smoking ban starts in less than a month!

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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...

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]

[sonickteam2]

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!!!!

[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?"

[sonickteam2]

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!!!!  

[Venerable Bede]

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.

[ggw]

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=" - " />

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[Celeste]

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).

[vansmack]

Originally posted by le sonick:
  now you're just being silly!!!!    

Easy for the smoker to say....

[Darth Ed]

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.

[bikerchickdc]

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.

[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.

[kosmo vinyl]

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!

[sonickteam2]

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.

[sonickteam2]

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)