stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Since there seems to be an acceptance of prostituion brewing, may I assume that those who ascribe sociatal disdain to such as merely the influence of religious whackos or some sort of an anacronism that for centuries inhibited a normal healthy drive, are now prepared to tell their loved one "Sweetie, I'm going to go and pay money to go f*uk somebody else tonight. Can I pick you up a pizza?" Report back.
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 The ACLU DOES suck. Call them up about the smoking ban in bars and see what they tell you. 793827[/snapback] You're really stretching trying to link these two issues. The smoking ban was about protecting people's rights; those of the employs. They have to right to work as a server/bar tender without putting their health at risk. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't directly impact other people. Exposing servers to smoke for 6-8 hours a day doesn't fit that description. Nobody is preventing you from smoking; you simply have to go outside to do it. To me that seems like a pretty reasonable solution. You get to smoke and they get to work without the health risks.
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Since there seems to be an acceptance of prostituion brewing, may I assume that those who ascribe sociatal disdain to such as merely the influence of religious whackos or some sort of an anacronism that for centuries inhibited a normal healthy drive, are now prepared to tell their loved one "Sweetie, I'm going to go and pay money to go f*uk somebody else tonight. Can I pick you up a pizza?" Go ahead, I dare ya to put your philosophy of innocent fun and your espoused natural way of the world, to test... Report back. 795283[/snapback] lol....see I don't "accept" it for myself whatsoever. But just because I don't accept it doesn't mean that others shouldn't have a right to go out pay for sex. Have you seen the looks of some of these guys who get busted for picking up a whore? Women are probably not giving these guys the time of day. That may be a generalization, but I think it holds true in a lot of cases. I've worked in the inner city enough to know that you can get ANYTHING you want if you look hard enough. It's going to be there whether it's legal or illegal, and whether they try and crack down on it or not. A determined libido is a pretty hard thing to assuage! Men who cheat on their spouses are going to cheat whether prostitution is legal or not. If you need to make it illegal to prevent them from doing so, then their committment to the marriage and/or relationship isn't that strong to begin with.
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't directly impact other people. exactly...that's how I feel too
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 You're really stretching trying to link these two issues. The smoking ban was about protecting people's rights; those of the employs. They have to right to work as a server/bar tender without putting their health at risk. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't directly impact other people. Exposing servers to smoke for 6-8 hours a day doesn't fit that description. Nobody is preventing you from smoking; you simply have to go outside to do it. To me that seems like a pretty reasonable solution. You get to smoke and they get to work without the health risks. 795308[/snapback] And twisted logic such as this is giving the government carte blanche to take away the rights of citizens. Notice I never brought up the rights of smokers. You did. I am concerned with the rights of the property (bar) owner. I too am concerned with the rights of workers. The thing is, I don't know of any who were forced to work in any specific bar. Btw, I have ZERO problem with mandatory signs posted in front of establishments which would clearly state whether or not the owner of the premises allows smoking. This would provide a clear picture to both patrons and potential employees. Would this be OK with you? Why do I doubt it? Look around at the climate today wrt workers. Just yesterday, the Labor Dept. ruled that "charge nurses" in hospitals should be denied union representation. Do you truly believe that the smoking ban (I am only referring to bars) was done to promote the health of employees? People who patronize bars are more likely to kick the ass of their spouse and/or children, assault another person, have a car accident which injures or kills someone, get arrested, etc. than they are to be effected by second hand smoke. A friend of mine owns a restaurant on 1st Ave. They close at 10:00 PM. It was 9:55 and there were no customers on a rainy night. He and a waiter decided to have a cigarette before going home, but they forgot to lock the door. Well, a "Health Inspector" burst in, and gave him 3 summonses. One was for smoking. One was for allowing an employee to smoke. The other was for, you guessed it.......Ashtray Possession. It cost him $1,000.00. That Sir, is what the ban is primarily about.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 A guy on another (non-Bills) message board said that if Bush signs this bill into law that he will not vote for him again. 793706[/snapback] God Bless America.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 exactly...that's how I feel too 795320[/snapback] What's the definition of directly impacted? There a plenty of thing that don't directly impact me today, but do have an effect later. Is it a slap to the face? Belittlement and disbasement mean nothing?...no visible marks of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you work in a medical field? If so, your eyes have seen a lot... Quo Vadis?
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 What's the definition of directly impacted? There a plenty of thing that don't directly impact me today, but do have an effect later. Is it a slap to the face? Belittlement and disbasement mean nothing?..no effects...no marks of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you work in a medical field. If so, your eyes have seen a lot... 795350[/snapback] This sounds like a copout answer, I know, but I think it just calls for the need to clearly define things. I know Bill said he was talking more about the rights of the bar owners more than smokers rights, but smoking is clearly an example where it can have a direct and negative impact on my health since I have asthma. Not every example will be clear cut, but I think there can be reasonable accomodations made so that it's fair to everyone. That's one thing that bugs me about politics....nobody is ever willing to compromise. The other guy's plan sucks because it doesn't COMPLETELY address such and such....and vice versa. There are very few solutions that are PERFECT. People need to be willing to compromise, but in a fair manner. Things can improve without being perfect.
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 This sounds like a copout answer, I know, but I think it just calls for the need to clearly define things. I know Bill said he was talking more about the rights of the bar owners more than smokers rights, but smoking is clearly an example where it can have a direct and negative impact on my health since I have asthma. 795354[/snapback] I regret that you have asthma Brother. The thing is, should a person buy a bar with you personally in mind? I AM sorry if this sounds cruel, but I think that if YOU opened a bar, your intention would be to make a living first. Nobody is forced to go to any bar. Nobody goes to bars for their health, and nobody is forced to consume alcohol. You want to legalize prostitution. Should smoking be banned in brothels as well? Can you see how flat out silly this is? I am just trying to illustrate that all of this stuff is absurd, and it will get WAY worse, and sooner than you think.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 This sounds like a copout answer, I know, but I think it just calls for the need to clearly define things. I know Bill said he was talking more about the rights of the bar owners more than smokers rights, but smoking is clearly an example where it can have a direct and negative impact on my health since I have asthma. Not every example will be clear cut, but I think there can be reasonable accomodations made so that it's fair to everyone. That's one thing that bugs me about politics....nobody is ever willing to compromise. The other guy's plan sucks because it doesn't COMPLETELY address such and such....and vice versa. There are very few solutions that are PERFECT. People need to be willing to compromise, but in a fair manner. Things can improve without being perfect. 795354[/snapback] The sound you claim to hear from me is wrong. When a man starts using capitals in a post response is the time to sit back for a while and collect thoughts.
erynthered Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 That's one thing that bugs me about politics....nobody is ever willing to compromise. The other guy's plan sucks because it doesn't COMPLETELY address such and such....and vice versa. There are very few solutions that are PERFECT. People need to be willing to compromise, but in a fair manner. Things can improve without being perfect. 795354[/snapback] Stop making sense, you're screwing up this whole thread. (nice post)
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 I regret that you have asthma Brother. The thing is, should a person buy a bar with you personally in mind? I AM sorry if this sounds cruel, but I think that if YOU opened a bar, your intention would be to make a living first. Nobody is forced to go to any bar. Nobody goes to bars for their health, and nobody is forced to consume alcohol. You want to legalize prostitution. Should smoking be banned in brothels as well? Can you see how flat out silly this is? I am just trying to illustrate that all of this stuff is absurd, and it will get WAY worse, and sooner than you think. 795366[/snapback] Not at all....I totally agree with you. What I'm saying is that just like (I would hope) you don't want me to have to suffer with asthma because of your smoking, I don't want YOU to have to feel like you can't do something you enjoy. So, at least with regard to public facilities, I thnk having designated smoking areas is a good solution. But I agree with you about the private sector. If you want to open up a business that is all about drinking and smoking as much as you possibly can, then you should have the right to do that.
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Stop making sense, you're screwing up this whole thread. (nice post) 795373[/snapback] Won't happen again....
Chilly Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 The sound you claim to hear from me is wrong. When a man starts using capitals in a post response is the time to sit back for a while and collect thoughts. 795370[/snapback] WHAT?!
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 The sound you claim to hear from me is wrong. When a man starts using capitals in a post response is the time to sit back for a while and collect thoughts. 795370[/snapback] Sorry for the caps, I just get tired of all the 'I'm rubber, you're glue"' crap that boggs down the political system. I think people are certainly capable of being more reasonable than they let on, they just choose not to be.
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 And twisted logic such as this is giving the government carte blanche to take away the rights of citizens. Notice I never brought up the rights of smokers. You did. I am concerned with the rights of the property (bar) owner. I too am concerned with the rights of workers. The thing is, I don't know of any who were forced to work in any specific bar. 795342[/snapback] Owning property doesn't give a person the right to abuse other people's rights while on that property. The employs have the right to work in a safe environment even if the owner doesn't feel that its his duty to provide one. As for your "forced" comment, that's ridiculous. Given the choice bar/restaurant owners would all allow smoking. Why? Because they'd make more money that way. Non-smokers will go to bars that allow smoking but if given a choice smokers would never go to a non-smoking bar restaurant. So you're saying that people who choose to serve should just have to suck it up and work in an unsafe environment? One of the responsibilities of government is to ensure that workers are guaranteed safe working environments. This is the case in all work environments, be it a mine, a construction site or a restaurant. This is an instance of government actually working for the people instead of against it.
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 This is the case in all work environments, be it a mine, a construction site or a restaurant. This is an instance of government actually working for the people instead of against it. 795419[/snapback] I am willing to bet that it is safer to patronize or be employed in a bar in which there is smoking than to work in a coal mine. How about you? Do you think that our labor loving government has really done enough to protect coal miners? Should mines be banned? If you like the ban for reasons of putting your likes/dislikes ahead of the rights of property owners, go for it. There is no reason for you to hide this. Drink away in your smoke free environment, and feel good about your surroundings and yourself! The thing is, this thread was about yet more rights being taken away from citizens. Enjoy the ride.
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Owning property doesn't give a person the right to abuse other people's rights while on that property. The employs have the right to work in a safe environment even if the owner doesn't feel that its his duty to provide one. As for your "forced" comment, that's ridiculous. Given the choice bar/restaurant owners would all allow smoking. Why? Because they'd make more money that way. Non-smokers will go to bars that allow smoking but if given a choice smokers would never go to a non-smoking bar restaurant. So you're saying that people who choose to serve should just have to suck it up and work in an unsafe environment? One of the responsibilities of government is to ensure that workers are guaranteed safe working environments. This is the case in all work environments, be it a mine, a construction site or a restaurant. This is an instance of government actually working for the people instead of against it. 795419[/snapback] Workers rights! Workers rights! Giant crock of crap. Just so you know, the town I live in has about 400 bars. 100 allow smoking. 300 don't. I wonder if that shoots down your paradigm about market forces.
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 If you like the ban for reasons of putting your likes/dislikes ahead of the rights of property owners, go for it. There is no reason for you to hide this. Drink away in your smoke free environment, and feel good about your surroundings and yourself! 795431[/snapback] This has nothing to do with what I prefer. I frequently smoke while I'm out drinking and enjoy doing so. I also don't mind stepping outside to do it. I did, however, serve when I was younger and totally understand the issues servers have with it. Even as a full time smoker (back then) I hated working in smoky bars for a prolonged period of time. I'm guessing it has more to do with what you prefer. You'd prefer to put your likes/dislikes in front of the rights of workers. There's no reason to hide this.
Recommended Posts