Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
You're comparing a public health/anti-litter measure to Stalinist gulags?Papa Willie wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... -and-parks
The USSR was never that bad.
Well, most inner cities at least...Mikey wrote:If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.
We came close here in Rochesters. Don't EVER run out of chicken again Popeye's.IndyFrisco wrote:Well, most inner cities at least...Mikey wrote:If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.
FTFYBSmack wrote:We came close here in Rochesters. Don't EVER run out of chicken again Popeye's.IndyFrisco wrote:Well, most inner cities at least...Mikey wrote:If they ever ban fried chicken we might be in for an armed insurrection.
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.88 wrote: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.
Do those baggy pants put holes in your shirts?88 wrote: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.
You really should update that 1977 polyester disco shirt wardrobe.Screw_Michigan wrote:Do those baggy pants put holes in your shirts?88 wrote: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.88 wrote: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.
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.Mace wrote: 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).
Do you mean "dangers" like alcohol?Moving Sale wrote:It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.
Absolutely.88 wrote: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.
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?IndyFrisco wrote:Hyperbole is good and all, but baggy pants and cell phones do not intrude on my personal well being.
Beaches are private establishments that can be patronized and they have something to do with economic freedom? Huh?mvscal wrote: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?IndyFrisco wrote:Hyperbole is good and all, but baggy pants and cell phones do not intrude on my personal well being.
Back with these guys when he got off the Mayflower.Screw_Michigan wrote:When did you start at a pack and 1/2 per day?
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.Papa Willie wrote:
The USSR was never that bad.
Moving Sale wrote: It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.
Dr_Phibes wrote: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.Papa Willie wrote:
The USSR was never that bad.
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.Dinsdale wrote:Moving Sale wrote: It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.
And what "danger" is that?
So, the midget who makes a living trying to spring the dregs of society from prison is now worried about the publics safety?Moving Sale wrote: 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.
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.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.
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?smackaholic wrote: So, the midget who makes a living trying to spring the dregs of society from prison is now worried about the publics safety?
Irrelevant. Care to try again?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 why you insist on running ‘lib’ smack at me. How dumb are you?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 one vapid fuckhole.you are no better than mind numbed right wingers who follow their master's marching orders.
Disco shirt? Dude you are a riot.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.
You mean like on planes where aisle 33 was ‘smokefree’ even though the guy in aisle 34 was smoking?prior to the smoking bans, many places already had smoke free sections
So what?and i'm fairly certain some places already had total smoking bans established by the owners of these establishments.
And many cities and states have chosen to ban smoking in places open to the public. You hate Democracy why?i never recall having to be in a place where i had to put up others smoke. i was there by choice.
Moving Sale wrote: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.Dinsdale wrote:Moving Sale wrote: It's property open to the public. It has to be free from dangers that will harm any clients.
And what "danger" is that?
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 wrote: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?smackaholic wrote: 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.
i'm certain every one of them is now a fine upstanding citizen, now that you have righted their erroneous sentence
Irrelevant. Care to try again?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.
bullshit. if you are gonna be for nanny state laws that make society safe, let's not be chosey.
I will never understand why you insist on running ‘lib’ smack at me. How dumb are you?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 one vapid fuckhole.you are no better than mind numbed right wingers who follow their master's marching orders.
now who's irrelevant?
Disco shirt? Dude you are a riot.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.
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"?
You mean like on planes where aisle 33 was ‘smokefree’ even though the guy in aisle 34 was smoking?prior to the smoking bans, many places already had smoke free sections
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
So what?and i'm fairly certain some places already had total smoking bans established by the owners of these establishments.
it shows that the marketplace will provide these options without you and your jackbooted thug nannies jamming them down our throats
And many cities and states have chosen to ban smoking in places open to the public. You hate Democracy why?i never recall having to be in a place where i had to put up others smoke. i was there by choice.
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?smackaholic wrote: i'm certain every one of them is now a fine upstanding citizen, now that you have righted their erroneous sentence
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.bullshit. if you are gonna be for nanny state laws that make society safe, let's not be chosey(sic).
You because I’m not a ‘lib.’now who's irrelevant?
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.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"?
First off there are many restaurants that are smaller than a 767 so you’re just blowing smoke on this one.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
YOU’RE the jackbooted thug nanny telling people they can’t smoke on a plane. How dumb are you?it shows that the marketplace will provide these options without you and your jackbooted thug nannies jamming them down our throats
But these same individuals don’t have the freedom to smoke on a plane because your jackbooted thugself say that is not ok?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 wrote: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.
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.Goober McTuber wrote:Tard fight, with marginal ubb skills to boot.
smackaholic wrote: 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.
Go fuck yourself you stupid old fuck.Goober McTuber wrote:Tard fight, with marginal ubb skills to boot.
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.smackaholic wrote:so, where do you stand on the smoking ban thing?
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.Goober McTuber wrote: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.