Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Smoking ban Options · View
scooter
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:08:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
Jebru wrote:
I didn't really see a question in your rant Scooter. I was willing to leave it at the fact that you seem to have a drastically different experience than myself and others I have talked to when it comes to bars surviving past a smoking ban. Here in Windsor where unemployment is high, the bars are full on a weekend, even after the students have gone home for the summer. Same with back home in Waterloo. Hell, back there they seem to keep opening up bigger bars.

The same people who keep track of the previous laws will keep track of the current ones, and as revisions come along, they will do what they've done for hundreds, if not thousands of years. They will take note, and adjust accordingly. The reason they do it? Because it's their job to protect the citizens and preserve law and order.

Life's Been Good was an ok song, but I'd much prefer to listen to Thorogood sing about Bourbon Scotch and Beer; Joe Cocker sing about a little help from his friends, or even a letter; or even John Lee Hooker going Boom Boom Boom Boom. How's that for a little old school for you?


You might be right about the "Rant" part Jebrue,
but cha know what,,?
When I do go to a bar, I don't go there to criticize folks, no matter what they are doing.
I go there to mind my own business,,,,,,,
DirtyMartini
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:32:15 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,790
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
latinfoxy wrote:


So the percentage is NOT fewer, so if you are gonna banned something because its better for the most ppl cars should be way up higher on that list than smocking.


If you were going to ban things based on the percentage of people who died as a result of using them, quite a few things would get banned before smoking...

For instance...

(2006 - alcohol deaths) "In 2006, a total of 22,073 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome."

(2007 - alcohol deaths) "In 2007, a total of 23,199 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States, 1,126 more deaths than in 2006."

Source: Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009, p, 11.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2007. National vital statistics reports; vol 58 no 19. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010. p. 11.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdff

Then of course, there would be motorcycles, guns, fattening foods...

The list goes on...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

DirtyMartini
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:36:02 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,790
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
Then there was this headline a couple of years ago...

Experts fear scooter boom will result in more rider deaths
May 16, 2010|By Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
A new economy class of motor scooters made in Asia is showing up in big numbers on roads across the U.S., offering frugal and fun transportation yet also prompting concerns that increases in crashes might be around the corner.

So...maybe we should ban scooters...

Just saying...Regaeman Man


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

scooter
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:50:15 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
DirtyMartini wrote:
Then there was this headline a couple of years ago...

Experts fear scooter boom will result in more rider deaths
May 16, 2010|By Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
A new economy class of motor scooters made in Asia is showing up in big numbers on roads across the U.S., offering frugal and fun transportation yet also prompting concerns that increases in crashes might be around the corner.

So...maybe we should ban scooters...

Just saying...Regaeman Man


Hey Al,,,,
I resemble that remark.....
scooter
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:19:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
Garza wrote:
Cigarettes = bad for your health. cigarettes + banned = healthier people, and I don't have to walk behind some on the sidewalk, breathing smoke my way.
I say make it full on illegal, and in regards to the second post, about smokers not being treated like animals, any creature that willingly inhales poison, does not deserve free will lol
Sorry but smoking is just disgusting. It has no benefits


Hey Garza,
How bout you suck my cock, see how many benifits are in that,,,LOL,,Ha Ha Ha
Stay on the porch if you can't stand a little second hand smokeSword Fight
DirtyMartini
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:29:50 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,790
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
scooter wrote:

Hey Garza,
How bout you suck my cock, see how many benifits are in that,,,LOL,,Ha Ha Ha


What you trying to say about the guy Scooter...walks like a duck?

Or smokes like a duck???



You know, I thought quitting smoking might lower my insurance rates...

Then I find out that even the Geico gecko smokes these days...





You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

scooter
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:34:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio


Aff-lackRead it
DirtyMartini
Posted: Sunday, May 29, 2011 2:51:46 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,790
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
Hey Scooter...a little second hand smoke never hurt anyone...

Did it???




You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, May 30, 2011 8:14:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:

There is no mutually beneficial solution to the smoking indoors problem. Somebody is going to suffer. Be it the smokers, the non smokers, or the bartenders, with your air cleansing solution. Speaking of, I couldn't find a system to completely eliminate cigarette odors, but found a few that stopped just short of guaranteeing a smoke free environment. The only one with a price listed was $1400 and would do an area up to 1000 sq feet. So, for a decent sized bar, you would need three of those units, at a cost of $4200 for the bartender. That's quite an outlay of cash, just so that what, less than 25% of the customer base can still smoke indoors? If they make $2 per drink above the cost of the booze, that's 2100 drinks they need to sell just to cover the cost of the air filtration. Then they still need to cover the cost of labour, rent, utilities, advertising, and maintenance...


...As for freedom, I've made a similar argument to this on other threads, and I will make it again here. I can't just walk into a store and take the food I want. There are laws to stop me from doing that, protecting the store owner's right to earn a living, at the expense of my right to eat food. My rights are restricted, and yet I am still free. I'm not allowed to walk down the street, see an open lot, claim it as mine and build. There are laws to protect the rights of landowners at the expense of my right to have a home of my own, and yet I am still free. I am free to find my way under the law of the land. I'm free to fight the laws I don't agree with. I'm even free to break the laws I don't agree with, in protest, though I will face punishment for doing so. But not being allowed to rape, kill, and steal, does not in any way hinder my overall freedom, nor does whether or not I am allowed to smoke in a building I do not own.


Where are the laws that protect a bar or restaurant owner's right to run his business as he sees fit? Why not leave it up to the business owner whether or not he wants to ban smoking in his business? Every customer run out of his bar by second-hand smoke represents lost revenue - why not let him decide if he wants to lose that revenue or not? Why not let him decide if he wants to invest in air handling equipment or not? These units have lifespans of five to ten years. Amortize the cost of $5000 worth of clean air over ten years - you'll find the cost becomes a lot more reasonable, especially if the bar owner can advertise that both smokers AND non-smokers will be welcome.

Rembacher
Posted: Monday, May 30, 2011 9:28:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Yes Nudes, from an accounting standpoint the $5000 is affordable when you use straight-line depreciation to amortize it at $500 per year for ten years. Unfortunately, the air purification company wants its money all up front. Which has been my point on that all along. There's a difference between cash accounting and financial accounting. The bar still has to come up with $5000 for a lump sum payment regardless of how the books say it was handled.

Somewhere between 80 and 85 percent of Canadians and Americans do not smoke, and yet for whatever reason, a vast majority, if not all bars, allowed their patrons to smoke inside prior to laws being enacted to forbid it. So non-smokers, the majority, were left with the choice of putting up with the smoke, or staying home. Not liking either of those options, and seeing little will from the bars to service their market, they pushed for the governments to do it for them.

What in your experience has led you to believe that bar owners will bother this time around to accommodate non-smokers? Who will pay for the market research the bars must then do to decide whether they should focus on the smoking, or non-smoking market? How do you convince the non-smokers to forget their memories of the stale stench of smoke, and try a smoking optional bar over a smoke free bar? And, if smoking is legal in some bars, is there a case for a discrimination lawsuit if you do not allow a person to smoke in your bars, since they would be breaking no laws?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, May 30, 2011 10:00:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
I've never owned a bar, so I don't know if they would make this choice or not. But it should be their choice, not legislated upon them from afar by a bunch of whiny old women. If they choose to install this equipment, and don't have the up-front cash, I'm sure they would find a way. People are inventive.

And as for a lawsuit... Every establishment can refuse service to anyone as long as their refusal isn't based on race. If I run a non-smoking bar, you can't smoke in it. Go over to the smokers' bar around the corner if you don't like it.

scooter
Posted: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:37:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
MrNudiePants wrote:
I've never owned a bar, so I don't know if they would make this choice or not. But it should be their choice, not legislated upon them from afar by a bunch of whiny old women. If they choose to install this equipment, and don't have the up-front cash, I'm sure they would find a way. People are inventive.

And as for a lawsuit... Every establishment can refuse service to anyone as long as their refusal isn't based on race. If I run a non-smoking bar, you can't smoke in it. Go over to the smokers' bar around the corner if you don't like it.


Well said MrNudiePants.
Plain and simple: It's my bar and I'll do what I want to.
If your a smoking prude, move on down the road, or sit there and shut the fuk up.

All this bar talk has me ready to head to the bar.
I got the first 3 rounds, clothing's optional, and I'll try not to burn ya with my cigarette.
See ya at Margaritaville
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:12:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
scooter wrote:

Well said MrNudiePants.
Plain and simple: It's my bar and I'll do what I want to.
If your a smoking prude, move on down the road, or sit there and shut the fuk up.

All this bar talk has me ready to head to the bar.
I got the first 3 rounds, clothing's optional, and I'll try not to burn ya with my cigarette.
See ya at Margaritaville


Does Jimmy Buffet stock Palm Ridge Reserve? 'Cause I'm well into my third glass, and these rocks are gettin' purty damn rocky...





scooter
Posted: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:05:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
MrNudiePants wrote:
[quote=scooter]
Does Jimmy Buffet stock Palm Ridge Reserve? 'Cause I'm well into my third glass, and these rocks are gettin' purty damn rocky...





Tell you what MrNudiePants,
If he doesn't, we can stop and pick up a fresh bottle. It looks to be a fine whiskey.
Of course I'll have to go in and get it, I don't think you could walk in the liquor store nude?
By the way dude, I enjoy reading your post. you seem well educated, and apparently put
great thought into what you write.
I have a tendency to get to drinking, and start shooting from the hip at times.
Maybe next they'll ban me from typing indoors, along with drinking, smoking, and cussing.
Anyways, every one should eat, drink, smoke, and have a great weekend....
cokeheadbarbie
Posted: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:44:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/4/2010
Posts: 163
Location: In the DJ Booth , United Kingdom
I like a ciggy with my martini but I know in north america its all "evil to smoke" and bla bla. In Europe everyone smokes and its no big deal. In america you have to hide it and smoke in the toilets or in the alley and look all embarressed that you arent wearing a patch and apologizing for it every 5 seconds. Why shud I apologize for it. If you dont like it then get out of my way. Thats how everyone used to do it but now everyone is scared of smoke and germs and stds. Its not fun anymore! Whatever happen to just having fun?!!

xx B.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:04:48 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397


Just watched this, reminded me of this thread. Enjoy.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:15:10 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Did you hear that they're going to be putting gross and disgusting pics on packs soon to discourage kids? Heh, would have made me more curious and I would have bought a pack sooner.
rxtales
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:55:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
chefkathleen wrote:
Did you hear that they're going to be putting gross and disgusting pics on packs soon to discourage kids? Heh, would have made me more curious and I would have bought a pack sooner.


Do they not do that in the states already?

Some of them are really off putting, it never stopped me from smoking when I did though.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:04:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Here's a sample of some, but not all, of the ones used on Canadian cigarette packs. And yes, Chef, it does have the opposite affect on some. I knew a few people who tried to collect the entire set.






rxtales
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:17:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Those aren´t all that bad. The one that I find really off putting is of a dead fetus, warning it´s harmful to smoke while pregnant. I have seen that one all over central/south America and Asia.

There´s one I find quite odd here. It has a picture of a dead mouse on it, and no written warning. I tried to find a picture of it, but couldn´t.
rxtales
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:22:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom


Found it! This one definitely wouldn´t encourage me to stop.

This is an interesting website. It shows the warnings in different countries.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/

Guest
Posted: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:37:36 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
I had no idea that other countries were doing that. Shows how long it's been since I've been out of my own.Embarassed

I've heard about a trach pic with smoke coming out of it and a autopsy pic from a cancer death. It's not for sure here yet. You know how wishy washy the citizens can be here.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:42:47 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Queensland, Australia
Smoking is prohibited in all pubs, clubs, restaurants and workplaces in Queensland, as well as in commercial outdoor eating and drinking areas and in outdoor public places (e.g., patrolled beaches, children's playground equipment, major sport stadiums, and within 4 meters of non-residential building entrances). Since 1 July 2006, premises holding a hotel, club or casino liquor licence can designate up to 50% of the outdoor liquor licensed area as a smoking and drinking area. In this area no food or drink can be served, no food can be consumed, no entertainment can be offered and there must be no gaming machines provided. A "buffer", which can be either a 2 metre wide area or a 2.1 metre high screen that is impervious to smoke, must be on the area's perimeter wherever it is adjacent to other parts of the outdoor area usually accessed by patrons. Premises that choose to have such an area must have a smoking management plan for the premises that complies with legislative requirements. For all other liquor licensed premises, and non-liquor licensed premises, from 1 July 2006 there is no smoking at any outdoor eating or drinking place. In May 2009 it was announced that smoking in cars where children under the age of 16 are present was banned and that the power to regulate smoking at pedestrian malls and public transport waiting points such as bus stops, taxi ranks and ferry wharves was transferred to local government.

The law regarding smoking with children in a vehicle also carries an on the spot fine of $250, something I agree with wholeheartedly.

We also have some of the most gruesome anti smoking photographs on the packaging. These never enticed me to give up smoking.

What did entice me, was seeing a friend whom I hadn't seen for six months. She had just given up smoking the last time I saw her. Six months later and smoke free, she looked a good five years younger, and could afford now a better shoe collection than me.
aalily
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 3:29:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 6/23/2011
Posts: 53
Location: London Baby!
I also fully support the smoking bans, and although a pain in the arse for some smokers, the consequences of them smoking could have much worse effects on others. People who smoke make a concious decision to, they know the risks involved and choose that they will take the risk and do it anyway. If they died from it, it would be down to a decision that they themselves made. For other people on the street, who have to breathe in the smoke, it is not their choice, a child should not have to breathe in second hand smoke! Not only is it detrimental to their health, it is disgusting to be around. I personally find it extremely selfish for some smokers to feel so put out that their is a smoking ban in place, just because they cant have a quick fag. You don't need it, it doesnt benefit your health in any way whatsoever, in fact quite the opposite. Think about other people who are around you! I couldn't care less if you want to smoke but don't do it around me, thanks!

You must give up the life that you had planned, in order to live the life that is waiting for you..
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 5:09:45 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
I don't wanna quit smoking and YOU are not gonna make me! Regaeman Man

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:20:01 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
I HAVE SMOKED FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND KNOW THAT AS A SMOKER WE DO NOT THINK IT SMELLS AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. WAS ALWAYS UPSET WHEN PEOPLE WOULD CONPLAIN ABOUT SMOKING. I HAVE NOW QUITE SMOKING FOR OVER A YEAR. i HAVE BECAME VERY SENSITIVE OF SMOKING AND CAN SMELL SMOKE WHEN WAKING NEAR SOMEONE WHO IS SMOKING SMELL SMOKE ON PEOPLE WHO WALK OUTSIDE AND COME BACK IN. AND I PERSONNELLY WE DON'T SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. TILL YOU QUITE YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND HOW UPSETTING THAT SMOKE IS TO A NON SMOKER








W
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:40:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
I don´t agree that this law was passed to force people to quit or control people´s freedom.
Common sense for a smoker is not the same as for a non smoker.

As an ex-smoker I can finally understand how uncomfortable and completely uncivil smoking is for people who do not smoke.
There are days, specially when I am enjoying a beer, that I think about smoking and how pleasurable of a habit it is.

However, I fully agree with this law.

The cold hard fact is that smoke is detrimental to anyone's heath - people who smoke know this and smoke anyway - which is cool. No one should have to endure someone else´s habit. People who chose to smoke do exactly that CHOSE to smoke.

Guys this is not very complicated - smoke somewhere where the smoke can leave the area it is in. No one needs to be hot boxed with cigarette smoke. right?








Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:05:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
The attack on smokers continues. Companies are now refusing to hire smokers. Why, you ask? It's all about the bottom line. Money. Don't be fooled about companies offering "Wellness Programs", they don't care about your health. They care about having to pay for your sizable future medical bills. One employer in Texas, Baylor Health Care system will no longer hire people who use tobacco. Anyone already employed but the company will not be terminated, they pay a yearly surcharge of $50. Next year that goes up to $650. BHC will also be spending $60k per year to screen employees for metabolized nicotine in their systems. Guess those employees better not go out to any smoking establisments and get too much second hand smoke. Or worse yet, live with a smoker. Could cost them their jobs. Here is that link....

Baylor Health Care




Not hiring because a person is a smoker? That's right, if you have an unhealthy habit.. no job for you. It's only a matter of time before the next unfavorable habit is going to be targeted. Overeating? Tanning? What's next? You have a history of cancer in your family, that's not cost effective for company XYZ so we will be unable to take you on board. Here at ABC Inc, we're incorporating a new Wellness Program. Being healthy and active leads to longer life. So we are going to screen your blood for chlosterol and other things. If you aren't in shape and are a walking heart attack waiting to happen, we won't be able to hire you. We only hire healthy vegetarians who drink nothing but water.

Another article on the subject....


USA Today

Employees of Maricopa County, Az are being nicotine tested. Private companies doing this is one thing, but when government gets involved, that's an endrun around the law. IMO





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:18:09 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,211
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
I just finished an economics course as part of my BSN studies. Interestingly enough part of one of my lectures talked of how companies ultimately tend to do the 'right' thing and are innovative on their own without government influence. Outside consumer pressure will lead to changes. So why cant the government stopping tring to regulate us into their image of what we 'should' be doing?

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:01:12 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
naughtynurse wrote:
I just finished an economics course as part of my BSN studies. Interestingly enough part of one of my lectures talked of how companies ultimately tend to do the 'right' thing and are innovative on their own without government influence. Outside consumer pressure will lead to changes. So why cant the government stopping tring to regulate us into their image of what we 'should' be doing?


I guess it would depend on the specific examples, but I have a very hard time believing that companies can be counted on to do the "right" thing on their own, and to me, the story given above is a prime example. Left to their own devices, that is a company that has made the decision that it will discriminate on the basis of personal habits, regardless of the fact that the habit would not be practiced in, or during, the job itself, nor is it illegal or mentally impairing.

I know the theory is that consumers and workers would provide the counter-pressure to steer companies in the right direction, but everyone that really thinks that consumers will bother boycotting a company based on an HR policy such as this, or that employees would threaten to leave gainful employment or protest vocally, please raise your hands....anyone? I didn't think so. The absense of immense pressure doesn't validate a company's actions.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.