Should The Commonwealth of Virginia outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants like New York City, Paris, London, and Dublin have done? I don't smoke, but I hate going to a restaurant and coming back smelling like somebody elses carcinogens. I think we should make them go outside like lepers of they want to inhale indoors.

Why post this on FU?

Vote with your feet and your money. Let the owners of the establishments make their own business decisions.

If you didn't like the smell of curry, would you want all bars and restaurants to ban it?

Of course they should ban cigarettes...restaurants are public facilities offering food and drinks...not cigarettes. If they want to open a tobacco shop let them.

Jake The Snake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should The Commonwealth of Virginia outlaw smoking
> in bars and restaurants like New York City, Paris,
> London, and Dublin have done? I don't smoke, but I
> hate going to a restaurant and coming back
> smelling like somebody elses carcinogens. I think
> we should make them go outside like lepers of they
> want to inhale indoors.

I don't like people who believe the government should legislate according to their personal tastes and morals. I think we should ban all pretentious self-absorbed pricks from public places.

If you don't like smokey restaurants, go to the restaurants that don't allow smoking.

If you thought like a true American who loves freedom and individual rights, you wouldn't believe it was your place to dictate what people can and cannot do in a bar or restaurant. Go live in a country that is more to your liking. Singapore sounds like a place you'd like. They regulate personal behaviors heavily. You'd feel right at home.

People won't go to non smoking bars because the fat church ladies go to those type of bars and they are boring as shit.

Yea..because all bars are boring in NYC, London, Paris, Dublin, and DC. You need to get out more, cowboy.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course they should ban cigarettes...restaurants
> are public facilities offering food and
> drinks...not cigarettes. If they want to open a
> tobacco shop let them.

The "(false) logic" of this statement is outrageous! Restaurants are not "public facilities" in any way. They are private establishments.

Here is a link to the Fairfax County Public Facilities manual http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/publications/pfm/pfm_main.htm , Please locate where it indicates that all restaurants within Fairfax County are public facilities?

You may be confusing the concept of "open to the public" as having the same meaning as "serving the public". These establishments are privately owned and operated. I will go back to my first statement in the thread... If you don't like it, vote with your feet and your cash. If you don't want to go in to a place that allows smoking, then don't! If the owner(s) feel an economic loss from your business, then *maybe* they will change their policies.

You called out cigarettes, what if they only allowed cigars and pipes? What is your take on hooka bars?

If you didn't like the smell of curry, would you want all bars and restaurants to ban it? (I hate the smell of fish, so no restaurant should be allowed to prepare and/or server it!)

Jake The Snake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yea..because all bars are boring in NYC, London, Paris, Dublin, and DC.

Yea.. and ALL bars in NYC, London, Paris, Dublin, and DC are completely non-smoking.

- NYC requires the owner/manager to enforce the ban. Many owners are smokers, so they refuse to enforce the ban for their establishment. http://www.nypost.com/seven/05272007/news/regionalnews/cig_ban__what_cig_ban__regionalnews_angela_montefinise.htm

- London and Dublin - Bars lock their doors, making them "shut in clubs" which are not regulated by the smoking ban (or the district "last call" enforcement).

- DC - don't know and don't really care. Only time I go to DC is for music, and then it is either one of the "formal" places (Kennedy Center, Warner, National) which have never allowed smoking, or one of the clubs where you can still smoke (if you know the staff or where to hang out in the club).

A business owner should be allowed to ban smoking in their restaurant, end of story. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever dictating that decision. You should not be forced to allow it, nor should you be forced to ban it. We don't live in a nanny state. If you don't like it, go someplace else. Period.

That being said, most places don't allow smoking anyway. Or they'll have a separate area to accommodate it. I eat in restaurants at least once or twice a week, and I can't ever remember being bothered by smoke. And while it's nice to come out of places like the Black Cat without smelling like an ashtray, most people who whine about this crap are people who don't hang out in those kind of places in the first place.

Just go somewhere else.

Smoking is a major public health issue...we all pay for it in many forms..financial and health impacts. The government has every right to step in and regulate...tax and educate the public on this issue. Restaurants are public institutions...they are provided a license to provide a service to the public...they must obey health codes for cleanliness...hours of operation... safety...why noit vote with your feet on all these issues?

For someone who bitches about "The War on Drugs" or "The War on Terror", it's sorta stupid for you to advocate a govt-led "war on tobacco". The restaurant industry does a pretty good job on its own at regulating its smoking policies. I eat out all the time, and never have been bothered by it. In fact, most places ban it already. And don't give me the "health codes for cleanliness" argument- those are enforced to prevent food-borne illness, something that I am much more concerned about when dining out.

Like I said, just go somewhere else. There are a bazillion choices.



Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoking is a major public health issue...we all
> pay for it in many forms..financial and health
> impacts. The government has every right to step
> in and regulate...tax and educate the public on
> this issue. Restaurants are public
> institutions...they are provided a license to
> provide a service to the public...they must obey
> health codes for cleanliness...hours of
> operation... safety...why noit vote with your feet
> on all these issues?

I am not inconsistent in my tobacco and drug opinions. Notice I did not say the state should outlaw tobacco all together...just in public places. Neither would I want people using drugs in public places....I would want as much if not more education on the bad effects drugs have on a person's health (true facts not propaganda)....I would want drugs to be managed as hard..if not harder then tobacco. But at the end of the day...I want people buying their drugs at the local VA ABC store..going home and getting as high as they feel is responsible and then staying home.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2008 01:21PM by Vince(1).

Twenty years ago it wasn't possible to "vote with your feet" with respect to places of employment. If you wanted to work you were forced to inhale second hand smoke whether you liked it or not. And if you wanted to travel by plane you were also subjected to it, again like it or not. Fortunately, times have changed considerably because of government regulation and I don't know too many people that regard this as a bad thing. This isn't just a matter of personal preference--it's a serious health issue. Smoking will be banned from restaurants in bars sooner or later, whether smokers like it or not. As far as I'm concerned, they can "vote with their feet" and just eat at home.

I will go along with what you said, even if you are a bit off.

The Airplane smoking ban took effect in July of 1987, so over 21 years ago. Many airlines banned smoking before the federal ban took effect. If you were still "forced to inhale second hand smoke" back in 1988, then you really do have a complaint.

I don't know where you worked 20 years ago, but everywhere I worked that was not a "bar" were 98% "non-smoking". There were (and still are) designated smoking areas either inside or outside of most major office buildings. I guess it must have been different where you worked. At the same time, I guess you were also forced to work there (did "they" hold a gun to your head?), but I had the ability to switch employers.

I have a friend who is allergic to peanuts, and I am allergic to seafood. This isn't just a matter of personal preference--it's a serious health issue. Following your posting, all peanuts and seafood should be banned from restaurants and bars. I'm all for that! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants peanuts or seafood can "vote with their feet" and just eat at home.

If you don't like smokey bars then why are you going to them? Stop going to smokey bars and there shouldn't be a problem.

A bar is a private establishment, the last thing we need is more government regulations!

You must know that's a silly analogy.


SRE Wrote:
> I have a friend who is allergic to peanuts, and I
> am allergic to seafood. This isn't just a matter
> of personal preference--it's a serious health
> issue. Following your posting, all peanuts and
> seafood should be banned from restaurants and
> bars. I'm all for that! As far as I'm concerned,
> anyone who wants peanuts or seafood can "vote with
> their feet" and just eat at home.

It's too cold in my apartment. Why should I have to get up and adjust the thermostat? Why can't the government step in and keep my place warm?

MrMephisto Wrote:
>>> It's too cold in my apartment.


Hell is hot. That's never been disputed.

Actually, the warmest it gets in the summer is a balmy 92 degrees. I mean, I made Hell, and even wrote a fucking traveler's guide called, "Hell in Ten Days on One Hundred Dollars." So I think I would know if there are any lakes of fire or rivers of molten shit from which emanates the beautiful symphony that is the screaming souls of the eternally damned, forced to be dashed about on the rocks for all eternity because of their sodomy-loving ways.

And that shit ain't down here. So get off it.

Diner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must know that's a silly analogy.
>

How so? (I'm sure you find it silly because I was using your words, but against peanuts and seafood, not smoking.)

It is much more likely that I will have serious health consequences due to my seafood allergy that you will ever have by entering a restaurant/bar that allows smoking.

You know what else bugs me... Going home from a bar smelling like beer. I think the government should outlaw any spilling of beer on the bar top. If the government outlawed and beer spillage my clothes would not small like stale beer every night! This is a major health concern! Where do you think the chemicals in that stale beer go when they get washed out of my clothes? They end up in the Potomac, and that is where we get our drinking water! That means that the residents of Fairfax County are drinking the stale beer that people spilled on the bar/table tops! Some of them are underage. That does it! If we can not outlaw the spilling of beer, then we must make it illegal to serve water to underage people. (ok, that was silly!)

Oh my god. SRE, that explains why I'm an alcoholic; the continuous imbibing of all the beer getting poured down the drain.

I'm going to sue:

1. The water companies
2. Fairfax County
3. The Federal Government
4. All of the beer makers
5. The manufacturers of the sinks

Who would like to join me in a class action lawsuit to get 200 meellion dollars?

SRE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Diner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > You must know that's a silly analogy.
>
> How so? (I'm sure you find it silly because I was
> using your words, but against peanuts and seafood,
> not smoking.)

oh come on. even vince knows that's a poor analogy. cigarette smoke (and thus it's smell) escape partitioned area. you wont go home smelling like fish or peanuts if someone is eating that on the other side of restaurant or even a booth away from you. the same cannot be said for cigarette smoke. we understand that you are addicted to smoking but that doesnt mean others should have to go home and be reminded of it.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2008 06:43PM by Gravis.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 01:01PM by Alias.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> oh come on. even vince knows that's a poor
> analogy. cigarette smoke (and thus it's smell)
> escape partitioned area. you wont go home
> smelling like fish or peanuts if someone is eating
> that on the other side of restaurant or even a
> booth away from you. the same cannot be said for
> cigarette smoke.

Does this mean that even though I can smell the fish, there is nothing in the air? That doesn't make sense to me, so please enlighten me on how that works. If, in fact, there is something from the fish in the air, there must be something magic that keep it from attaching to anything.

> we understand that you are
> addicted to smoking but that doesnt mean others
> should have to go home and be reminded of it.

Thank you for understanding! ;-) [Now if we could only do something about the "splash on the perfume / lather on the lotion" people]

I still want my share of the 200 meellion dollars! LOL

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoking is a major public health issue...we all
> pay for it in many forms..financial and health
> impacts. The government has every right to step
> in and regulate...tax and educate the public on
> this issue. Restaurants are public
> institutions...they are provided a license to
> provide a service to the public...they must obey
> health codes for cleanliness...hours of
> operation... safety...why noit vote with your feet
> on all these issues?

What king of flower do you have in your Beetle?
Attachments:

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SRE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Diner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > You must know that's a silly analogy.
> >
> > How so? (I'm sure you find it silly because I
> was
> > using your words, but against peanuts and
> seafood,
> > not smoking.)
>
> oh come on. even vince knows that's a poor
> analogy. cigarette smoke (and thus it's smell)
> escape partitioned area. you wont go home
> smelling like fish or peanuts if someone is eating
> that on the other side of restaurant or even a
> booth away from you. the same cannot be said for
> cigarette smoke. we understand that you are
> addicted to smoking but that doesnt mean others
> should have to go home and be reminded of it.


That is actually a dead-on analogy. My clothes smell like seafood when I come home from certain restaurants. I smell grease when I come home from a chinese restaurant or some steak houses.

The smell on your clothes are not a health issue, however. I think you are mistakenly panicked over the flawed studies from like 1996 or 1997 that found second hand smoke to be "twice as harmful to non-smokers".

But if you break down the study's results and think about them rationally, not even considering that it was an anti-smoking group that paid for the study, you realize the findings are irrational and false. How can second hand smoke be twice as harmful to non-smokers? Their hypothesis was that second hand smoke is "unfiltered" while first-hand smoke has been filtered by the filter on the cigarette. But if first-hand smoke has been filtered, second-hand smoke has been filtered not only by the filter on the cigarette, but also by the smoker's lungs. Then it is dispersed into a room full of air. At best, in a smoke-filled room, you are breathing in about maybe a half a cigarette's worth of smoke in a 4 hour period. Your lungs are treated to much more harmful compounds just walking down a city street on a cold, breezeless day. Diesel buses' and trucks' and automobile exhaust, dry cleaner chemicals, and every thing else floating around at street level in a city has been found to be much more harmful to a human than second-hand smoke.

If you don't like the smell of smoke, fine. Go to places that either do not allow smoking, or that have taken extra care to filter and clean the air in the places they allow smoking. Ozios used to, before they moved from K street, have a filtration system that worked so well that you could go in there on a busy night full of cigar smokers and barely notice any smell at all. I think it isn't as good now that they are on M street (or at least before the smoking ban), but the last time I was there when smoking was allowed, it was really not very noticeable, unless you were standing next to someone smoking.

You can go to McKeever's Pub in Mclean. They banned smoking either last year or the year before. I hear it is actually even more popular now, but like a person who doesn't like smoking should do, I voted with my feet and stopped going there because I'd rather go to a bar where I can have a smoke.

And when cigarettes are banned all you'll need to do is go outside to vote with your feet. The stupidity associated with tobaco smoking and chewing is so obvious I find it amazing it still generates this much smoker passion..but I guess that's what drug addiction is all about...denial! Wrap it up with all your freedom this...freedon that talk! It's just denial...like any heroine addict..just legal...but you die hards are adults...mostly intelligent...and you still wrap your addiction around....denial!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The stupidity associated with tobaco smoking and
> chewing is so obvious I find it amazing it still
> generates this much smoker passion.

and yet you think it somehow will be better with drugs that are even more addictive.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

n



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 12:58PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All this business about scents and smoke and
> allergies, etc..
>
> What if I enter a room and let's say, Meeper is
> the same room, and then, what if I start smelling
> shit? Am I actually inhaling little molecules of
> shit?

you are inhaling the the gas that "shit" gives off.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2008 12:51AM by Gravis.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And when cigarettes are banned all you'll need to
> do is go outside to vote with your feet. The
> stupidity associated with tobaco smoking and
> chewing is so obvious I find it amazing it still
> generates this much smoker passion..but I guess
> that's what drug addiction is all about...denial!
> Wrap it up with all your freedom this...freedon
> that talk! It's just denial...like any heroine
> addict..just legal...but you die hards are
> adults...mostly intelligent...and you still wrap
> your addiction around....denial!


Wow dude.

I know I am addicted to cigarettes. I cannot deny it. I can maybe go about 3 or 4 days without a cigarette if I try hard enough. But I will be thinking about it and planning ways to smoke if I can't.

I've smoked weed, snorted cocaine, dropped acid and ate shrooms. I even did ecstasy a few times.

None of those are addictive. I know addiction, because I am addicted to cigarettes.

I am not in "denial" about weed, shrooms, cocaine, lsd. I did them, and I might do them again some day if the opportunity presents itself. I would love to be able to smoke weed instead of drinking beer, I like the feeling that weed gives me more than I like the effects of alcohol, but I just don't have access to it, so I don't smoke it anymore. If I could, I would, but since I can't, I don't.

I'm not in denial. I am absolutely and completely addicted to tobacco.

Tobacco and Heroine are probably the most addictive substances. But let me assure you there are very few people over the age of 25 who don't fully understand how addicted they are to smoking cigarettes. Very few people are in denial about it. If they are in denial, then they are just intellectually dishonest and really do know, deep down, that they are addicted.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 12:57PM by Alias.

WE SHOULD OUTLAW SMOKING, BARS AND ALCOHOL!

Bars are nothing more than a public health hazzard used so people can have sex outside of marriage. The alcohol served is a poisoning Northern Virginia.

Join us in closing all bars and banning alcohol in Northern VA!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob:
>
> "I've smoked weed, snorted cocaine, dropped acid
> and ate shrooms. I even did ecstasy a few times."
> __________
>
> Wow, Bob.
>
> Well, I have smoked weed, snorted cocaine, dropped
> acid, taken ludes while drunk, and when all that
> was wearing off, I popped a few elephant
> tranquilizers, all in one night. Can you beat
> that?
>
> And, I don't smoke cigarettes, go figure.


Go figure. You might have a problem.

Mormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WE SHOULD OUTLAW SMOKING, BARS AND ALCOHOL!
>
> Bars are nothing more than a public health hazzard
> used so people can have sex outside of marriage.
> The alcohol served is a poisoning Northern
> Virginia.
>
> Join us in closing all bars and banning alcohol in
> Northern VA!


Ahh, dude, should we welcome you to the planet? Is this your first trip here?

We did that shit already. It didn't work out so well.

I hope you were being sarcasitic. Otherwise you win the award for most recent arrival on the planet.

the govt. putting taxes on tobacco in it's self legitimizes it's use .

Alias Wrote:
>> what if I start smelling shit?


It would mean "your order is ready".


Drive safely.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The stupidity associated with tobaco smoking
> and
> > chewing is so obvious I find it amazing it
> still
> > generates this much smoker passion.
>
> and yet you think it somehow will be better with
> drugs that are even more addictive.


I have always said that with the legalization of most drugs the government had the responsibility to manage (tax)...rehabilitate and educate users. This same approach has worked effectively to reduce tobacco use. One more tool is to eliminate it's use in public places. My position is consistent. And yes I think this approach to be effective then prohibition.

Bob...you sound like a reasonable person....in fact you sound a lot like me...if I had access to the drugs you have used I too would probably try them. Buttt...all this "outrage" on the rights of restaurant owners and voting with your feet...how damaging second hand smoke is....is nothing but a drug addicts denial. You have the right to smoke in an environment that doesnt adveresly effect others. A restaurant and every other public facility is not that environment.

Virginia is the birth place of tobacco -

On October 15, 1492, Christopher Columbus was offered dried tobacco leaves as a gift from the American Indians that he encountered.
Soon after, sailors brought tobacco back to Europe, and the plant was being grown all over Europe.

The major reason for tobacco's growing popularity in Europe was its supposed healing properties. Europeans believed that tobacco could cure almost anything, from bad breath to cancer!

In 1571, A Spanish doctor named Nicolas Monardes wrote a book about the history of medicinal plants of the new world. In this he claimed that tobacco could cure 36 health problems.

In 1588, A Virginian named Thomas Harriet promoted smoking tobacco as a viable way to get one's daily dose of tobacco.

Dear TV..thanks for the history lesson but misinformation about tobacco is nothing new.

There was no Virginia in 1588. Thomas Harriot was an Englishman.

CDC: Indoor Smoking Bans May Cut Heart Attack Hospitalizations
Hospitalizations for heart attacks fell sharply in Pueblo, Colo., after the implementation of a law that banned smoking in public places and workplaces, according to the January 2 issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. There were 399 heart attack hospitalizations in the city in the 18 months before the smoke-free law went into effect on July 1, 2003, compared with 237 hospitalizations for heart attacks in the 18-month period that began a year and a half after the law went into effect. Researchers also studied two nearby areas that do not have indoor smoking bans and found that there was no significant decline in hospitalizations for heart attacks during the same time periods in those areas, the CDC reports.

Nine previously published studies have found that indoor smoking bans are associated with large, rapid reductions in heart attack hospitalizations, but most of those studies looked at data covering a shorter period of time. The new study suggests that the reduction in hospitalizations for heart attacks persists over an extended period of time. Smoke-free laws likely reduce these hospitalizations by limiting nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke and by reducing smoking overall, according to the CDC.

If you're a smoker, consider this New Year's resolution: Really quit smoking. Also, learn the secrets of those who've successfully quit smoking, and consult our list of 12 reasons to quit smoking.

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2009/01/02/health-buzz-smoking-bans-cut-heart-attacks-and-other-health-news.html

as someone with asthma im against smoking really. It sucks. Everyone should get a bottle of freebreeze and spritz themselves off after smoking

thank you for smoking, Women who smoke are less sexxxy than non smokers damnit

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Women who smoke are less
> sexxxy than non smokers damnit


I'm assuming that this applies to cigarettes, not hookahs?

you assume correctly