When there are too many libs in a local government.

[indyfrisco]

This is one lib agenda I can get on board with. Fuck the smokers.

Now smokers, come on in and defend your right to pollute the rest of our air. I'll just sit back and breathe with my clean and clear lungs.

[BSmack]

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... -and-parks


The USSR was never that bad.

You're comparing a public health/anti-litter measure to Stalinist gulags?

[Mikey]

If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.

[indyfrisco]

If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.

Well, most inner cities at least...

[BSmack]

If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.

Well, most inner cities at least...

We came close here in Rochesters. Don't EVER run out of chicken again Popeye's.

http://www.noob.us/entertainment/popeye ... hester-ny/

[R-Jack]

If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.

Well, most inner cities at least...

We came close here in Rochesters. Don't EVER run out of chicken again Popeye's.

FTFY

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm not a smoker. Never have been and never will be. I do not support anti-smoking laws insofar as they restrict the right of private individuals to utilize their private property as they see fit. I don't really have a beef if government wants to restrict the use of cigarettes in government owned spaces. But it is hypocritical on one hand to condemn cigarettes as a deadly public health hazard and then on the other profit handsomely via tax revenues on the very product the government condemns. Either ban the shit entirely or shut the fuck up about it's use on private property.

I used to agree with 88. Before I moved to DC, I used to be vehemently against smoking bans for those very reasons, but since I moved here, I love it. VA just got around to smoking bans within the last year and there was a stark difference between going to bars in DC and VA. And it wasn't just the disgusting smell, but the sheer recklessness and carelessness of smokers. Waving around their lit smokes like they are the only ones in the room. I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell Arlington smokers to watch where the fuck they are waving those things before you put a hole in my jacket or shirt.

[Screw_Michigan]

I find people who wear pants so baggy that they are about to fall off and/or who talk or text on cell phones annoying, particularly in restaurants. We need to get a list of annoying things together and instruct government to start banning that stuff.

Do those baggy pants put holes in your shirts?

[smackaholic]

I find people who wear pants so baggy that they are about to fall off and/or who talk or text on cell phones annoying, particularly in restaurants. We need to get a list of annoying things together and instruct government to start banning that stuff.

Do those baggy pants put holes in your shirts?

You really should update that 1977 polyester disco shirt wardrobe.

I am with 88 on this one. There have been bar owners who have had their bidnesses ruined because of these bullshit laws. I have a friend who owned a pool hall with his dad. First they told him to spend over ten grand on smoke eating equipment. A few years later, they banned smoking outright. He was closed inside of a year. There was an immediate 50% reduction in business as a result of this law.

Private property rights should held most dearly. Without them, everything else will go to shit. Too bad gubmint doesn't give a fukk about them anymore.

A place such as a bar which can show that allowing smoking is a very important part of their business, should be exempt from such bullshit laws. In other places, they are a good idea.

[indyfrisco]

I find people who wear pants so baggy that they are about to fall off and/or who talk or text on cell phones annoying, particularly in restaurants. We need to get a list of annoying things together and instruct government to start banning that stuff.

Hyperbole is good and all, but baggy pants and cell phones do not intrude on my personal well being. If a motherfucker can't sit down for an hour and have a meal without smoking and ruining other people's dining experience, fuck'em. I'll defend a person's right to smoke...just not their right to blow it in my damn face.

[indyfrisco]

Spray,

I know my stance is 100% selfish. I applaud (and patronize) the businesses that ban smoking inside. However, most smokers are not courteous smokers. Like Screwball said, they just wave those fucking things around as if no one is around them. They don't give a flying fuck how what they are doing affects those around them. They throw their damn butts on the ground. I am not for banning things that are annoying, but smoking is a lot more than just annoying.

[Trampis]

I get banning cigs in enclosed places where the stink and stank tends to accumulate, but not outside. Outside it wafts away, and to complain about a brief encounter with the scent of cigarette smoke is realy being anal. Theres lots of scents in this world, from strong lotions and perfumes, to the smell of freshly cut grass and rotting fish on the beach, to fireplaces in the wintertime. Outside cig smoke is just another smell that breezes past your nose. Get over yourselves.

[Mace]

Rack Trampis.

I'm a non-smoker, and find it more enjoyable going to a non-smoking bar, but I have a problem with the government banning smoking on private property (bars). I ban smoking in my home but if the government ever sees fit to ban smoking in your private residence, I'll be one of the first to go out and buy a pack of cigs and go home to light one up.
Someone smoking outside does not present a health risk to anyone but the smoker, so I'm in favor of leaving them alone and letting them smoke.

[Wolfman]

My workplace, Edison State College, recently went to a "smoke-free" campus. They used to allow designated smoking areas. Unfortunately, there was one right in front of my building where I had to walk back and forth from work. There were times I had to hold my breath when I walked by. I'm glad they got rid of it. I do see the occasional smoker out by one of the lakes smoking. I have no problem with that as they are so far away from me it is no bother. BTW---I was a pack and a half a day guy until 1990. I honestly don't think I'd be alive if I had not stopped.Now you really want to get me going---talk about light bulbs, toilets, and shower heads.

[Screw_Michigan]

When did you start at a pack and 1/2 per day?

[Moving Sale]

I'm a non-smoker, and find it more enjoyable going to a non-smoking bar, but I have a problem with the government banning smoking on private property (bars).

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients. They make money from people coming off the street to buy their product or service therefore they have a duty to those people to make sure that their property is safe. Lots of things are legal but that doesn't mean that the government can't ban you from letting your customers do them in your store. Don’t like it? Close your doors to the public and charge a fee to be a member of your club.

SLO was the first city on Earth to ban smoking in bars and our bars and restaurants have been thriving for a long time.

[Mace]

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.

Do you mean "dangers" like alcohol?

[Moving Sale]

I meant things that can/will harm them, not things they can use to harm themselves.

[War Wagon]

But it is hypocritical on one hand to condemn cigarettes as a deadly public health hazard and then on the other profit handsomely via tax revenues on the very product the government condemns.

Absolutely.

It's a regressive tax, designed to 'punish' those who choose to smoke in an effort to get them to quit while simutaeneously using those taxes to prop up their state budgets.

[mvscal]

Hyperbole is good and all, but baggy pants and cell phones do not intrude on my personal well being.

Neither does somebody smoking on the beach. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize establishments that permit smoking. Why do you hate economic freedom, you dick licking, commie toolbag?

[Moving Sale]

Hyperbole is good and all, but baggy pants and cell phones do not intrude on my personal well being.

Neither does somebody smoking on the beach. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize establishments that permit smoking. Why do you hate economic freedom, you dick licking, commie toolbag?

Beaches are private establishments that can be patronized and they have something to do with economic freedom? Huh?

Proof positive that you’re a vile racist assfuck that does not live in California.

[BSmack]

When did you start at a pack and 1/2 per day?

Back with these guys when he got off the Mayflower.

[Dr_Phibes]

The USSR was never that bad.

When you achieve freedom and are allowed to travel anywhere you please.. get over to Cuba. Everyone smokes like a bastard. It's delicious, nicotine heaven.

[Dinsdale]

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.

And what "danger" is that?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The USSR was never that bad.

When you achieve freedom and are allowed to travel anywhere you please.. get over to Cuba. Everyone smokes like a bastard. It's delicious, nicotine heaven.

Cuban cigars in any old cigar shop here in Canada...piled to the ceiling.



¡Viva la Revolución!

[Moving Sale]

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.

And what "danger" is that?

Wait you said that you were such a big pussy that you had put me on delete and were no longer smart enough to retort to my posts. So come correct or STFU you pickled amnesiac.

[smackaholic]

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients. They make money from people coming off the street to buy their product or service therefore they have a duty to those people to make sure that their property is safe.

So, the midget who makes a living trying to spring the dregs of society from prison is now worried about the publics safety?

That's fukking rich.

Lots of things are legal but that doesn't mean that the government can't ban you from letting your customers do them in your store. Don’t like it? Close your doors to the public and charge a fee to be a member of your club.

fags boning one another in the ass got more people killed than second hand smoke in bars ever did, but i'm pretty sure i know which side of outlawing that you are on.

i will never understand how libs who claim to be for limiting gubmint's sticking its nose into personal affairs, switch sides whenever their lib masters tell them to do so. you are no better than mind numbed right wingers who follow their master's marching orders.

you have the right to not have mongs blow their second hand smoke in your face or burn holes in your disco shirt. this does not mean you get to designate others private property as a smoke free zone.

prior to the smoking bans, many places already had smoke free sections and i'm fairly certain some places already had total smoking bans established by the owners of these establishments. i never recall having to be in a place where i had to put up others smoke. i was there by choice.

[Moving Sale]

So, the midget who makes a living trying to spring the dregs of society from prison is now worried about the publics safety?

The Board releases them not me. Would you like to point to one person that I have worked with who has harmed anyone on the outside?

That's fukking rich.

fags boning one another in the ass got more people killed than second hand smoke in bars ever did, but i'm pretty sure i know which side of outlawing that you are on.

Irrelevant. Care to try again?

i will never understand how libs who claim to be for limiting gubmint's sticking its nose into personal affairs, switch sides whenever their lib masters tell them to do so.

I will never understand why you insist on running ‘lib’ smack at me. How dumb are you?

you are no better than mind numbed right wingers who follow their master's marching orders.

You are one vapid fuckhole.

you have the right to not have mongs blow their second hand smoke in your face or burn holes in your disco shirt. this does not mean you get to designate others private property as a smoke free zone.

Disco shirt? Dude you are a riot.

I will use simple words so even you can get it. It is NOT private property. It is private property open to the public. The rules are different for private property that is open to the public. Take for example the Health Inspector. The HI can not come into your home and check and see if the jello with pineapple chunks in it that you serve to your vile racist friends is safe or clean or nontoxic, but that same inspector can check the local MickyDs you frequent in order to check to see if the kangaroo is cooked enough. Same thing here, the Gov can, and has, made a law that you can’t smoke in a bar that is open to the public.
Don’t like it? Reopen as a private club.

prior to the smoking bans, many places already had smoke free sections

You mean like on planes where aisle 33 was ‘smokefree’ even though the guy in aisle 34 was smoking?

and i'm fairly certain some places already had total smoking bans established by the owners of these establishments.

So what?

i never recall having to be in a place where i had to put up others smoke. i was there by choice.

And many cities and states have chosen to ban smoking in places open to the public. You hate Democracy why?

[Dinsdale]

It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.

And what "danger" is that?

Wait you said that you were such a big pussy that you had put me on delete and were no longer smart enough to retort to my posts. So come correct or STFU you pickled amnesiac.

I said no such thing -- you're lying, as usual.


BTW-don't flatter yourself -- you're still on Ignore.

I only saw the stupidity you wrote (yet another lie) because someone quoted it.

And I notice you didn't answer the question, which probably comes as a surprise to... no one.

[smackaholic]

So, the midget who makes a living trying to spring the dregs of society from prison is now worried about the publics safety?

The Board releases them not me. Would you like to point to one person that I have worked with who has harmed anyone on the outside?

That's fukking rich.

i'm certain every one of them is now a fine upstanding citizen, now that you have righted their erroneous sentence

fags boning one another in the ass got more people killed than second hand smoke in bars ever did, but i'm pretty sure i know which side of outlawing that you are on.

Irrelevant. Care to try again?

bullshit. if you are gonna be for nanny state laws that make society safe, let's not be chosey.

i will never understand how libs who claim to be for limiting gubmint's sticking its nose into personal affairs, switch sides whenever their lib masters tell them to do so.

I will never understand why you insist on running ‘lib’ smack at me. How dumb are you?

you are no better than mind numbed right wingers who follow their master's marching orders.

You are one vapid fuckhole.

now who's irrelevant?

you have the right to not have mongs blow their second hand smoke in your face or burn holes in your disco shirt. this does not mean you get to designate others private property as a smoke free zone.

Disco shirt? Dude you are a riot.

I will use simple words so even you can get it. It is NOT private property. It is private property open to the public. The rules are different for private property that is open to the public. Take for example the Health Inspector. The HI can not come into your home and check and see if the jello with pineapple chunks in it that you serve to your vile racist friends is safe or clean or nontoxic, but that same inspector can check the local MickyDs you frequent in order to check to see if the kangaroo is cooked enough. Same thing here, the Gov can, and has, made a law that you can’t smoke in a bar that is open to the public.
Don’t like it? Reopen as a private club.

some states in the south use that "private club" bullshit as an out with regards to alcohol consumption. why should a private citizen be artifically limited by do gooder nanny state fags? is second hand smoke any different in a "private club"?

prior to the smoking bans, many places already had smoke free sections

You mean like on planes where aisle 33 was ‘smokefree’ even though the guy in aisle 34 was smoking?

i mean like restaurants and bars with smoking/non-smoking sections, jackoff. a plane is a very different situation where you are packed together like sardines. smoking bans here actually make sense

and i'm fairly certain some places already had total smoking bans established by the owners of these establishments.

So what?

it shows that the marketplace will provide these options without you and your jackbooted thug nannies jamming them down our throats

i never recall having to be in a place where i had to put up others smoke. i was there by choice.

And many cities and states have chosen to ban smoking in places open to the public. You hate Democracy why?

nothing to do with hating democracy, jackass. are you a supporter of every law on the books? it's about freedom of individuals to do as they please so long as they do not harm others. and so long as these bar smokers are not dragging others in off the street and blowing smoke in their faces, they are not harming others.

[Moving Sale]

I'm sorry I must have misread your drivel.

To answer your question...
We will start with the basics, see if you can understand even simple concepts THEN we will move on, if that is possible given your limited IQ. Ok here we go, three classes of people can be on a landowner's property. They are a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee. So far so good? Or do I need to tell you the difference between a licensee and an invitee?

Landowners owe a "duty of care" to any person in these three classes. No trespasser, licensee, or invitee can be intentionally injured willfully, maliciously, or through gross]/b] negligence. There are other rules for trespassers, but you’re pretty stupid so I’ll let those slide.

The landowner must repair dangerous conditions and warn the licensee visitor of hazardous situations.

An invitee is owed the highest duty of care. The invitee must be warned of any dangerous condition, and the property must be kept in a reasonably safe condition.

It’s simple tort law. Too simple for a vapid fuck like you to understand but simple nonetheless.

What does this have to do with smoking laws? It lays the foundation for why a city or State can use the police powers granted them in the US Constitution can make certain laws that protect people on private property whether it is open to the public or not.

Now go fuck a fat hog or catch a salmon with your teeth or build a palace out of driftwood and box of deck screws, then pull your head out of your ass and get back to me.

[Moving Sale]

i'm certain every one of them is now a fine upstanding citizen, now that you have righted their erroneous sentence

No one said their sentence was erroneous. Do you just make shit up to look stupid or is it that you can not stop yourself?

bullshit. if you are gonna be for nanny state laws that make society safe, let's not be chosey(sic).

That is a classic slippery slope fallacy and only a tard would use it. You used it, then when I pointed out that it was a suck argument you doubled down on it, so I guess that makes you a double tard.

now who's irrelevant?

You because I’m not a ‘lib.’

some states in the south use that "private club" bullshit as an out with regards to alcohol consumption. why should a private citizen be artificially(sic) limited by do gooder nanny state fags? is second hand smoke any different in a "private club"?

I have detailed the difference between a private club and a place that is open to the public above in my retort to Dims. Read it, if you know how to read, and get back to me.
As far as the smoke being different, no it's the same smoke you would find if you let doctors smoke in surgery.

i mean like restaurants and bars with smoking/non-smoking sections, jackoff. a plane is a very different situation where you are packed together like sardines. smoking bans here actually make sense

First off there are many restaurants that are smaller than a 767 so you’re just blowing smoke on this one.
Second, planes are private property. You’re whole argument is that private property should not be regulated not that some private property should be regulated. You’re whole argument is ‘marketpalce’ based and now you pull this rabbit out of a hat. You are one dum sim.

it shows that the marketplace will provide these options without you and your jackbooted thug nannies jamming them down our throats

YOU’RE the jackbooted thug nanny telling people they can’t smoke on a plane. How dumb are you?

nothing to do with hating democracy, jackass. are you a supporter of every law on the books? it's about freedom of individuals to do as they please so long as they do not harm others. and so long as these bar smokers are not dragging others in off the street and blowing smoke in their faces, they are not harming others.

But these same individuals don’t have the freedom to smoke on a plane because your jackbooted thugself say that is not ok?

Dude I know you are dumb. I know you just say shit and never think shit out first, but EVEN you have to be able to see that if the ‘nanny state’ can ban smoking on planes it can ban it in bars.

Actually I have zero faith that you are that smart.

[smackaholic]

I'm sorry I must have misread your drivel.

To answer your question...
We will start with the basics, see if you can understand even simple concepts THEN we will move on, if that is possible given your limited IQ. Ok here we go, three classes of people can be on a landowner's property. They are a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee. So far so good? Or do I need to tell you the difference between a licensee and an invitee?

i'm wit'cha so far

Landowners owe a "duty of care" to any person in these three classes. No trespasser, licensee, or invitee can be intentionally injured willfully, maliciously, or through gross]/b] negligence. There are other rules for trespassers, but you’re pretty stupid so I’ll let those slide.

sounds good to me. not sure how allowing invitees to partake in a legal activity (smoking) violates these laws. would it be OK for gubmint to ban them from selling bacon or cheesecake as well?

The landowner must repair dangerous conditions and warn the licensee visitor of hazardous situations.

OK. How's about a sign saying warning, there might be smokers present? How 'bout also seeing to it that the building has sufficient ventilation for it's rated capacity as prescribed by law?

An invitee is owed the highest duty of care. The invitee must be warned of any dangerous condition, and the property must be kept in a reasonably safe condition.

yeah, yeah, you said that already

It’s simple tort law. Too simple for a vapid fuck like you to understand but simple nonetheless.

What does this have to do with smoking laws? It lays the foundation for why a city or State can use the police powers granted them in the US Constitution can make certain laws that protect people on private property whether it is open to the public or not.

no shit, sherlock. i'm all for occupancy laws or other reasonable laws aimed at providing a practical level of safety. but, these laws have their limits. when these laws end up ruining a person's business, who started that business expecting that he would have certain conditions conducive to that business, it is gubmint's duty to compensate this individual for his loss. i would be a little more understanding of this law if the gubmint stated before enacting it, "OK, we are gonna ban smoking. this may have an adverse effect on your bidness, therefore we are willing to buy you out at the market rate today" it's kind of like with emminent domain. gubmint has the right to take private property in certain situations, but they have to pay market value for it. banning smoking in an establishment where they know the result will be a substantial reduction of bidness is akin to confiscating private property. how anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. i suspect you see my argument, but, being a good commie, you don't give two fukks about private property rights.

Now go fuck a fat hog or catch a salmon with your teeth or build a palace out of driftwood and box of deck screws, then pull your head out of your ass and get back to me.

you are mixing me up with dins.

[Goober McTuber]

Tard fight, with marginal ubb skills to boot.

[Dinsdale]

Again, I'll ask the same question -- what "danger" is involved?

[smackaholic]

Tard fight, with marginal ubb skills to boot.

i would have to work on my ubb skills to get them up to marginal. i would rate them somewhere between non-existent and paltry.

so, where do you stand on the smoking ban thing? i know you are lib leaning, but don't strike me as being completely lockstep with the worst if the nanny state libtards.

[Moving Sale]

no shit, sherlock. i'm all for occupancy laws or other reasonable laws aimed at providing a practical level of safety. but, these laws have their limits. when these laws end up ruining a person's business, who started that business expecting that he would have certain conditions conducive to that business, it is gubmint's duty to compensate this individual for his loss. i would be a little more understanding of this law if the gubmint stated before enacting it, "OK, we are gonna ban smoking. this may have an adverse effect on your bidness, therefore we are willing to buy you out at the market rate today" it's kind of like with eminent(sic) domain. gubmint has the right to take private property in certain situations, but they have to pay market value for it. banning smoking in an establishment where they know the result will be a substantial reduction of bidness is akin to confiscating private property. how anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. i suspect you see my argument, but, being a good commie, you don't give two fukks about private property rights.

What you know about private property rights would fit on Dims pinhead. If you give people unlimited property rights no one have the right to protect their property. I know this is too complicated for you to understand but trust me it’s true.

And this is not a 5th Amendment Taking. Calling it one is the height of idiocy.

[Moving Sale]

Tard fight, with marginal ubb skills to boot.

Go fuck yourself you stupid old fuck.

[Goober McTuber]

so, where do you stand on the smoking ban thing?

Funny thing about that smoking ban here in Madison. Several years before it went into effect a couple of brothers who came from a family with a history of running successful bars and restaurants decided to open a big new sports bar on the east side. And it would be Madison’s first ever smoke-free bar.

They almost went under and after a couple of months they relented and allowed smoking. Now everybody’s smoke-free and they are doing fine.

I smoked for 29 years, quit in 1999. I’m not one of those virulent ex-smokers. Quite the contrary, I enjoy that whiff of smoke when a cigarette first gets lit. I have mixed feelings about the smoking ban. Yes, you can say that a proprietor should have the choice but the reality is that none of them would have the guts to go smoke-free, it’s a proven loser. But anyone who went out of business because of the smoking ban wasn’t much of a businessman to begin with.

Tough shit. Majority rules, and the majority no longer smoke. Go outside for 5 minutes and enjoy your cigarette.

[Dinsdale]

Yes, you can say that a proprietor should have the choice but the reality is that none of them would have the guts to go smoke-free, it’s a proven loser.

The McMennamins were always smoke free, from their onset (circa 1983) -- and they became easily the most successful chain of bars/pubs around these parts.

So much for that theory.