Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
nannystatesucks
()
Date: December 10, 2011 03:51PM
One night out in a bar can cause permanent hearing loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm anyone. Yet why do I have to act like an adult and choose to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but the state can tell a bar they cannot allow smoking? Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to smoking bars rather than banning smoking when they still can sell dangerous alcohol, play damagingly music???
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
MisterSpookey
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:12PM
nannystatesucks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One night out in a bar can cause permanent hearing
> loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm anyone.
> Yet why do I have to act like an adult and choose
> to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but the
> state can tell a bar they cannot allow smoking?
> Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> smoking bars rather than banning smoking when they
> still can sell dangerous alcohol, play damagingly
> music???
wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-------------------------------------------------------
> One night out in a bar can cause permanent hearing
> loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm anyone.
> Yet why do I have to act like an adult and choose
> to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but the
> state can tell a bar they cannot allow smoking?
> Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> smoking bars rather than banning smoking when they
> still can sell dangerous alcohol, play damagingly
> music???
wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
not a nanny state
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:18PM
VA isnt a nanny state. Smoking was banned more for the people that work there that dont smoke. I see why they did it although I dont agree with the state tell them they had too.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
Vanannystate
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:30PM
Virginis banned smoking because of all the libtards in Nova and a libtard governor, Kaine. They announced the smoking ban at LIberty Tavern in Arlington, which is owned by an antismoking bigot.
MisterSpookey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nannystatesucks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> hearing
> > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> anyone.
> > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> choose
> > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but
> the
> > state can tell a bar they cannot allow smoking?
> > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> > smoking bars rather than banning smoking when
> they
> > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> damagingly
> > music???
>
> wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
MisterSpookey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nannystatesucks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> hearing
> > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> anyone.
> > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> choose
> > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but
> the
> > state can tell a bar they cannot allow smoking?
> > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> > smoking bars rather than banning smoking when
> they
> > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> damagingly
> > music???
>
> wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
MisterSpookey
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:32PM
You don't agree with the state disallowing others from doing things that kill people? That seems odd.
I guess you wouldn't mind people rolling into your favorite bar and just randomly firing some guns? I mean people get shot all the time and don't die right away. Seems pretty analogous and equally retarded.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I guess you wouldn't mind people rolling into your favorite bar and just randomly firing some guns? I mean people get shot all the time and don't die right away. Seems pretty analogous and equally retarded.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
idiot
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:35PM
What do you think has caused more societal harm, second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet they banned smoking in bars but not the alcohol? And the drunk driving affects people who weren't even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by a drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and you can't prove anyone has ever died from second hand smoke. Which was banned?
Vanannystate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> libtards in Nova and a libtard governor, Kaine.
> They announced the smoking ban at LIberty Tavern
> in Arlington, which is owned by an antismoking
> bigot.
>
> MisterSpookey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> > hearing
> > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> > anyone.
> > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> > choose
> > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but
> > the
> > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> smoking?
> > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking when
> > they
> > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > damagingly
> > > music???
> >
> > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
Vanannystate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> libtards in Nova and a libtard governor, Kaine.
> They announced the smoking ban at LIberty Tavern
> in Arlington, which is owned by an antismoking
> bigot.
>
> MisterSpookey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> > hearing
> > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> > anyone.
> > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> > choose
> > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing, but
> > the
> > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> smoking?
> > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going to
> > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking when
> > they
> > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > damagingly
> > > music???
> >
> > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
Rec
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:39PM
Actually, it is probably the smokers themselves, rather than the smoke, that the law is targeted towards. Smokers are usually crude, rude, vulgar, and grotesque. They tend to frighten away the decent customers businesses rely on and try to attract and keep.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
stupid comparison
()
Date: December 10, 2011 08:44PM
MisterSpookey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't agree with the state disallowing others
> from doing things that kill people? That seems
> odd.
>
> I guess you wouldn't mind people rolling into your
> favorite bar and just randomly firing some guns? I
> mean people get shot all the time and don't die
> right away. Seems pretty analogous and equally
> retarded.
The only thing retarded is your comparison. Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a problem with the state telling a privately owned business that they cannot allow people to do a legal activity within their premise. If youre over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the private business wants to let you smoke inside they should be allowed too. They arent allowed to let people do things that are illegal.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't agree with the state disallowing others
> from doing things that kill people? That seems
> odd.
>
> I guess you wouldn't mind people rolling into your
> favorite bar and just randomly firing some guns? I
> mean people get shot all the time and don't die
> right away. Seems pretty analogous and equally
> retarded.
The only thing retarded is your comparison. Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a problem with the state telling a privately owned business that they cannot allow people to do a legal activity within their premise. If youre over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the private business wants to let you smoke inside they should be allowed too. They arent allowed to let people do things that are illegal.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
MisterSpookey
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:06PM
I need you point to a single article containing information on a drunk driving death that occurred in a bar.
They pretty much happen on the ROAD (so let's ban those) and it could argued the VEHICLE (whoops, I mean ban those) is the cause of death, not the bar or the alcohol.
Unless you can paste a link to an article of a drunk driving death where no vehicle was involved, then I would be mistaken.
idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think has caused more societal harm,
> second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> they banned smoking in bars but not the alcohol?
> And the drunk driving affects people who weren't
> even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by a
> drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and you
> can't prove anyone has ever died from second hand
> smoke. Which was banned?
>
> Vanannystate Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> > libtards in Nova and a libtard governor, Kaine.
> > They announced the smoking ban at LIberty
> Tavern
> > in Arlington, which is owned by an antismoking
> > bigot.
> >
> > MisterSpookey Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> > > hearing
> > > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> > > anyone.
> > > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> > > choose
> > > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing,
> but
> > > the
> > > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> > smoking?
> > > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going
> to
> > > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking
> when
> > > they
> > > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > > damagingly
> > > > music???
> > >
> > > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
They pretty much happen on the ROAD (so let's ban those) and it could argued the VEHICLE (whoops, I mean ban those) is the cause of death, not the bar or the alcohol.
Unless you can paste a link to an article of a drunk driving death where no vehicle was involved, then I would be mistaken.
idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think has caused more societal harm,
> second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> they banned smoking in bars but not the alcohol?
> And the drunk driving affects people who weren't
> even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by a
> drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and you
> can't prove anyone has ever died from second hand
> smoke. Which was banned?
>
> Vanannystate Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> > libtards in Nova and a libtard governor, Kaine.
> > They announced the smoking ban at LIberty
> Tavern
> > in Arlington, which is owned by an antismoking
> > bigot.
> >
> > MisterSpookey Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > One night out in a bar can cause permanent
> > > hearing
> > > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't harm
> > > anyone.
> > > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult and
> > > choose
> > > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing,
> but
> > > the
> > > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> > smoking?
> > > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going
> to
> > > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking
> when
> > > they
> > > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > > damagingly
> > > > music???
> > >
> > > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for realz.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
people not the product
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:18PM
idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think has caused more societal harm,
> second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> they banned smoking in bars but not the alcohol?
> And the drunk driving affects people who weren't
> even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by a
> drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and you
> can't prove anyone has ever died from second hand
> smoke. Which was banned?
Booze arent the problem its people using it irresponsibly that is. You can drink and not get drunk. You can get drunk and not drive.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think has caused more societal harm,
> second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> they banned smoking in bars but not the alcohol?
> And the drunk driving affects people who weren't
> even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by a
> drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and you
> can't prove anyone has ever died from second hand
> smoke. Which was banned?
Booze arent the problem its people using it irresponsibly that is. You can drink and not get drunk. You can get drunk and not drive.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
MisterSpookey
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:29PM
Who said anything about murder? I am talking about non-fatal gun shot wounds, you know, like second hand smoke that only slightly harms you.
Don't change the words I have clearly typed. It makes you look desparate an fucking stupid.
So if the private business wants to allow me to punch patrons in the face or set things on fire I should be allowed? That sounds reasonable.
>
> The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> problem with the state telling a privately owned
> business that they cannot allow people to do a
> legal activity within their premise. If youre
> over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> private business wants to let you smoke inside
> they should be allowed too. They arent allowed to
> let people do things that are illegal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don't change the words I have clearly typed. It makes you look desparate an fucking stupid.
So if the private business wants to allow me to punch patrons in the face or set things on fire I should be allowed? That sounds reasonable.
>
> The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> problem with the state telling a privately owned
> business that they cannot allow people to do a
> legal activity within their premise. If youre
> over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> private business wants to let you smoke inside
> they should be allowed too. They arent allowed to
> let people do things that are illegal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me, at the end of the day, with all that being said, that's not necessary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
stupid comparison
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:40PM
MisterSpookey Wrote:
> > The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> > Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> > problem with the state telling a privately
> owned
> > business that they cannot allow people to do a
> > legal activity within their premise. If youre
> > over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> > private business wants to let you smoke inside
> > they should be allowed too. They arent allowed
> to
> > let people do things that are illegal.
You clearly are incapable of actually having any sort of intellectual discussion and just want to keep using stupid examples. Again everything you just listed is illegal anywhere at any time (unless your a fighter then you can punch people in a legal sanctioned match). Smoking for people 18 or older is legal. Committing crimes is not. They are tell the place that they cant allow people to do a legal activity within their premise. The only one who looks stupid is you. If thats the best you can come up with just stop and save what little dignity you may have left.
> > The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> > Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> > problem with the state telling a privately
> owned
> > business that they cannot allow people to do a
> > legal activity within their premise. If youre
> > over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> > private business wants to let you smoke inside
> > they should be allowed too. They arent allowed
> to
> > let people do things that are illegal.
You clearly are incapable of actually having any sort of intellectual discussion and just want to keep using stupid examples. Again everything you just listed is illegal anywhere at any time (unless your a fighter then you can punch people in a legal sanctioned match). Smoking for people 18 or older is legal. Committing crimes is not. They are tell the place that they cant allow people to do a legal activity within their premise. The only one who looks stupid is you. If thats the best you can come up with just stop and save what little dignity you may have left.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
BrianSchoeneman
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:49PM
Unless you are sitting with your ear on the speaker, I find it hard to believe that one night is going to cause permanent hearing loss.
No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise. There is your reason.
No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise. There is your reason.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:55PM
BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise.
Think again. This was just taken at a TGI Friday's.
-
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise.
Think again. This was just taken at a TGI Friday's.
-
Attachments:
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
BrianSchoeneman
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:56PM
That was because he ate the pot stickers.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
state shouldnt
()
Date: December 10, 2011 09:56PM
BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless you are sitting with your ear on the
> speaker, I find it hard to believe that one night
> is going to cause permanent hearing loss.
>
> No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise.
> There is your reason.
A lot of places do play music that is WAY to loud, but again if they arent breaking any laws doing it its not the place of the state to tell them how loud their music can be as long as its not a noise violation outside
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless you are sitting with your ear on the
> speaker, I find it hard to believe that one night
> is going to cause permanent hearing loss.
>
> No one gets ear cancer and dies from loud noise.
> There is your reason.
A lot of places do play music that is WAY to loud, but again if they arent breaking any laws doing it its not the place of the state to tell them how loud their music can be as long as its not a noise violation outside
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
BrianSchoeneman
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:00PM
I honestly think the state shouldn't be regulating the loudness of the music, but I would like to see some quality control. It should be against the law to play anything by Kanye West in the Commonwealth.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
b0hemian
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:15PM
stop crying and whining and just go outside and light up. oh boo hoo the music is loud, so what you have no regard for your health if you smoke
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
state shouldnt
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:16PM
BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I honestly think the state shouldn't be regulating
> the loudness of the music, but I would like to see
> some quality control. It should be against the law
> to play anything by Kanye West in the
> Commonwealth.
Now that I could support
-------------------------------------------------------
> I honestly think the state shouldn't be regulating
> the loudness of the music, but I would like to see
> some quality control. It should be against the law
> to play anything by Kanye West in the
> Commonwealth.
Now that I could support
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
idiot
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:24PM
MisterSpookey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I need you point to a single article containing
> information on a drunk driving death that occurred
> in a bar.
>
> They pretty much happen on the ROAD (so let's ban
> those) and it could argued the VEHICLE (whoops, I
> mean ban those) is the cause of death, not the bar
> or the alcohol.
>
> Unless you can paste a link to an article of a
> drunk driving death where no vehicle was involved,
> then I would be mistaken.
>
> idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you think has caused more societal
> harm,
> > second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> > they banned smoking in bars but not the
> alcohol?
> > And the drunk driving affects people who
> weren't
> > even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by
> a
> > drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and
> you
> > can't prove anyone has ever died from second
> hand
> > smoke. Which was banned?
> >
> > Vanannystate Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> > > libtards in Nova and a libtard governor,
> Kaine.
> > > They announced the smoking ban at LIberty
> > Tavern
> > > in Arlington, which is owned by an
> antismoking
> > > bigot.
> > >
> > > MisterSpookey Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > One night out in a bar can cause
> permanent
> > > > hearing
> > > > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't
> harm
> > > > anyone.
> > > > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult
> and
> > > > choose
> > > > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> > > smoking?
> > > > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going
> > to
> > > > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking
> > when
> > > > they
> > > > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > > > damagingly
> > > > > music???
> > > >
> > > > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for
> realz.
Most people drive to bars. Any amount of alcohol in your system impairs your reaction. They ban talkign on cell phones, texting, etc all forms of distracted driving, but it's okay to limit your reflexes up to a .079 BAC? Drinking any amount of alochol then driving IS DISTRACTED DRIVING. Yet you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but you can drink and then drive?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I need you point to a single article containing
> information on a drunk driving death that occurred
> in a bar.
>
> They pretty much happen on the ROAD (so let's ban
> those) and it could argued the VEHICLE (whoops, I
> mean ban those) is the cause of death, not the bar
> or the alcohol.
>
> Unless you can paste a link to an article of a
> drunk driving death where no vehicle was involved,
> then I would be mistaken.
>
> idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you think has caused more societal
> harm,
> > second hand smoke in bars or drunk driving? Yet
> > they banned smoking in bars but not the
> alcohol?
> > And the drunk driving affects people who
> weren't
> > even in that bar. Every had a relative killed by
> a
> > drunk driver? I have. I don't know anyone, and
> you
> > can't prove anyone has ever died from second
> hand
> > smoke. Which was banned?
> >
> > Vanannystate Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Virginis banned smoking because of all the
> > > libtards in Nova and a libtard governor,
> Kaine.
> > > They announced the smoking ban at LIberty
> > Tavern
> > > in Arlington, which is owned by an
> antismoking
> > > bigot.
> > >
> > > MisterSpookey Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > nannystatesucks Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > One night out in a bar can cause
> permanent
> > > > hearing
> > > > > loss. One night in a smokey bar won't
> harm
> > > > anyone.
> > > > > Yet why do I have to act like an adult
> and
> > > > choose
> > > > > to avoid loud bars to protect my hearing,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > state can tell a bar they cannot allow
> > > smoking?
> > > > > Why couldn't people choose to avoid going
> > to
> > > > > smoking bars rather than banning smoking
> > when
> > > > they
> > > > > still can sell dangerous alcohol, play
> > > > damagingly
> > > > > music???
> > > >
> > > > wow dude. you're a fuckin cry baby, for
> realz.
Most people drive to bars. Any amount of alcohol in your system impairs your reaction. They ban talkign on cell phones, texting, etc all forms of distracted driving, but it's okay to limit your reflexes up to a .079 BAC? Drinking any amount of alochol then driving IS DISTRACTED DRIVING. Yet you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but you can drink and then drive?
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
idiot
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:27PM
stupid comparison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MisterSpookey Wrote:
>
> > > The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> > > Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> > > problem with the state telling a privately
> > owned
> > > business that they cannot allow people to do
> a
> > > legal activity within their premise. If
> youre
> > > over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> > > private business wants to let you smoke
> inside
> > > they should be allowed too. They arent
> allowed
> > to
> > > let people do things that are illegal.
>
> You clearly are incapable of actually having any
> sort of intellectual discussion and just want to
> keep using stupid examples. Again everything you
> just listed is illegal anywhere at any time
> (unless your a fighter then you can punch people
> in a legal sanctioned match). Smoking for people
> 18 or older is legal. Committing crimes is not.
> They are tell the place that they cant allow
> people to do a legal activity within their
> premise. The only one who looks stupid is you.
> If thats the best you can come up with just stop
> and save what little dignity you may have left.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7278781.stm
Nobody has ever gotten cancer from second hand smoke. Show me "second hand smoke" on a death certificate. One night out at a loud bar can and does cause permanent hearing loss. I have experienced it. My ear has not stopped ringing now for 12 years. SO DON"T TELL ME IT DOESNT YOU F"ING MORON.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MisterSpookey Wrote:
>
> > > The only thing retarded is your comparison.
> > > Murder is illegal everywhere. Yes I have a
> > > problem with the state telling a privately
> > owned
> > > business that they cannot allow people to do
> a
> > > legal activity within their premise. If
> youre
> > > over the age of 18 smoking is legal. If the
> > > private business wants to let you smoke
> inside
> > > they should be allowed too. They arent
> allowed
> > to
> > > let people do things that are illegal.
>
> You clearly are incapable of actually having any
> sort of intellectual discussion and just want to
> keep using stupid examples. Again everything you
> just listed is illegal anywhere at any time
> (unless your a fighter then you can punch people
> in a legal sanctioned match). Smoking for people
> 18 or older is legal. Committing crimes is not.
> They are tell the place that they cant allow
> people to do a legal activity within their
> premise. The only one who looks stupid is you.
> If thats the best you can come up with just stop
> and save what little dignity you may have left.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7278781.stm
Nobody has ever gotten cancer from second hand smoke. Show me "second hand smoke" on a death certificate. One night out at a loud bar can and does cause permanent hearing loss. I have experienced it. My ear has not stopped ringing now for 12 years. SO DON"T TELL ME IT DOESNT YOU F"ING MORON.
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
again wrong
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:28PM
idiot Wrote:
> Most people drive to bars. Any amount of alcohol
> in your system impairs your reaction. They ban
> talkign on cell phones, texting, etc all forms of
> distracted driving, but it's okay to limit your
> reflexes up to a .079 BAC? Drinking any amount of
> alochol then driving IS DISTRACTED DRIVING. Yet
> you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but you can
> drink and then drive?
Again false statements. No in VA you can get a DWI under a .08 if your driving is impaired. You can go to a bar drink hang out and leave with nothing in your system. Its a fallacy that just because your under a .8 you wont go to jail. And no have a .01 should have 0 affect on your ability to drive
> Most people drive to bars. Any amount of alcohol
> in your system impairs your reaction. They ban
> talkign on cell phones, texting, etc all forms of
> distracted driving, but it's okay to limit your
> reflexes up to a .079 BAC? Drinking any amount of
> alochol then driving IS DISTRACTED DRIVING. Yet
> you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but you can
> drink and then drive?
Again false statements. No in VA you can get a DWI under a .08 if your driving is impaired. You can go to a bar drink hang out and leave with nothing in your system. Its a fallacy that just because your under a .8 you wont go to jail. And no have a .01 should have 0 affect on your ability to drive
Re: Why do the nanny staters ban smoking in bars but not loud music?
Posted by:
BrianSchoeneman
()
Date: December 10, 2011 10:32PM
I have to call BS on that, idiot.
Besides, if the music was so loud, why didn't you leave?
Besides, if the music was so loud, why didn't you leave?