cant even remember the last time i was at 930.
if Baltimore or Maryland passes the ban, i may be pissed. but generally i have no problem with going hours without a smoke or stepping outside.
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Then ask the chef or have the waiter/ess ask for you. What's wrong with swaying a restaurant by market demand as oppossed to political muscle?
Or have you lived in DC too long and think that everything should be left up to the government? :roll:
but we shouldn't let market demand determine whether restaraunts allow smoking or not? the government should do that? yeah, you make a lot of sense.
-
"Yes, I'm for the smoking ban because that does directly affect others while it is happening. Food choices don't. And don't give me the crap about medical bills because we could give you a load of other things that mount up those bills like sitting hours in traffic breathing their polluted truck air or consuming all that flouride in the water, being bombarded by cell phone and other waves, etc, etc.."
Kind of like how reckless driving affects others while pigging out on bacon doesn't.
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Dupek, your stupid bird doesn't mean shit and one of them has more brains than some humans.
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
"Yes, I'm for the smoking ban because that does directly affect others while it is happening.
jag, thats a tired excuse and you know it. this DOESNT justify banning smoking at every single bar and restaurant in the city! or course not!
how about a tax break for bars who go smoke-free? would you go for that?
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
"Yes, I'm for the smoking ban because that does directly affect others while it is happening.
jag, thats a tired excuse and you know it. this DOESNT justify banning smoking at every single bar and restaurant in the city! or course not![/b]
No, it is NOT tired. If anything, we who are sick of getting sick from cigarette smoke are tired of these lame excuses of ruining our nights. It's the concert venues that especially bother me because we're there primarily for the show. For an out and out bar without entertainment, I think it's a even fight; otherwise, it's not fair to force concert goers to such sickly air. Same goes for restaurants where the respiratory system is much more actively involved in the experience of why you are there in the first place.
Originally posted by le sonick:
how about a tax break for bars who go smoke-free? would you go for that? [/b]
Hmmm, maybe. Not sure if that's the right approach but one to consider. (I would prefer to give that one some honest thought before jumping so some conclusion.)
Either way, I truly want the concert venues smoke free. Would love regular bars to be smoke free but would compromise on that one.
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Dupek, your stupid bird doesn't mean shit and one of them has more brains than some humans.
Is that a question? [/b]
no, dupek, her questions end in :roll:
(i wonder if she rolls her eyes this much in real life)
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Dupek, your stupid bird doesn't mean shit and one of them has more brains than some humans.
Is that a question? [/b]
Did I use a question mark?
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Dupek knows me. :D
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Hmmm, maybe. Not sure if that's the right approach but one to consider. (I would prefer to give that one some honest thought before jumping so some conclusion.)
fair enough. i just think that this whole thing came about by a small group of rabid supporters and no alternatives or compromises were set, no citywide votes were held and virtually no exceptions were given to this ban.
perhaps if we had this issue on an election ballot or some other sort of vote.
if smoking is so bad for you and everyone else on earth, i just wish they would outlaw cigarettes!!! cause trust me, i wouldnt smoke em if i couldnt buy em legally!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Hmmm, maybe. Not sure if that's the right approach but one to consider. (I would prefer to give that one some honest thought before jumping so some conclusion.)
fair enough. i just think that this whole thing came about by a small group of rabid supporters and no alternatives or compromises were set, no citywide votes were held and virtually no exceptions were given to this ban.
perhaps if we had this issue on an election ballot or some other sort of vote.
[/b]
You are probably right on that. And I agree that it would have been more fair as an election ballot since this is supposed to be a country by the people, for the people. (I just know we're gonna get someone going off it this being a republic and what all that means.)
Originally posted by le sonick:
if smoking is so bad for you and everyone else on earth, i just wish they would outlaw cigarettes!!! cause trust me, i wouldnt smoke em if i couldnt buy em legally!
I'm not going to help you on this one as I draw the line just short of that, against my own best interest.
-
see, jag, us baltimoreons think alike after all!
(the fact that a vote would've been nice!)
have you been reading those ground rent stories in the Sun?
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
see, jag, us baltimoreons think alike after all!
(the fact that a vote would've been nice!)
have you been reading those ground rent stories in the Sun?
;)
Even when we disagree.
No, don't read The Sun. Well, occassionally. Haven't heard or read anything about it anywhere. What's up? I assume, prices and taxes.
-
was there any voter backlash against supporters of the smoking ban?
-
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.
-
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.
To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.
To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.
[/b]
Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)
Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.
I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.
To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D
Have you ever asked a duck what it thought? He might just prefer to not have to work for it's food. I'm sure most humans would certainly feel that way - that's why the take-out and restaurant business is doing so well.
-
What is so wrong with being a do gooder? Woudln't the world be a better place with more doo gooders ans less do badders?
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.
To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.
[/b]
Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)
Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.
I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form. [/b]
-
Assuming that reincarnation is a reality (which I tend to lean towards but can't prove) in my next life, I want to come back as one of those cows in Japan who are raised in a sling and force fed beer and receive massages every day in order to eventually make it as a treat on someone's dinner plate. Again, this is assuming reincarnation is reality. It would be such a nice respit of a life in between the trials and tribulations of human life.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
What is so wrong with being a do gooder? Woudln't the world be a better place with more doo gooders ans less do badders?
Anyone have any Preparation-H?
-
right on!!!!
-
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Assuming that reincarnation is a reality
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Assuming that reincarnation is a reality
[/b]
And what makes you so damned sure?
-
Look, I'm under no assumption that being killed for another person's meal is a kind and gentle way to go, no matter how the death is implemented. And if I had the choice between being a meal for a shark or not, I'd choose not like every other creature out there.
But there is a vast difference between putting an animal down in order for me to eat and torturing them BEFORE putting them down for me to eat. So what if the overall reason isn't the animal's well-being; they still win out in some regard, don't they?
And I'm with Rhett; what's the harm in not wanting to run some animals through the hell for our enjoyment? If it was taking food out of the mouth of the poor, then I'd find it a bit ridiculous. But for the enjoyment of those that are already well-off? That's a no brainer.
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Originally posted by nkotb:
I'd be more in favor of a veal and foie gras ban than of trans-fats. It's my decision to each trans-fats or not; it's not a duck's decision to be force-fed for my enjoyment.
To me, it's more halting cruelty than of telling you what you can and cannot eat. But then again, I have a soul :D
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
since some of you seem to think this trans-fat ban in NYC is a good thing, are you aware that now they are trying to ban foie gras here as well? yes, i know it took place in chicago, but where/when is NYC going to stop. i guess veal should be next.
[/b]
Except, I don't think the cruelty factor has a damn thing to do with it. (Unless the ban is more involved than I realised.)
Do gooders love it because it makes them feel oh so self-satisfingly righteous and the politicians love it because they just end up turning it into a tax which pulls in more money.
I'm not really sure how all of this is playing out but it seems that when they have to allow the sale, they'll just tax it. That way, the elite can still have their delicacies while the less well off just settle for liverwurst. Is that really any better for you? Don't know but I doubt it. You still need food though, in some form. [/b]
-
Wait a minute. If I'm understanding the ban right, it doesn't have anything to do with the cruelty. I'm not at all arguing with you about that. But isn't their grounds for the ban based on the fats and that's it? Maybe I'm wrong but I've only heard about the human dietary issues. In that case, I think the ban is ridiculous. If it's because of the cruelty factor, well, that's a whole other story that I might go with.
Either way, I think I'm moving to France.
(If only I could!)
-
there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought (http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras?currentPage=1)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought (http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras?currentPage=1)
You read Men's Vogue?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
there is no evidence that shows foie gras is cruel to the animal. instead, it is another attempt to keep the cute and cuddly animals from being eaten.
food for thought (http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras?currentPage=1)
You read Men's Vogue? [/b]
i had no idea there was a men's vogue. . .got it from egullet.
-
Yeah, they did a pretty good job of sneaking that logo in there, didn't they? :D
<img src="http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q233/aobehr/vogue.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i had no idea there was a men's vogue. . .got it from egullet.
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Yum, dinner!!!
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/124/322475310_945f15efe5_o.jpg" alt=" - " />
(I just took this picture....and it was rushed which is why it is so shitty.)
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.
this statement is how i read almost every other post you have ever written.
-
So what do you think about reincarnation?
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.
this statement is how i read almost every other post you have ever written. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
So what do you think about reincarnation?
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
It's not. I can't prove it, but it's not.
this statement is how i read almost every other post you have ever written. [/b]
[/b]
well, i tend to believe that its possible. i mean, it seems like something has to happen to us after we die. But until someone really dies and comes back (and not for 30 seconds) and tells us about it, I am open to most theories.
-
Why does it seem like something must happen to us after we die?
Can't we just be dead?
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Can't I just be dead?
All we can do is hope.
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
We are already dead. Did you remember being born? I'm telling you...this IS the afterlife, baby!
....AND WE'VE ALL BEEN SENT TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET!!!!
-
Mary J.Bilge
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
You read Men's Vogue?
uh, only for the articles. yeah.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Why does it seem like something must happen to us after we die?
Can't we just be dead?
we can. but life seems more cyclical than that. things seems to happen over and over again. a lttle differently each time. so why would our lives be any different.
besides, it makes death seem not so final and scary, doesnt it! :)
-
True enough. But I'd prefer to believe the heaven theory. That's why I'm always so nice to y'all, so I can wrack up the best digs in heaven. :) [/b][/quote]
-
so if we keep going on (any afterlife, heaven, reicarnation, now is the afterlife), health concerns about me having to refrain from smoking indoors at a rock club/bar for the benefit of other transitionary 'souls' are bogus and they should ban the smoking ban, right? :D
i agree wholeheartedly with a smoking ban in offices, schools, movie theatres, stores, restuarants, museums, etc., but the bans for ALL bars and music clubs and even outdoor/open air events are lame. i mean really; why can't 20% of those venues retain an option to cater to smokers, then non-smokers and smokers alike can make their choice. the initial bans in (populous, semi-liberal) states like CA and NY seem more about pre-empting any possible future public smoking acceptance for when the nation is financially forced to decriminalize pot. public health concerns seem the least of the smoking bans, or else auto, air, water, food supply, radiation, corporate media, and unregulated free-market economy 'pollution' would already be taken care of.
...or maybe that's the next life.....
-
OK i am kind of knew to the forum, i mostly hang out on guitar forums but figured I would join this forum because most of my friends are not into my music so figured I could find people with more of the same interest. Of course after this reply I might not make to many new friends!
But anyway let me start off by saying i am not 14, as most people assume that because of my screen name.
Also please do not flame me for my spelling, I know i suck at it and something i have learned to live with!
Anyway I just had to chime in on this subject, first let me say i smoked for a long time, quit 7 years ago and still miss it. However my over all health was the factor in quiting.
With that being said, study, no study blah blah blah, you put carbon monoxide into your lungs it is not going to do good things for you, so yes second hand smoke is not good for you.
I have seen arguments on people choosing to goto the club or goto the work so they should deal with it. So let me get this right, you are saying we should miss out on shows or socializing because we do not want to breath in smoke?
Or maybe you are saying that artists should do two shows in every city, one non smoking show and one smoking show, but wait, what if the artist doesnt smoke, you saying they should give up there living so you can smoke all you want and they have to be selective about where they play because they do not want to harm there health?
I guess we can reverse your argument, you say we choose to goto a show where there are smokers so we should deal with. Well lets try this, you are choosing to goto a show where there is non smoking, so deal with it!
Now to health reasons, if you ask me anyone that smokes should not be able to get health insurance, should not be able to get free medical treatment at all! You know the dangers of smoking, you know how it kills, why should my insurance be sky high to cover the people that are killing themselves with cigerettes!
And for the reason of insurance and how it effects society is what gives the government the right to step in and ban it. If it was just a matter of you dieing from it but it didnt effect so much more, then they would really have no right to ban it, But I am sure they would anyway just like many other things! Dont get me going on the seatbelt law!
Now I could go on, but lets talk about alternatives, yes there is a good alternative to completly ban smoking. When NY (I am orignaly from NY) first banned smoking they made it so you can have a seperate room for smokers. This room had to be completly closed off from the non smoking area.
So yes they should offer this to the smokers in DC, once again i am a ex smoker so i do feel your pain of having to smoke outside or go without a cig.
If you made a little room, completly closed off in each club, have it with plenty of ventilation where a smoker could just jump in, smoke a cig in a few minutes then go back to the show, go back to drinking or back to whatever they were doing, i think it would work out fine.
So bars, clubs, etc. would all have the choice, either build a little room for the smokers, or completly ban smoking. The smokers would be happy, the non smokers would be happy, and I wouldnt have to worry about walking out of a club with degrading health and smelling like an ashtray! Nothing wrong with that if you ask me.
-
From the Black Cat's schedule:
MON JAN 1- SMOKE NIGHT! Last chance to light up in the Red Room (smoking ban starts at midnight)
-
Why is the smoking ban starting on January 2 and not January 1? Just another reason to stay in on New Years Eve I guess.
-
Originally posted by Steny Hoyer, Pubic Destroyer:
Why is the smoking ban starting on January 2 and not January 1? Just another reason to stay in on New Years Eve I guess.
you're so exxciting rhett!!!!
Anyway, i seem to remember there being a big issue in Toronto over this. On New Years Eve, when the clock hit 12am some bars thought they had to make everyone stop smoking right then and there. So here these people paid all this money to go out on NYE and at midnight, rules changed, many people were pissed, etc etc,
So my guess is they figure Jan 2 would cause less confusion.
smoke em if ya got em!
-
As much as I prefer a smoke-free environment, that is a bit much to expect any establisment to police and enforce a quick change like that right in mid-stream while their customers have already had a few to drink. There are just way too many psychological, social and business reasons to just wait it out until after a full party weekend.
So Rhett, Celeste and I won't be there but on the bright side, we have the rest of the year.
-
I know we have our differences around here, but I think we can all agree that the smoking ban is ghey...
-
Is 9:30 or other clubs going to make outside space for smokers like the Norva does? (Just asking don't jump all over me please)
If people traffic in and out of a club to smoke, will some clubs start a no re-entry rule? Plus, all the smokers hanging out front as people try to come into the venue might bug some of you...
State Theatre is non-smoking and smokers go off to the side w/ no problems of re-entry. As mentioned, Norva has a pit out back, a la high school, except w/ a bar. (the night I was there, promotions & merch were outside too)
The food/restaurant comparison, not sure I understand...Besides, what about people with food allergies?
-
I think a smoking ban is fan-god-damn-tastic...
-
I guess we can reverse your argument, you say we choose to goto a show where there are smokers so we should deal with. Well lets try this, you are choosing to goto a show where there is non smoking, so deal with it!
[/QB]
The difference is that instead of a choice, this is a government mandate. The business no longer has a choice and neither does a consumer.
-
they can choose to move to virginia
-
blah blah blah
i am off to Canada...where you cant smoke either...merry christmas everyone!
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
they can choose to move to virginia
And those who don't smoke could have chosen to move to New York.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
merry christmas everyone!
Merry Christmas Sonick!
-
Originally posted by floyd:
I guess we can reverse your argument, you say we choose to goto a show where there are smokers so we should deal with. Well lets try this, you are choosing to goto a show where there is non smoking, so deal with it!
[/b]
The difference is that instead of a choice, this is a government mandate. The business no longer has a choice and neither does a consumer. [/QB]
Businesses have a choice, stay in business or shut down/move. Consumers have a choice, go out and have a good time or stay home and commit suicide on the installment plan. One always has choices. Just because you dont like either chocie does not mean they do not exist.
-
Hmm, ban smoking but continue to push the last legal drug (alcohol) down everyoneâ??s throat? In fact, let us have sponsored shows at the venue! Cheers!
I know I enjoy shit-faced mongoloids ruining a song because their beer-laden brains cannot control the tone of their voices.