Parents, Bars at odds in New York

[SuperFerret]

Second hand smoke is 90% *****ing anyway. I can understand it if you live somewhere like where I am (in Colorado) where there's just air, but in good old New York, where the air has flavor and weight, second hand smoke is the least of your worries.

 

[Figs]

Thank Christ you're not involved with any sort of clinical or scientific research.

Oh please.

They can't fully 100% prove it yet with everyone, there really are that many cases of cancer smoke related or not. Those people that they think got cancer from second hand smoke could have easily been on track to have gotten it anyways, even if they never smoked or had to deal with second hand. Can you show me proof at least?

Like I said before, short of the smoker actually blowing it into the mouth or even face of the non smoker I don't think it's as bad as the propoganda makes it out to be. Smoke disippates fairly quick, it doesn't hang around like in that bull **** commercial where it looks like the damn house is on fire.

Just because you may be on the anti smoking side of things doesn't mean you have to **** on someone with a childish face palm. I don't doubt that maybe, just maybe cigarette smoke might cause some issues with people but I don't think it's enough to give everyone around it cancer, especially if they're not around it all day every day.

Like I said before, can you back this up with any articles? Sorry if you want to be immature and think of me as a moron for a difference of opinion but I can't fully agree with them saying second hand smoke gives everyone cancer.

 

[Carcharodon]

Oh please.

They can't fully 100% prove it yet with everyone, there really are that many cases of cancer smoke related or not. Those people that they think got cancer from second hand smoke could have easily been on track to have gotten it anyways, even if they never smoked or had to deal with second hand. Can you show me proof at least?

Like I said before, short of the smoker actually blowing it into the mouth or even face of the non smoker I don't think it's as bad as the propoganda makes it out to be. Smoke disippates fairly quick, it doesn't hang around like in that bull **** commercial where it looks like the damn house is on fire.

Just because you may be on the anti smoking side of things doesn't mean you have to **** on someone with a childish face palm. I don't doubt that maybe, just maybe cigarette smoke might cause some issues with people but I don't think it's enough to give everyone around it cancer, especially if they're not around it all day every day.

Like I said before, can you back this up with any articles? Sorry if you want to be immature and think of me as a moron for a difference of opinion but I can't fully agree with them saying second hand smoke gives everyone cancer.

Educate yourself. Please.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Also, let me point out why your argument is completely inane: just because they can't "fully 100% prove it with everyone" (WTF does that even mean???) doesn't mean that there isn't a statistical association. Do you really think they haven't done everything they could to eliminate confounding variables? The only reason these reports are taken seriously is because they're subject to the same scrutiny and peer-review process that any other scientific article goes through. Given the apparent association, how can you honestly sit there and argue that because (again, this is so damn ridiculous) they can't "fully 100% prove it with everyone" (it hurts just to type out) that it's not a big deal to subject people to it?

Stick to the whole personal-rights argument. It's much more sound, and I've gotta say I agree with you to an extent there. But this? Up here? Garbage.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Have you ever been to New York???

And I'm not whiney with anybody, when it's someone I don't even ****ing know next to me. The smokers I've hanged out with always ask, and I'm cool with it. But, if I'm at a place, and I'm there first...and someone starts somking...I have to nut up and just take it?? Or ***** out and just leave?

I think it helps avoid fights too. If I tell a dude something, next thing I know I have to beat with my chair.

I was just teasing about you being whiney.

And yes. You either take someone being around you or you leave.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It isn't like they are asking people not to smoke at all. They are just asking them to be considerate and to not contaminate the lungs of non-smokers. Smoking is their decision and it should be just that. Stop being melodramatic about it. It's just a mild inconvenience at worst.

I'm not being melodramatic. It is a mild inconvenience to not hang out where smokers do. It is much harsher to pass rules about what business can or cannot allow in their own establishments.

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm not being melodramatic. It is a mild inconvenience to not hang out where smokers do. It is much harsher to pass rules about what business can or cannot allow in their own establishments.

I can't help but wonder whether businesses nowadays would actually be hurt by allowing people to smoke in their establishments. It seems like people are overall much more health-conscious (at least superficially...I mean look at obesity rates) now than in the past, so maybe more people would avoid those places.

Of course that's a non-scenario when smoking inside becomes illegal.

 

[Carcharodon]

So nice, I said it twice.

 

[Figs]

Educate yourself. Please.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Also, let me point out why your argument is completely inane: just because they can't "fully 100% prove it with everyone" (WTF does that even mean???) doesn't mean that there isn't a statistical association. Do you really think they haven't done everything they could to eliminate confounding variables? The only reason these reports are taken seriously is because they're subject to the same scrutiny and peer-review process that any other scientific article goes through. Given the apparent association, how can you honestly sit there and argue that because (again, this is so damn ridiculous) they can't "fully 100% prove it with everyone" (it hurts just to type out) that it's not a big deal to subject people to it?

Stick to the whole personal-rights argument. It's much more sound, and I've gotta say I agree with you to an extent there. But this? Up here? Garbage.

I had in no way meant that because they can't prove it that it means nonsmokers should have to put up with second hand smoke. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly. I just meant that saying second hand smoke giving cancer just as much as first hand doesn't mean they should try to ban people from smoking on or in their own property let alone try to ban it outright.

The only thing I really agree with in that link and with you is the indoors(whether a home, bar or a vehicle)factor. Outdoors though I still don't see it as a problem so long as the nonsmoker and smoker don't stand right next to each other. Since smokers and non smokers outside have to be by each other at times, like at a bustop for example, it makes sense to ban it from those sepecific areas but not to ban it outright everywhere outdoors.

Also, I don't think what I said was insane in the slightest but if that's how you want to label me, whatever. The whole "100% prove it with everyone", sorry if I worded that weird. It's just with polls and statistics they don't always tend to use a large enough percentage of the overall population. I'm not saying they have to ask every single last person that got throat/lung cancer but the article you linked says this.

"Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke."

Now that according to them is an exact number of nonsmoking lung cancer deaths a year. So basically they're saying that they did in fact find out that every one of those people(that were nonsmokers of course)were heavily around cigarette smoke a lot of their life? I only ask this because of how high the cancer rate(all types)is already at and that it is possible to get lung cancer and not from smoking or second hand smoke for that matter.

I'm not saying that that is in fact the case but when they give an exact number like that it would be interesting to know if any of those people might have gotten cancer even if they had never been around second hand smoke the majority of their life.

In the end none of this changes the fact that smoking is a gross habit but at the end of the day smokers do in fact have the right and freedom to make that decision if they choose...at least in or on their own property since in our life time I'm guessing it will be banned everywhere else.

 

[bell110]

To the people who are pro-smoking indoors: Just think of the smoking ban as part of health and safty laws that establishments have to abide to. Do you think restaurants and bars should be able to be unsanitary if they wanted to?

 

[bell110]

Double.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not pro-smoking indoors as much as I am anti-being a whiney little wimp about a little bit of smoke. Also, I'm pro-minding your own damn business.

 

[Addendum]

The latter part is asking too much of your fellow Americans. Except for me, since I don't give a damn what my neighbor does.

 

[Figs]

To the people who are pro-smoking indoors: Just think of the smoking ban as part of health and safty laws that establishments have to abide to. Do you think restaurants and bars should be able to be unsanitary if they wanted to?

Restaurants are understandable, there is food being served as well as familys eating there. When it comes to bars, if the owner of the bar says it's ok to smoke in his establishment, he shouldn't be forced to have to ban it.

As someone already mentioned, there should be bars that allow smoking for smokers, which there are a lot of. That way the non smokers can go to other bars that have banned it and not have to worry.

 

[SuperFerret]

Basically it comes down to this: If something bothers/offends/annoys you, that's on you, you choose to be bothered/offended/annoyed.

 

[terry78]

Back on topic about the kids, I have a female family member that takes her baby with her wherever she goes...I mean to the movies, to clubs, whatever. She says she "doesn't trust anyone else with her child." I don't know if this mindset is prevalent amongst a lot of chicks or what, but hey.

 

[SuperFerret]

Well, I can buy that. I mean, a newborn makes a pretty good meal and they're easy to catch and kill, so I can see why a female wouldn't want to leave the infant alone.

Oh, wait... we're talking humans, right? Nevermind.

 

[Batman713]

I do feel bad for smokers. I think it's idiocy that the government should be able to ban smoking inside of someone else's property and furthermore that the thing which they are banning is perfectly legal anyway.

I used to smoke and I felt that way before I still feel that way. That kind of friendly to "Everyone" ban that forces small groups of people out against the owner's choice is the kind of fascism America should be afraid of.

I know that'll get a laugh but I'm serious. In my hometown the "upper" part of town is in support of a bill that would prevent people from wearing black, red, or yellow clothing at night. They say it's to help prevent gang related violence but all it'll do is make me harass people at night for wearing a goddamn Spongebob Shirt.

/rant.

Do you always play devil's advocate to arguments on SHH or are you just always against the majority consensus?

 

[bell110]

I'm not pro-smoking indoors as much as I am anti-being a whiney little wimp about a little bit of smoke. Also, I'm pro-minding your own damn business.

I'm against whining too, and smokers can stop being a whining little wimp about having to go outside to smoke.

Restaurants are understandable, there is food being served as well as familys eating there. When it comes to bars, if the ownerof the bar says it's ok to smoke in his establishment, he shouldn't be forced to have to ban it.

As someone already mentioned, there should be bars that allow smoking for smokers, which there are a lot of. That way the non smokers can go to other bars that have banned it and not have to worry.

Bars sell food too. And what about the owners of restaurants get to choose how sanitary their restuarant is? After all, it's their business, if they want to use the same knife to cut raw meat and to cut fresh vegetables, they should have that right.

And if smokers what a place to smoke, they can invite their friends over to there house and smoke there, just like pot smokers do.

 

[terry78]

This argument will just go in circles. Everyone wants their way.

 

[Figs]

I'm against whining too, and smokers can stop being a whining little wimp about having to go outside to smoke.

I don't have any problems about going outside to smoke(when I did smoke).

Bars sell food too. And what about the owners of restaurants get to choose how sanitary their restuarant is? After all, it's their business, if they want to use the same knife to cut raw meat and to cut fresh vegetables, they should have that right.

And if smokers what a place to smoke, they can invite their friends over to there house and smoke there, just like pot smokers do.

Just like non smokers can have friends come over their house to drink.

You see, if the few bars out there that do in fact serve food, then I agree that they shouldn't allow smoking inside. Most bars I've been in though(in CA at least)don't serve food, only a really small percentage did. I'm talking about real bars of course, not the bar "area" in an Applebees or some other restaurant. Now maybe that's just in CA but if there is no food served I don't see a problem with the owner allowing smoking.

Just for arguments sake your saying that an owner of a restaurant should be able to have the right to cut vegetables with the same knife he used to cut raw meat? That's a food violation. Now while inhaling smoke, whether first hand or second hand is also bad for your health and dangerous, food violations are a whole other ballgame and have been set in motion way before all the smoking bans came in place.

All I'm saying is that having non smoking bars is entirely fine but I think some of the owners out their should be able to choose to allow smoking if they want. If you don't smoke, then just don't go to those bars since I'm sure there would be plenty of bars to choose from that have the ban.

 

[Kelly]

Good lord, no....no kiddos at my pub. I get pissed enough when my ex-students come either with a fake ID or they are actually of age. Just not cool...

 

[ChickenScratch]

Back on topic about the kids, I have a female family member that takes her baby with her wherever she goes...I mean to the movies, to clubs, whatever. She says she "doesn't trust anyone else with her child." I don't know if this mindset is prevalent amongst a lot of chicks or what, but hey.

Movies? Clubs? Oh there's nothing worse than going to the movies and there's a kid there. Like the time the wife and I went to see Friday the 13th and somebody thought it would be cute to bring their kid.

Either way, there are places I (and many others) think kids don't belong, bars and clubs being among those. My sisters have kids, as do both my brothers. They watch each other's kids or drop them off at my place. If they want to have time to do things as adults and "don't trust people with their kids" then I guess their family members must be all on crack or something.

 

[bell110]

Just like non smokers can have friends come over their house to drink.

You see, if the few bars out there that do in fact serve food, then I agree that they shouldn't allow smoking inside. Most bars I've been in though(in CA at least)don't serve food, only a really small percentage did. I'm talking about real bars of course, not the bar "area" in an Applebees or some other restaurant. Now maybe that's just in CA but if there is no food served I don't see a problem with the owner allowing smoking.

Just for arguments sake your saying that an owner of a restaurant should be able to have the right to cut vegetables with the same knife he used to cut raw meat? That's a food violation. Now while inhaling smoke, whether first hand or second hand is also bad for your health and dangerous, food violations are a whole other ballgame and have been set in motion way before all the smoking bans came in place.

All I'm saying is that having non smoking bars is entirely fine but I think some of the owners out their should be able to choose to allow smoking if they want. If you don't smoke, then just don't go to those bars since I'm sure there would be plenty of bars to choose from that have the ban.

Well, that's my point. People say it should be the owner's choice. Well, then it should be the owners choice to do anything, really.

Yes, in my area, every bar sells food, albeit, it's just frozen pizza or hotdogs. But there are still standards that they have to follow to keep their customers safe.

And there was no such thing as a smoke free bar in my area until it became law. There was no reason for anyone to make their bar anti-smoking if the one down the street permited it. Now it is really noticable. Whenever I go to a smoking bar outstate, it's amazing how bad it is. And when someone from out of state accidentally lights one up, people look at them like they just took a dump on the floor.

 

[Addendum]

With the "smoke free bars" existing before an ordinance was passed, that's your area. In other areas, there probably were.

As for the owner's "choice to do anything", yes they do. The owner has the choice to discriminate with whom they hire/fire. However, they run the risk of facing a lawsuit if they do discriminate. The owner of a restaurant has the choice to follow the health guidelines in the kitlchen or not. However, they run the risk of fines or even being closed if the violations are egregious and/or do not improve before the next review.

So while the owner has the choice, that does not mean they are free from consequences.

 

[Wylie Times]

Restaurants are understandable, there is food being served as well as familys eating there. When it comes to bars, if the owner of the bar says it's ok to smoke in his establishment, he shouldn't be forced to have to ban it.

As someone already mentioned, there should be bars that allow smoking for smokers, which there are a lot of. That way the non smokers can go to other bars that have banned it and not have to worry.

completely agree...and I say this as someone who can't stand to be around someone who is smoking. Long as smokers got their own little personal areas to go and get their cancery goodness I don't care.