Your mind is literally blown

[RV]

But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

First of all, passing laws isn't a business. I know this because only businesses can create jobs, and the government doesn't create jobs, therefore the government and it's law-passing is not a business.

Second off, congratulations on your cute video game comparison, but I think there's a bit more laptop science behind the assertion that "secondhand smoke is bad for your health" than the assertion that "kids who play violent video games grow up to be Weebs or something else awful." Call me crazy but it's a bit of a reach to imply that someone who supports the smoking ban for health reasons, also supports the government regulating all sorts of other shit.

[Tank]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

[BH]

Rob Meier, from Indianapolis, puts the SMACKDOWN on smokers.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090224/OPINION01/902240313/1002/OPINION

[Slaky]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

[Canadouche]

But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.

I believe Kim du Toit* did.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/41/

*I like to think this is pronounced "doo twat"

I'd be surprised if that phrase is even that recent, but ::shrugs::  

[ChuckD]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

[RV]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

If we're going to start talking about anecdotal personal experiences here, my memory indicates that these voluntary bans were nonexistent until the subject of a smoking ban was broached by the gubment. Bars and restaurants only instituted these voluntary bans in anticipation of an eventual law.

[Tank]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

It means he gets results, you stupid Chief!

[Slaky]

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

Get another restaurant job for your bitch you stupid waitress.

[Philberto]

Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

If we're going to start talking about anecdotal personal experiences here, my memory indicates that these voluntary bans were nonexistent until the subject of a smoking ban was broached by the gubment. Bars and restaurants only instituted these voluntary bans in anticipation of an eventual law.

Well I guess my life experiences are inadequate then.

[Tank]

I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

I don't think I'd realized until today how many people on this messageboard were capable of writing sentences that, while technically grammatically correct, don't make a lick of sense.

[CT III]

Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

I really didn't want to wade into the middle of this shitstorm but...

I'm going to bet that most restaurants do not in fact own the buildings that they operate out of.

As for smoking being legal, have you ever heard of zoning laws?  Liquor is legal, but you can't sell it without a license.  In Oak Park, only restaurants can sell it.  

I own my house, and recently had some plumbing work done.  You know what I had to do?  Have it inspected by the City to make sure it was done to code.

This argument is bad.  Take another tack.

[Tank]

As for smoking being legal, have you ever heard of zoning laws?  Liquor is legal, but you can't sell it without a license.  In Oak Park, only restaurants can sell it.

And in Wheaton, you can only buy 3.2 beer if you have a signed note from your pastor.

[Canadouche]

But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

First of all, passing laws isn't a business. I know this because only businesses can create jobs, and the government doesn't create jobs, therefore the government and it's law-passing is not a business.

Second off, congratulations on your cute video game comparison, but I think there's a bit more laptop science behind the assertion that "secondhand smoke is bad for your health" than the assertion that "kids who play violent video games grow up to be Weebs or something else awful." Call me crazy but it's a bit of a reach to imply that someone who supports the smoking ban for health reasons, also supports the government regulating all sorts of other shit.

I'll take it a step further to say that it's a more complicated situation than my green-font post implied.  It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution, and any law which tells me what I can't do on radio, TV, or in video games is restrictive.  However, I actually do think that an inherent jorb of the government is to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic.  Large, profit-driven corporations that would cut our throats if it was profitable enough should be seen as a domestic threat.  I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make a profit, but if a corner you cut jeopardizes the health of your workers and neighbors, then fuck you and your business.  

Tobacco companies for decades have tried to deceive the populace in order to sell more ciagrettes.  I support penalizing them for that.  Personally I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't miss that the restaurants in NY are, by law, smoke free.  But I support exceptions to the rule, and that's what NY has done.  If a bar, restaurant, or business can prove that the loss of smoking has damaged their business, then they have the chance to receive an exemption.  Makes sense to me.  

Regardless of all that, it becomes a slippery slope issue.  It's not ok to smoke in establishments.  Well, I go for walks with my kids at night and I don't want to walk by a group of idiots smoking outside a bar.  So let's ban smoking in public -- make smokers keep their habits at home.  At that point, are we honestly sure that nobody would ever try to ban smoking at home?  Hasn't that already been talked about?  Aw, fuck it.  I really only care that my precious first ammendment not be toyed with and I'll gun down anybody who tries.

[RV]

Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

Again, it's not the smoking itself that's a problem - it's the byproduct of the smoking that's the problem. Because the byproduct can result in harm to others. This probably isn't the best comparison, but here goes anyway: you're allowed to shoot a gun at a firing range - that's legal. But if you point that gun at someone else and fire, it's not legal. Because it can result in harm to others.

Well I guess my life experiences are inadequate then.

OK, I was being a dick there. But my point is that I'm dubious of using anyone's personal experiences (yours or mine) as evidence of some sort of trend. Honest question - in states without talk of a smoking ban, have there been significant numbers of restaurant owners voluntarily instituting such a ban?