smoking ban

[Vas Deferens]

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  

[xcanuck]

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.

[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.

[lbcardoni]

Man, Five Guys makes some good burgers!  I wish they served milk shakes

[nkotb]

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.
 
 

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.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:
 
 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?
 

two excellent points and since this smoking ban thing IS a civil rights violation, these issues will never be addressed.  
 
  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.

[sonickteam2]

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.

like steroids in baseball.
 
 welcome to the new republican age of big government!!!!

[godsshoeshine]

Originally posted by xcanuck:
  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.

ding ding

[ggw]

Cell phones in cars are next.
 
 Talking on Cell Phones More Dangerous than Driving Drunk

[godsshoeshine]

its in the constitution that you can drive and talk on the phone at once. or the bill of rights at least

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Cell phones in cars are next.
 
 Talking on Cell Phones More Dangerous than Driving Drunk

good point, some asshole on his phone almost kills me nearly every time i drive on this nations interstates (which thankfully has come down to about once a month!)

[sisterorbit]

as an oncology nurse, I see people dying every week from lung cancer.  you should see them gasp for air on their last days on earth.  nothing is worse than watching a smoker die, air-starved.  so for all of you who continue to smoke and not mind inhaling other people's smoke, I'll take care of you after your lung surgery when you have multiple chest tubes and can't live without your oxygen tank.  smoking doesn't even get you high.  you might as well take up heroin.  it is better for you and knocks you out.

[Guiny]

Originally posted by sisterorbit:
  nothing is worse than watching a smoker die, air-starved. [/QB]

I bet being the smoker dying is worse.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by sisterorbit:
  as an oncology nurse, I see people dying every week from lung cancer.  you should see them gasp for air on their last days on earth.  nothing is worse than watching a smoker die, air-starved.  so for all of you who continue to smoke and not mind inhaling other people's smoke, I'll take care of you after your lung surgery when you have multiple chest tubes and can't live without your oxygen tank.  smoking doesn't even get you high.  you might as well take up heroin.  it is better for you and knocks you out.

great first post sister....you can go to the 930 forum hall of fame
 
   or not.
 
 thanks for advocating heroin though...you obviously passed medical school with flying colors....or dont nurses have to go to med school?

[vansmack]

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,  

Oh, how quickly we forget that the DOT was very close in 1998 to banning peanuts on airplanes, instead coming up with a silly 3 seat rule, which could never be enforced.  Instead, some airlines have voluntarily stopped serving peanuts.  It's just a matter of time before peanuts will be banned in closed places.
 
 In addition, Canada is looking to find out how much it would hurt their parks system if they stopped serving peanut candies in their vending machines because emergency response teams can't get there fast enough when one discovers their peanut allergy.
 
 Silly example my friend.