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.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

So a simple disagreement results in a ban?

Pretty limp IMO. At least he openly said he was doing it, that's cavalier.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

That's what I took from it.

Dirk did nothing wrong. I'd be pissed if I was him.

He should be pissed and he should then take a step back and realize that is exactly how a private business owner feels when people like him arbitrarily strip them of THEIR rights.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

He should be pissed and he should then take a step back and realize that is exactly how a private business owner feels when people like him arbitrarily strip them of THEIR rights.

The example your trying to make is completely lame.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

The example your trying to make is completely lame.

You are welcome to feel that way and also welcome to take your business elsewhere. Just like a bar patron can choose not to go to a smoke filled bar.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No, the point is about people being cavalier about other's rights and hopefully seeing what it's like being on the receiving end of that exchange.

I happen to be the guy with the power here, so, since I have the power to do it, it's ok right? I don't need a valid reason, I can just arbitrarily do it and everyone should just go along with it and be fine right? It's my opinion that these posters are better off taking a few days off. Since I think that's the case, it shouldn't matter what they think right? I don't have to take THEIR opinion on the matter since I know what's best.

How many people have you banned today simply because you've decided to have a little temper tantrum? By my count it's at least three.

AustinChief, you are obviously a smart guy. But I have lost all respect for you. Stop acting like a Nazi.

[Cannibal]

No one else will say it, probably for fear of being banned, but you're coming off like a total douche in this thread.

Good day sir. I must get back to work.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

How many people have you banned today simply because you've decided to have a little temper tantrum? By my count it's at least three.

AustinChief, you are obviously a smart guy. But I have lost all respect for you. Stop acting like a Nazi.

You're just playing his game. He'll say, "The ones wanting to strip us of our property rights are the Nazis!"

The deal here is that AC doesn't believe that sidestream/secondhand smoke poses a health risk, thus banning of it is arbitrary and has nothing to do with public welfare or workplace health safety issues.

If, on the other hand, you believe that sidestream smoke actually poses a health risk, there are legitimate reasons for smoking bans.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by NewChief

You're just playing his game. He'll say, "The ones wanting to strip us of our property rights are the Nazis!"

You can certainly argue that AC is being dramatic or heavy handed, but he has a point.

[luv]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

The example your trying to make is completely lame.

I disagree. I don't smoke. However, I didn't mind going someplace that allowed it. Springfield also has a smoking ban. IMO, that's lame.

I'm also not a business owner, but what I wouldn't need if I was one would be the government putting more rules and regulations on the way I run my business. People who smoke generally do so when they drink. Hell, people who don't smoke sometimes do when they drink. So, if I'm a bar owner who cannot let people smoke in my establishment, what do you think that will do to my business? Sure, I could close and go do something else, but why should I have to?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

How many people have you banned today simply because you've decided to have a little temper tantrum? By my count it's at least three.

AustinChief, you are obviously a smart guy. But I have lost all respect for you. Stop acting like a Nazi.

I totally agree with AC (cowers in fear)

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

How many people have you banned today simply because you've decided to have a little temper tantrum? By my count it's at least three.

AustinChief, you are obviously a smart guy. But I have lost all respect for you. Stop acting like a Nazi.

I couldn't give a flying **** if you have any respect for me. And I think it is 3 people and KCNATIVE.

You call me a NAZI yet you think stripping people of their private property rights arbitrarily is ok? May want to rethink things man.

I am ****ing tired of people thinking it is OK to give away OTHER'S rights simply because they don't feel the effects themselves. This is my very small way of demonstrating what it it's like being on the receiving end.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by luv

I disagree. I don't smoke. However, I didn't mind going someplace that allowed it. Springfield also has a smoking ban. IMO, that's lame.

I'm also not a business owner, but what I wouldn't need if I was one would be the government putting more rules and regulations on the way I run my business. People who smoke generally do so when they drink. Hell, people who don't smoke sometimes do when they drink. So, if I'm a bar owner who cannot let people smoke in my establishment, what do you think that will do to my business? Sure, I could close and go do something else, but why should I have to?

Except they're actually making more money...

[luv]

Wait. People have gotten banned over this? AC, I agree wholeheartedly with the point you're making regarding the ban, but c'mon.

[luv]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Except they're actually making more money...

Link?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by NewChief

You're just playing his game. He'll say, "The ones wanting to strip us of our property rights are the Nazis!"

The deal here is that AC doesn't believe that sidestream/secondhand smoke poses a health risk, thus banning of it is arbitrary and has nothing to do with public welfare or workplace health safety issues.

If, on the other hand, you believe that sidestream smoke actually poses a health risk, there are legitimate reasons for smoking bans.

Here is the legit debate. BUT as I pointed out, if OSHA doesn't have an issue then I can't see how anyone can justify a smoking ban on air quality standards. If you disagree with OSHA's permissible limits, that's fine but take that up with them.