After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

But if nobody is suffering from the decision, is it an injustice?

Yes.

However, we don't need to argue about that because you are almost certainly wrong. In this case I would venture to say that there remains some small fraction of business owners who are now prohibited from smoking on their own private property, and who feel the injustice that has been done to them.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by DJJasonp

I was in California when they went through the vote and the ban........and all bar owners said the same thing KC bar owners said...."it's going to ruin my business....yada yada yada..."

and no one lost business.

People still need to drink
People still need to get laid.

End of story

On a side note....I was just having this discussion with my wife yesterday about this topic....and was wondering why Nevada (vegas, specifically) hasnt had a smoking ban law enacted.

In California, it was a class-action lawsuit by bartenders and waitresses that prompted the ban.

I'm shocked that casino employees havent tried the same in vegas.

Or maybe the "mob" influence is still there - and scaring people away from doing so???

Casinos usually have bad ass climate controls.

Fox and the Hound in Fort Worth has some nice filtration systems that turn the air in the room over like 4 times an hour (I think). They have to have them because they have too much of their revenue come in from food so they would have to be nonsmoking without it.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by KC native

Casinos usually have bad ass climate controls.

Fox and the Hound in Fort Worth has some nice filtration systems that turn the air in the room over like 4 times an hour (I think). They have to have them because they have too much of their revenue come in from food so they would have to be nonsmoking without it.

Is that where you wash dishes?

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Yes.

However, we don't need to argue about that because you are almost certainly wrong. In this case I would venture to say that there remains some small fraction of business owners who are now prohibited from smoking on their own private property, and who feel the injustice that has been done to them.

I would say it sucks for them. I guess that's what happens when you live in a majority rules democracy, and you end up on the side with less votes?

If you are trying to make the point of less government is better, I can understand that. As it goes into this case in particular, I have a hard time seeing the evils of the ruling. Nobody is on the short end of the stick outside the bar owner that wants to smoke while behind the bar. I'm sure for every three bars that prosper these days due to the ban, there may be one that goes out of business, but I don't hear the stories of former bar owners cursing the ban as to the reason they lost their livelihood.

I'm not trying to make this some kind of party line subject. I was honestly curious as to what people thought of it a few years removed from the fact. It was a big deal when it was all going now, but that died off pretty quickly.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

I would say it sucks for them. I guess that's what happens when you live in a majority rules democracy, and you end up on the side with less votes?

You seem to have your finger firmly on the pulse of the obvious. Yep. Tough titty, private business owner.

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

If you are trying to make the point of less government is better, I can understand that...

If that had been my point, I probably would have said something like, "Y'know, less government is better." In this matter, however, the size of government is immaterial.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

You seem to have your finger firmly on the pulse of the obvious. Yep. Tough titty, private business owner.

Like I said earlier, it doesn't look like the nightlife around these parts has taken a hit, so I am to assume these peoples' livelihoods have not been adversely effected by the ban, outside having to step outside to have a smoke, I guess? That's a metric ****ton of oppression to fight through. I hope they can handle it.


Maybe my opinion would be greatly different if I were an owner of an establishment that fell under these rules. Probably not "maybe", in fact. All that being said, I would say that democracy worked pretty much the way it was advertised in this case. Agree?

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

...I would say that democracy worked pretty much the way it was advertised in this case. Agree?

I guess. Don't ask me. I don't listen to the advertisements and I'm not interested in the product.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I guess. Don't ask me. I don't listen to the advertisements and I'm not interested in the product.

Ok, I laughed.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

I would say it sucks for them. I guess that's what happens when you live in a majority rules democracy, and you end up on the side with less votes?

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic and a Constitution that restrains the govt as well as the majority when they violate rights, including property rights.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic and a Constitution that restrains the govt as well as the majority when they violate rights, including property rights.

All that is probably in the ads that Bowser mentioned. I think that's why we're not supposed to be allowed to just vote life or property from the minority to the majority.

We do it on a fairly regular basis, but I seem to recall that we're not supposed to be allowed to do it.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

Like I said earlier, it doesn't look like the nightlife around these parts has taken a hit, so I am to assume these peoples' livelihoods have not been adversely effected by the ban, outside having to step outside to have a smoke, I guess? That's a metric ****ton of oppression to fight through. I hope they can handle it.


Maybe my opinion would be greatly different if I were an owner of an establishment that fell under these rules. Probably not "maybe", in fact. All that being said, I would say that democracy worked pretty much the way it was advertised in this case. Agree?

NO, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. If the entire world lives by YOUR ideals then no one suffered and all is good. Unfortunately that isn't REALITY... YOU don't get to decide what is OK for a private business owner.. and **** YOU for thinking it is ok for you to take that role. You thinking it is ok makes you nothing but a ****ing asshole and a BULLY that thinks it's fine to impose your will on someone else because it is convenient for YOU.

Seriously, if you are OK with this... you are a either A)ignorant or B) a worthless piece of shit who thinks it's ok to impose your beliefs arbitrarily on those who don't agree with you... in which case I sincerely hope you cease to exist before responding to my post.

BTW on your "democracy" argument... do you HONESTLY think that majority rule is ok? IF so, I guess we shouldn't let coloreds vote in Alabama.. you know, majority rule and all. You ignorant piece of garbage.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative Republic and a Constitution that restrains the govt as well as the majority when they violate rights, including property rights.

Rare that I agree with you.. but YES, well said and exactly right.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You've never seen one law that wasn't Nazi-like oppression, but this you're good with.

It should be up to the bar/establishment whether or not they allow smoking or not. If I don't like being engulfed in smoke all night then I won't go there, and I think the same goes w/ other people. If comes to a point where that bar starts losing enough money where they want to change their rules, then that's up to them.

But I see your dumbass is trying to troll. There isn't a body of govt/law/ordinance that you never disliked. You like getting groped by a bunch of pervs at the airport because the govt is telling you that they're fighting Al-Qaeda while the justice dept allows these assholes to get on the plane.

[Dayze]

i meant to click "Love It'.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

And yet another smoking ban thread that misses the point entirely. Any smoker who claims a ban violates their "rights" is an idiot. Just like the anti-smoking crowd who claim they somehow have a "right" to a smoke free environment when they go out.

Smoking bans are an infringement on ONE person's rights... the OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY. That's it.

The only thing to debate is wether or not you feel it is justified for the government (in this case city) to step in and tell a private property owner what is ok behavior for adults on their property.

Smoking bans don't hurt me in the least but I still find them to be massive violations of private property rights.

You are being a little over-dramatic.

The city has every right to decide what is an acceptable business or what happens in their city, from banning strip clubs, juice bars, smoking, alcohol, or make sure that where the restaurant is cooking their food is up to standard so people don't get sick and die.

Don't like it move to a new city that doesn't have said restrictions.