It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Better roll your windows up!(107 posts)(107 posts)
(107 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Let me be clear, in my city of over one million people, despite having the highest per capita bars/restaurant/strip club amount per capita, there were virtually no places to attend where you wouldn't smell like an ashtray by the end of the evening.
avatar
keeveek: Voting over private places is sick. It's just like I and my friend voted how should you paint your walls in your house or restaurant or which car should you buy.

I am a strict non-smoker, but I see forcing private owners to do something against their business interest is something I wouldn't ever choose over my own convenience or health. I wouldn't want to be told by strangers how should I run my business.

That's all I'm gonna say :P
avatar
JAAHAS: If you haven't noticed even a coal miner's working conditions have improved as the society have progressed forwards.
avatar
keeveek: Your statement about smoke in bars was just like you would say workers in coal mines should work in coal free environment.
Pubs were smoked in most places, so saying banning smoke is ok because it's for employees health is like saying banning coal is good for coal miners work.

But yeah, it's good when employed pub worker gets unemployed, because tons of smokers go elsewhere (bigger pubs that have separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers) instead of small pub that HAS TO BE non-smokers only and is almost empty now.

Let me clarify. "we" banned smoking in pubs in Poland unless you have separate rooms. And as you may guess easily, bigger and richer (as usual) could afford making separate rooms and they have the most amount of people now.

Small bars that are strictly non-smoking, because they can't aford expanding on two separate rooms, had to sack most of their staff due to lack of customers (how come?! people wanted non smoking pubs!!!), and it's more difficult to start a bar now, because you have to meet strict regulations and your non-smoking customers have smoking friends, so they won't go to your place anyway.

Oh yeah, market is a bitch.
We vote to restrict businesses all the time as otherwise they would dump even more waste on the rivers or not plan properly how to evacuate customers and workers in case of a fire.

One reason to completely ban smoking in bars is the fact that sooner or later the manager is going to order someone to go clean the smoking rooms or retrieve empty glasses there and the waitresses are compelled to obey or risk being the first ones to be laid off when the business slows down. There are professions that are difficult to make totally safe, but that is no reason to limit unnecessary risks in others.

About the smoking friends choosing the pub; I can't understand why any non-smoker would like to be exposed to smoke just to please addicts that are clearly not concerned about your health, but that is also a case of nobody "forcing" anyone to do anything yet people choose poorly and the society has to pay the bill or limit smoking even more.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
JAAHAS: About the smoking friends choosing the pub; I can't understand why any non-smoker would like to be exposed to smoke just to please addicts that are clearly not concerned about your health, but that is also a case of nobody "forcing" anyone to do anything yet people choose poorly and the society has to pay the bill or limit smoking even more.
But they do. They choose to stay with their smoking friends in smoker's clubs instead of not having friends at all :P

If a bar has separate smoking and non-smoking rooms (with good ventilation of course), non smoking rooms are almost empty...

In non-smoking only pubs smokers smoke outside, and that's the primary difference :P
Post edited October 04, 2012 by keeveek
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
JAAHAS: About the smoking friends choosing the pub; I can't understand why any non-smoker would like to be exposed to smoke just to please addicts that are clearly not concerned about your health, but that is also a case of nobody "forcing" anyone to do anything yet people choose poorly and the society has to pay the bill or limit smoking even more.
avatar
keeveek: But they do. They choose to stay with their smoking friends in smoker's clubs instead of not having friends at all :P

If a bar has separate smoking and non-smoking rooms (with good ventilation of course), non smoking rooms are almost empty...

In non-smoking only pubs smokers smoke outside, and that's the primary difference :P
And as I said, that will eventually prompt the society to limit smoking even more so that at least those non-smokers that don't wish to stand in the rain will at least occasionally stay inside the pubs and let the smokers get wet outside. The next move could be to ban smoking near entrances as that exposes those standing in line to get in.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
JAAHAS: The next move could be to ban smoking near entrances as that exposes those standing in line to get in.
That's actually occurred here in BC. It's illegal to smoke within a certain distance of an entryway to a public building. Can't recall the distance offhand. I think it's 3 meters.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
Coelocanth: That's actually occurred here in BC. It's illegal to smoke within a certain distance of an entryway to a public building. Can't recall the distance offhand. I think it's 3 meters.
And that seems excessive to me. It is not such a problem in my town but where do people smoke in a densely populated area like Vancouver, where entrances are all within 3 meters of each other, in the middle of the street? It's as if someone is trying to legislatively bully people into quitting.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: And that seems excessive to me. It is not such a problem in my town but where do people smoke in a densely populated area like Vancouver, where entrances are all within 3 meters of each other, in the middle of the street? It's as if someone is trying to legislatively bully people into quitting.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I'm a non-smoker so this doesn't affect me, but I often wonder where the hell people are supposed to go to light up, as you noted.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Let me be clear, in my city of over one million people, despite having the highest per capita bars/restaurant/strip club amount per capita, there were virtually no places to attend where you wouldn't smell like an ashtray by the end of the evening.
avatar
keeveek: Voting over private places is sick. It's just like I and my friend voted how should you paint your walls in your house or restaurant or which car should you buy.

I am a strict non-smoker, but I see forcing private owners to do something against their business interest is something I wouldn't ever choose over my own convenience or health. I wouldn't want to be told by strangers how should I run my business.

That's all I'm gonna say :P
This shit happens all the fucking time, you not only accept it, you prefer it. You simply don't think about it. Businesses are required to serve you potable (i.e. safe to drink) water and maintain minimum cleanliness levels in their kitchen. Certain types of food cannot be served. Instead of you having to be sick and sue (or your estate sue should you die) we, as a society, vote preemptively to tell them how to operate. Likewise we tell them, as part of zoning, when they can be open, we tell shops that sell certain items (e.g. porn, guns, etc.) to whom they may sell.

While you're right, you do want to limit this to only the most desirable things, we do tell people how to run their private businesses. The idea we shouldn't is "sick".
avatar
JAAHAS: About the smoking friends choosing the pub; I can't understand why any non-smoker would like to be exposed to smoke just to please addicts that are clearly not concerned about your health, but that is also a case of nobody "forcing" anyone to do anything yet people choose poorly and the society has to pay the bill or limit smoking even more.
Let's just ignore the health aspects for a moment, it goddamn stinks, I'd rather get dutch ovened than have to smell thick smoke (flavored pipe smoke is often pleasant, but cheap cigarettes, no way!).

Seriously, smokers are basically demanding the equivalent of being able to fart right in my face everywhere I try to go. If there was balance, i.e. a relatively good amount of both types of places to go, then good enough, I wouldn't care much. In practice there was literally no place to go in the end, and that fucking sucked. It's also why the reaction was as high as it was, in the end, the people who'd been pushed around for so long snapped and at times they weren't kind in retaliation.
avatar
JAAHAS: The next move could be to ban smoking near entrances as that exposes those standing in line to get in.
avatar
Coelocanth: That's actually occurred here in BC. It's illegal to smoke within a certain distance of an entryway to a public building. Can't recall the distance offhand. I think it's 3 meters.
It's illegal here too, 10 feet from any doorway into a business is the minimum clearance.
Post edited October 04, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: ...rather get dutch ovened ...
I'm not familiar with this phrase, but it did make me laugh out loud.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: ...rather get dutch ovened ...
avatar
Coelocanth: I'm not familiar with this phrase, but it did make me laugh out loud.
A dutch oven is when you pin the blankets over you and someone else (usually a sibling or a SO) and fart. It's the height of mature humor and never results in a quarrel.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: A dutch oven is when you pin the blankets over you and someone else (usually a sibling or a SO) and fart. It's the height of mature humor and never results in a quarrel.
Okay, now THAT I'm familiar with (my younger brother even moreso... heh), but had no idea that's what it was called.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: This shit happens all the fucking time, you not only accept it, you prefer it. You simply don't think about it. Businesses are required to serve you potable (i.e. safe to drink) water and maintain minimum cleanliness levels in their kitchen. Certain types of food cannot be served. Instead of you having to be sick and sue (or your estate sue should you die) we, as a society, vote preemptively to tell them how to operate. Likewise we tell them, as part of zoning, when they can be open, we tell shops that sell certain items (e.g. porn, guns, etc.) to whom they may sell.

While you're right, you do want to limit this to only the most desirable things, we do tell people how to run their private businesses. The idea we shouldn't is "sick".
I'd like to raise an issue with all the examples stated above.

They are all about minimising the harm the business can do to customers who don't know that they might not be getting safe water, safe food, appropriate content without those laws.

What is being discussed is harm one group of customers is doing to another, where the latter knowingly subjects themselves to it unnecessarily.

My job is undesirable (bores the life out of me). Am I entitled to a more interesting job? No.
Equally, you are not entitled to a smoke-free bar.
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
xyem: What is being discussed is harm one group of customers is doing to another, where the latter knowingly subjects themselves to it unnecessarily.
I'm just sorry, but acting like it's a choice to not go anywhere where there was smoking (back in the 90s) is about like acting like black people had a choice to not go to establishments that discriminated back in the 50s.

That's not a real choice. As it stands, people can bloody well smoke fine at bars, many even have covered patio areas for just this purpose. There was never going to be a "both sides win" solution and the "free market" had totally failed to provide any kind of solution, that's when its 100% our right as society to ask ourselves if we need to simply make a inviolate rule about it.
Post edited October 04, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted October 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: As it stands, people can bloody well smoke fine at bars, many even have covered patio areas for just this purpose. There was never going to be a "both sides win" solution
Actually I think that is about as close to a both sides win scenario as it can get. Even when I was a smoker I preferred to step outside rather than visit that stuffy indoor smoking section.
Posted October 05, 2012
avatar
xyem: What is being discussed is harm one group of customers is doing to another, where the latter knowingly subjects themselves to it unnecessarily.
avatar
orcishgamer: I'm just sorry, but acting like it's a choice to not go anywhere where there was smoking (back in the 90s) is about like acting like black people had a choice to not go to establishments that discriminated back in the 50s.
Smoking has nothing to do with racism. White only shops were not business wise.

If everybody around had white-only shops I would GLADLY open a shop for everybody, because every black person in the neighbourhood would be my customer. Instant cash for me.

If there's such big number of non-smokers who can't stand being in smoke, running a smoke-free restaurant or pub should be affordable. Somehow, when it wasn't forced by law, smoke-free pubs went bankrupt pretty fast.

It's a forced change that has no coverage in demand on smoke-free pubs. I don't know how it's that, maybe because people feel entitled to everything nowadays. Because when they have a choice between smoke-free pub and a smokers pub, non-smokers go to smokers pubs more often than to smoke-free ones. Mostly because their friends smoke. So the health is less important to them than socializing. But yet they love to force owners to run the business differently.

It's more like "we want to force our friends to go with us to a smoke-free pubs!!!" instead of need for a healthy environment.

It's like with eco-terrorists who don't give a fuck about nature unless there is some protest and trees to chain themselves to.
Post edited October 05, 2012 by keeveek
Posted October 05, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: I'm just sorry, but acting like it's a choice to not go anywhere where there was smoking (back in the 90s) is about like acting like black people had a choice to not go to establishments that discriminated back in the 50s.
Black people were receiving a different service (always worse, I would imagine) to the "preferred" customers. As a non-smoker, the bar provides you the exact same service they provide everyone else.

Black people couldn't start their own non-discriminating establishments because they were not in a free market (discriminated against when trying to start a business). As a non-smoker, you are more than capable of starting a non-smoking bar.[1]

Seriously, if you are going to bring such an emotional charged and irrelevant argument to this discussion, then I will point out that you are advocating discrimination thusly:
Black people had to sit at the back of the bus.
Smokers have to stand outside.

[1]As a bit of an aside, I found out there is a "Black Entertainment Awards" the other day which is an awards ceremony for black music artists only. While it irks me somewhat that there would be an uproar if there was a white-only musician awards, it is a demonstration that they used the free market they now have access to, to fix a problem.

avatar
orcishgamer: That's not a real choice. As it stands, people can bloody well smoke fine at bars, many even have covered patio areas for just this purpose. There was never going to be a "both sides win" solution and the "free market" had totally failed to provide any kind of solution, that's when its 100% our right as society to ask ourselves if we need to simply make a inviolate rule about it.
There is a "both sides win" solution. Non-smokers start up and go to non-smokers bars. The free market didn't fail to provide a solution, all the non-smokers who wanted a non-smokers bar did.

It is not the governments place to give you a luxury that you could sort out for yourselves.

EDIT: Just asked a smoker what he thought of the smoking ban and he said it was great and "made it less minging". Then I asked him why he didn't just go to a non-smokers bar and he pulled a face. Errr.. WTF?
Post edited October 05, 2012 by xyem
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Better roll your windows up!(107 posts)(107 posts)
(107 posts)