MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 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. 795437[/snapback] Why does it no surprise me that you think workers rights are a giant crock of crap. As for your town, who cares? I'm talking about NYC, the city I actually live in. Before the ban on smoking bars were able to choose if they wanted to allow smoking or not. I'm sure in the thousands upon thousands of bars in the city there might have been a few that were non-smoking but in all my time living here I never saw one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 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. 795468[/snapback] Did you know smoking would take place there before you accepted those jobs, or was it a total surprise to you on your first day of employment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 4, 2006 Share 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?" Cincy, one thing I am is consistent. My position is that the gov't should not make laws to protect an individual from themselves. If a woman (or man) wants to be a prostiitute, so be it. I have no right to sit in judgement of that person. Whether I choose to patronize said prostitute is my choice (I won't, I'm married). Whether I pay overtly for sex with a prostitute or covertly (dinner and a movie impling sex after) is none of the gov't's business. These are the reasons where I am against any government law abridging the personal freedom of adults including the 21 year old drinking age, the smoking ban, the poker ban, I am staunchly pro-choice and even the seatbelt laws. The gov't should restrict its laws to when your conduct directly affects another. Only thren should the gov't step in to put a stop to certain behaviors. DWI laws are a good example of this. And no, the smoking ban does not qualify. If the employee is a smoker and doesn't mind working in a smoke filled bar, so be it. IF the employee does not want to work in that envoironment, go elsewhere. As Darin said, there are 300 smokeless bars and 100 smoking bars in his town, to use one example. So, the worst thing that happens is a potential employee is restricted in the places he/she works. Tough. Thats life. We all are so restricted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) Cincy, one thing I am is consistent. My position is that the gov't should not make laws to protect an individual from themselves. If a woman (or man) wants to be a prostiitute, so be it. I have no right to sit in judgement of that person. Whether I choose to patronize said prostitute is my choice (I won't, I'm married). Whether I pay overtly for sex with a prostitute or covertly (dinner and a movie impling sex after) is none of the gov't's business. These are the reasons where I am against any government law abridging the personal freedom of adults including the 21 year old drinking age, the smoking ban, the poker ban, I am staunchly pro-choice and even the seatbelt laws. The gov't should restrict its laws to when your conduct directly affects another. Only thren should the gov't step in to put a stop to certain behaviors. DWI laws are a good example of this. And no, the smoking ban does not qualify. If the employee is a smoker and doesn't mind working in a smoke filled bar, so be it. IF the employee does not want to work in that envoironment, go elsewhere. As Darin said, there are 300 smokeless bars and 100 smoking bars in his town, to use one example. So, the worst thing that happens is a potential employee is restricted in the places he/she works. Tough. Thats life. We all are so restricted. 795522[/snapback] Yes, you are consistant and I noted to myself such, long before this topic. I appreciate that, my friend. But also, there is reason, historical in many cases, that a government has the expectation to provide a certain control of individual action. It's just not possible to accomodate all tastes and attitudes. That is chaos. We are fortunate here in this young nation, having a popularly elected government. Many, you and me included, have concerns about supression. But it's always a balancing act. Our governments have fools, charlatans, thiefs, but thankfully, relatively few megalomaniacs. Certainly, with our society under attack, things are tighter. It's not the first time...John Heaton's commentary on Cobb's words about the agony faced by President Wilson and the declaration of war, as well as Wilson's April 1917 address to Congress, are well worth looking up, and considering, with respect to today's times. Things repeat. You might like to read the late Fred Friendly's book, "The Constitution - That Delacite Balance". It was serialized on PBS 20 or so years ago, and more recently, Friendly was the character portrayed as the head of CBS News (he was) in the recent movie "Good Night and Good Luck" - the b&w flick about Edward R. Murrow. Domani... Edited October 4, 2006 by stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Why does it no surprise me that you think workers rights are a giant crock of crap. As for your town, who cares? I'm talking about NYC, the city I actually live in. Before the ban on smoking bars were able to choose if they wanted to allow smoking or not. I'm sure in the thousands upon thousands of bars in the city there might have been a few that were non-smoking but in all my time living here I never saw one. 795478[/snapback] Poor bastard. Not being able to go to a bar for health reasons. I'd say it sounds like an excellent opportunity for a capitalist to go make money, but obviously you're more into socialism (or some other ism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Cincy, one thing I am is consistent. My position is that the gov't should not make laws to protect an individual from themselves. If a woman (or man) wants to be a prostiitute, so be it. I have no right to sit in judgement of that person. Whether I choose to patronize said prostitute is my choice (I won't, I'm married). Whether I pay overtly for sex with a prostitute or covertly (dinner and a movie impling sex after) is none of the gov't's business. These are the reasons where I am against any government law abridging the personal freedom of adults including the 21 year old drinking age, the smoking ban, the poker ban, I am staunchly pro-choice and even the seatbelt laws. The gov't should restrict its laws to when your conduct directly affects another. Only thren should the gov't step in to put a stop to certain behaviors. DWI laws are a good example of this. And no, the smoking ban does not qualify. If the employee is a smoker and doesn't mind working in a smoke filled bar, so be it. IF the employee does not want to work in that envoironment, go elsewhere. As Darin said, there are 300 smokeless bars and 100 smoking bars in his town, to use one example. So, the worst thing that happens is a potential employee is restricted in the places he/she works. Tough. Thats life. We all are so restricted. 795522[/snapback] I'm pretty restricted, too. I can only work in places that have computers and pay six figure salaries. It's a bummer but I do what I can to get by. It's amazing to me that people still use lame arguments like worker's rights. Try telling someone walking the ground in Iraq that you're concerned about whether people have the right to smoke on private property because it's dangerous to employees. Or coal miners. Or crab/deep see fishermen. North Slope workers. etc. etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 But also, there is reason, historical in many cases, that a government has the expectation to provide a certain control of individual action. It's just not possible to accomodate all tastes and attitudes. That is chaos. We are fortunate here in this young nation, having a popularly elected government. Many, you and me included, have concerns about supression. But it's always a balancing act. Our governments have fools, charlatans, thiefs, but thankfully, relatively few megalomaniacs. Failure to check the unreasonable will of the majority is what led us into the Prohibition era. I resist just about any attempt to restrict personal freedom at the whim of the majority, or a few influential elected representatives that believe they represent the will of the majority (Frist). Agreed on the megalomanics. Thankfully. I will take up your suggestions on reading. My now two hour daily commute, each way leaves me much time for reading . And I've been meaning to see Good Night and Good Luck for a while now. I just haven't gotten around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 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. 795468[/snapback] So are you now speaking for each and every bar worker? Are you that sure that all of them support the ban? Even the ones who smoke, or lament the loss of business? Charcoal fumes are bad for the health of citizens too. Should barbecues be banned at tailgates? Please answer without taking into consideration what YOU like. We will be in RWS this month. We cannot BBQ because it is impractical in terms of the logistics of our trip. That said, I have NO desire to deny others of their "vice." Do you? I seem to be having trouble getting my point accross. I am speaking of bars, not restaurants, and I go to 10 or perhaps even 20 restaurants for each bar I walk into. My wife bought me DirecTV and the NFL Ticket a few years ago. I am out of excuses. This barely effects me. Americans having rights does effect you, me, and our children. I am not asking you to fully agree with me. I am asking you to (if you should feel like it) google Riviera Beach, Fla. They are about to partake in economic cleansing, and throw lower income blacks and whites out of their homes, in order to make a marina for people with yachts, and open businesses. Property rights DO matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I am asking you to (if you should feel like it) google Riviera Beach, Fla. They are about to partake in economic cleansing, and throw lower income blacks and whites out of their homes, in order to make a marina for people with yachts, and open businesses. Property rights DO matter. Worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. They should be embarassed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Cincy, one thing I am is consistent. My position is that the gov't should not make laws to protect an individual from themselves. If a woman (or man) wants to be a prostiitute, so be it. I have no right to sit in judgement of that person. Whether I choose to patronize said prostitute is my choice (I won't, I'm married). Whether I pay overtly for sex with a prostitute or covertly (dinner and a movie impling sex after) is none of the gov't's business. These are the reasons where I am against any government law abridging the personal freedom of adults including the 21 year old drinking age, the smoking ban, the poker ban, I am staunchly pro-choice and even the seatbelt laws. The gov't should restrict its laws to when your conduct directly affects another. Only thren should the gov't step in to put a stop to certain behaviors. DWI laws are a good example of this. And no, the smoking ban does not qualify. If the employee is a smoker and doesn't mind working in a smoke filled bar, so be it. IF the employee does not want to work in that envoironment, go elsewhere. As Darin said, there are 300 smokeless bars and 100 smoking bars in his town, to use one example. So, the worst thing that happens is a potential employee is restricted in the places he/she works. Tough. Thats life. We all are so restricted. 795522[/snapback] Your position is identical to mine except I do think that smoking in places open to the public does affect others. The worst thing that can happen isn't that the servers are restricted; the worst thing that happens is that the person can't find any work in their chosen vocation unless they are willing to accept severe health risks down the road. Darin's 3:1 non-smoking to smoking town doesn't exist in any town that I've visited or lived in. It would be one thing if there was no way to get rid of the health risks associated with a job. However, in this instance there is something that can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Your position is identical to mine except I do think that smoking in places open to the public does affect others. The worst thing that can happen isn't that the servers are restricted; the worst thing that happens is that the person can't find any work in their chosen vocation unless they are willing to accept severe health risks down the road. Darin's 3:1 non-smoking to smoking town doesn't exist in any town that I've visited or lived in. It would be one thing if there was no way to get rid of the health risks associated with a job. However, in this instance there is something that can be done. 795628[/snapback] Using this line of reasoning you could make an excuse for a government ban on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The worst thing that can happen isn't that the servers are restricted; the worst thing that happens is that the person can't find any work in their chosen vocation unless they are willing to accept severe health risks down the road. See coal miners, NFL players, soldiers etc. My point is to allow the owner of the property to make that decision. You are here in NYC. Pre-smoking ban, if a bar billed itself as non-smoking, the place would have been a hit. It would have made oodles of cash. The choice to go there, or work there, would have been up to the individual. Same as with a bar that allows smoking. There are thousands of bars in the city, those that wished to work in a smoke free environment would have had their pick. I'd venture to say that if the choice was left to the bar owner, it may have split about 60/40 non smoking. Everyone would be happy. Problem is, now the gov't told that you can't engage in a legal activity on private property. Thats dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 So are you now speaking for each and every bar worker? Are you that sure that all of them support the ban? Even the ones who smoke, or lament the loss of business? 795591[/snapback] I never claimed to be speaking for all bar/restraunt workers. Why do all of them need to support the ban? Charcoal fumes are bad for the health of citizens too. Should barbecues be banned at tailgates? Please answer without taking into consideration what YOU like. We will be in RWS this month. We cannot BBQ because it is impractical in terms of the logistics of our trip. That said, I have NO desire to deny others of their "vice." Do you? 795591[/snapback] I seem to be having trouble getting my point accross. I am speaking of bars, not restaurants, and I go to 10 or perhaps even 20 restaurants for each bar I walk into. My wife bought me DirecTV and the NFL Ticket a few years ago. I am out of excuses. This barely effects me. Americans having rights does effect you, me, and our children. I am not asking you to fully agree with me. I am asking you to (if you should feel like it) google Riviera Beach, Fla. They are about to partake in economic cleansing, and throw lower income blacks and whites out of their homes, in order to make a marina for people with yachts, and open businesses. Property rights DO matter. 795591[/snapback] Again you're mixing up issues. I'm fully aware of imminent domain issues. You don't need to go to Florida to find these problems, they're happening in our own city. In Brooklyn (the borough where I live) the state is going to take away people's property in order to build the Nets new stadium. I've had a million conversations about this very issue and I'm in full agreement with you. There aren't many things more important a person's right to own property and the state should not restrict that right for frivolous causes. That being said the ban on smoking isn't the same issue. We're not talking about restricting a person's right to own property. We're talking about an employer/employ issue (I'd actually guess that most bar owners in NYC don't own the property they run their businesses out of, but I digress). If the state passes a law that states you couldn't smoke in the privacy of your own home then this might be the issue you are concerned about. But they haven't done that. I also notice that people aren't objecting to the other areas of the Clean Indoor Air Act which regulates smoking in public and work places. The law forbids smoking in all places of employment, mass transportation, educational facilities (including private colleges) and many other places as well (most of them concerning children). Why should people who work in front of computers for a living have the right to work in a smoke free environment but someone who serves food/drinks for a living shouldn't? If it's a "owner rights" issue, why don't you take issue with these other places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Using this line of reasoning you could make an excuse for a government ban on anything. 795632[/snapback] The state and federal governments place restrictions (called laws) on people's freedoms all the time. You could make your same argument anytime a law is passed. As always, there's a fine line between safety and freedom. Where we draw that line is what generally causes these disagreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I would just like to chime in on the smoking issue that seems to have hijacked this thread. I have a hard time understanding why any rational, educated individual would want to smoke. I think that most of them smoke because they are addicted to nicotine, not because smoking is such a pleasant thing to do. Almost every smoker that I have ever talked to tells me that they wish they could quit. If there was a magic pill to cure nicotine addiction, what percentage of people do you think would continue to smoke? 30%? At least the smoking ban and other anti-smoking efforts are reducing the number of smokers in NYS. Which I feel is good, even if it pisses off smokers. Flame away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Did anyone else notice that wonderful is spelled wrong in the title of this thread?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I would just like to chime in on the smoking issue that seems to have hijacked this thread. I have a hard time understanding why any rational, educated individual would want to smoke. I think that most of them smoke because they are addicted to nicotine, not because smoking is such a pleasant thing to do. Almost every smoker that I have ever talked to tells me that they wish they could quit. If there was a magic pill to cure nicotine addiction, what percentage of people do you think would continue to smoke? 30%? At least the smoking ban and other anti-smoking efforts are reducing the number of smokers in NYS. Which I feel is good, even if it pisses off smokers. Flame away! 795709[/snapback] That should get some responses I don't really care if people want to smoke, but there was a recurrent situation during my marriage that really pissed me off.... I was a stepfather to twin boys, and I was with them from age3-8. Just after my ex and I were married, we stayed with her family until our house was built. Well, her parents were both chimneys. You could walk into the upstairs living room and just be consumed with one massive cloud of smoke. They were doing me a favor by letting us stay there, and it was their house, so I never made issue of it as it pertains to ME. But the way they smoked around the kids was awful, IMO. I don't like it when people smoke around children.....most people have enough common sense to not do that, but a lot of others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I would just like to chime in on the smoking issue that seems to have hijacked this thread. I have a hard time understanding why any rational, educated individual would want to smoke. I think that most of them smoke because they are addicted to nicotine, not because smoking is such a pleasant thing to do. Almost every smoker that I have ever talked to tells me that they wish they could quit. If there was a magic pill to cure nicotine addiction, what percentage of people do you think would continue to smoke? 30%? At least the smoking ban and other anti-smoking efforts are reducing the number of smokers in NYS. Which I feel is good, even if it pisses off smokers. Flame away! 795709[/snapback] I like to try and be a rational thinker, money savvy etc. I'm 24, I smoke, and I deeply regret ever starting in the first place. My brother smoked, I think I tried my first to feel older. I was educated about the dangers but sometimes you can't educate somebody of anything at that age. In all honesty the Nicotine’s not it at all. I've tried quitting with varying levels of success. By success I mean number of day without a cigarette. The most difficult part is the behaviors you associate with a cigarette. Put me in a car forget about it, few beers and I'm screwed. It's a mental addiction more so then anything else. The physical part is gone in a couple days. It's strong enough for even rational people to keep doing it despite complete understanding of the consequences. I know I'll quit eventually, just got to keep trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I would just like to chime in on the smoking issue that seems to have hijacked this thread. I have a hard time understanding why any rational, educated individual would want to smoke. I think that most of them smoke because they are addicted to nicotine, not because smoking is such a pleasant thing to do. Almost every smoker that I have ever talked to tells me that they wish they could quit. If there was a magic pill to cure nicotine addiction, what percentage of people do you think would continue to smoke? 30%? At least the smoking ban and other anti-smoking efforts are reducing the number of smokers in NYS. Which I feel is good, even if it pisses off smokers. Flame away! Wonderful. An intellectual discussion concerning whether the government should be abridging the personal freedom of individuals has been reduced to self aggrandisement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Wonderful. An intellectual discussion concerning whether the government should be abridging the personal freedom of individuals has been reduced to self aggrandisement. 796203[/snapback] I was finished with this thread, but I want to thank you for that post. The pols have done a great job of creating a new group to be the object of scorn and prejudice. A woman I know was walking down the street smoking, and she was cursed at by a couple. It is open season against smokers. It is interesting that people who drink, or even habitual drunks also feel free to chime in with remarks about smokers, yet I am willing to wager that drunk drivers kill WAY more people than do smokers in a bar. Yeah, I know that there are already DWI laws on the books. Tell that to these people. The thing is, people will catch on to this, and the taxes on alcohol will soon double, perhaps even triple. It won't take long either. Locations where people can drink will be further restricted, of this I am sure. When the above takes place, the same bleeding heart, ban lovers are going to transform to "victims" in the bat of an eyelash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts