- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mandeville to consider banning smoking in bars
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:15 pm to DudeK2
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:15 pm to DudeK2
quote:
Good, it's disgusting
Then don't go to said bars who allow smoking. If I want to open a bar and target it to smokers, why should I not legally be allowed to do that? It's just as nonsensical to me to ban sports and gay bars as concepts. Don't like gay bars, then don't go to them.
0
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:18 pm to LSU Fan 90812
how have people gotten pussified so fast? Listening to some of you in this thread you'd think that second hand smoke was akin to mustard gas. I love how you selectively refer to the rights of the non smokers as opposed to the rights of the fricking BAR OWNER which is really what this boils down to. The rights of a business/property owner vs little tyrant bitches like yourself who don't want to smell a wittle smoke
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:19 pm to Honky Lips
This only makes since. According to this article, in 2015.. 17% of the US population smokes.
LINK
Honestly, I thought it would be a little bit higher, but I guess when you think about it, that might be accurate. Anyway, let's say you are in a restaurant that has 100 people in it.. 17 of those people smoke. They are filling up the area with cigarette smoke, non-smokers are choking and just hate the smell or the idea of leaving out of there smelling like an ashtray. Why should the business allow 17% of the people do something that 83% of the people prefer to not be around? Especially when that 17% can easily go outside and smoke?
LINK
Honestly, I thought it would be a little bit higher, but I guess when you think about it, that might be accurate. Anyway, let's say you are in a restaurant that has 100 people in it.. 17 of those people smoke. They are filling up the area with cigarette smoke, non-smokers are choking and just hate the smell or the idea of leaving out of there smelling like an ashtray. Why should the business allow 17% of the people do something that 83% of the people prefer to not be around? Especially when that 17% can easily go outside and smoke?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:19 pm to efrad
quote:
So you think people should be able to smoke indoors on their own property?
Yes
quote:
What if they invite other people over to hang out and watch a football game? Should they still be able to smoke on their own property then?
Yes
quote:
What if they're feeling so nice that they tell their friends they can bring anyone over they want to watch this game? Should smoking on their own property be illegal then?
Yes
quote:
At what point does a bar because "not your property"?
When you're operating a business open to the public
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:20 pm to Comp721
quote:
At what point does a bar because "not your property"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you're operating a business open to the public
Still their property
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:20 pm to RogerTheShrubber
But you have to adhere to certain safety standards when running a business
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:22 pm to OweO
quote:
Why should the business allow 17% of the people do something that 83% of the people prefer to not be around?
Well that's up to the fricking business owner. It's like saying "only 33% of people are into football, so why should a business do something that 66% prefer not to be around?" Well the 66% can leave the bar, go somewhere else, and then let the market speak for itself.
This post was edited on 6/25/17 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:23 pm to RogerTheShrubber
You're right. Just assumed rural LA was going to be predominantly R.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:23 pm to Comp721
And bars that allow smoking have to pay higher insurance premiums. Again, that is a choice that the OWNER gets to make; whether he wants to operate a bar that allows smoking (risking losing the non smoking clients as well as the higher premiums) or whether he wants to go smokeless. Why do we need the government telling him it HAS to be option 2
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:24 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
okay. a gun owner should be able to sell a gun to a child. a blind child. a blind child who has an unnecessary muscle spasm on his index (re: trigger finger).
Somehow y'all keep coming up with even more ridiculous examples to try and compare it to
like wtf that is so far outta left field quote:
regulations exist. businesses aren't monarchies.
I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't. But just because one regulation is viable doesn't mean that we should regulate everything. stop arguing in extremes.
quote:
you're not understanding. you have a choice to not notice that i'm not smoking. i have NO choice to notice that you're not smoking.
No you don't understand. You'll never notice someone smoking if you don't go to places that allow smoking.
quote:
smoking infringes on the rights and person of others. non-smoking does not.
What right? You don't have a right to be in a business
quote:
your smoking affects you and everyone else around you whether they choose to smoke or not. my non-smoking affects me and only me.
None of those people are forced to go into that bar. They can all choose to a plentiful amount of options that don't allow smoking
quote:
and we do have different standards of health. and that standard of health for what happens in a public place is changing. so:
Private businesses are not a public place.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:27 pm to Comp721
quote:
But you have to adhere to certain safety standards when running a business
Are standards always right? How do you feel about Blue Laws? The Drug War?
This post was edited on 6/25/17 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:27 pm to wildtigercat93
Yeah apparently smoking in bars is comparable to selling firearms to blind one-legged children with quick trigger fingers.
Mental Gymnastics Event:
Gold Medal-commy's
Mental Gymnastics Event:
Gold Medal-commy's
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:28 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
You're right. Just assumed rural LA was going to be predominantly R.
This thread has a good mix of Social Cons and ProgFascists.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:29 pm to Big_Slim
quote:
Why do we need the government telling him it HAS to be option 2
It's all part of a larger plan to ultimately eliminate smoking in America. It's a health epidemic that has steadily been mitigated by bans on cigarette commercials, warnings on cigarette boxes, taxes on cigarettes, and now smoking bans. Get used to it.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:30 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
hospital = used to be okay, not anymore.
a hospital is a place for people to go to receiver care for medical issues
quote:
airplanes = used to be okay, not anymore.
airplanes and airports are places for long distance travel
quote:
restaurants = used to be okay, not anymore.
restaurants are places people go to eat
quote:
bars (everywhere else in the U.S.) = used to be okay, not anymore.
bars are places to go to drink and smoke
can't understand why you don't see the difference
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:32 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Still their property
When the state affords them a license to operate a bar and serve alcohol, they can place restrictions on the operation under that license as a regulation of commerce. It's really not that hard to understand. If you don't want to comply, the state can simply deny the license.
And before the whole, this is a city not a state argument comes up, full faith and credit is afforded to the regulations put in place by municipalities by the state, so long as they do not conflict with state or federal law.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:34 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
When the state affords them a license to operate a bar and serve alcohol, they can place restrictions on the operation under that license as a regulation of commerce. It's really not that hard to understand. If you don't want to comply, the state can simply deny the license.
And before the whole, this is a city not a state argument comes up, full faith and credit is afforded to the regulations put in place by municipalities by the state, so long as they do not conflict with state or federal law.
no one is saying that the government doesn't have the legal authority to place such restrictions.
people are saying that the government shouldn't enact such restrictions because they're morally overreaching on the freedoms of business owners and their patrons.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:34 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
When the state affords them a license to operate a bar and serve alcohol, they can place restrictions on the operation under that license as a regulation of commerce. It's really not that hard to understand.
Are you denying it's their property? Because that was the discussion. Or are you just pretending to follow along?
quote:
full faith and credit is afforded to the regulations put in place by municipalities by the state, so long as they do not conflict with state or federal law.
So it's your opinion everyone should just go along with all regulations and never object?
No one's arguing that the city cannot regulate.
This post was edited on 6/25/17 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:37 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Well that's up to the fricking business owner. It's like saying "only 33% of people are into football, so why should a business do something that 66% prefer not to be around?" Well the 66% can leave the bar, go somewhere else, and then let the market speak for itself.
As a businessman I would be trying to maximize my profits. If I have multiple TVs in my establishment, I am able to cater to the 33% of the people who are into football without disrupting the other 66%. You can't get lung cancer from being around a TV with football on.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 1:38 pm to Comp721
quote:
It's all part of a larger plan to ultimately eliminate smoking in America. It's a health epidemic that has steadily been mitigated by bans on cigarette commercials, warnings on cigarette boxes, taxes on cigarettes, and now smoking bans. Get used to it.
Congratulations on that great victory. Whenever a business owner loses some of the ability to run his establishment as he sees fit we all move forward as a society as long as your team wins right?
I wonder how you would feel about obesity laws in the future that would similarly limit personal freedom all in the name of abating a "health epidemic."
Page 11 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News