John W. wrote:A frivolous factoid, the Nazis were fiercely anti-smoking.

Finally somebody godwined this thread. So can we finally end the debate now and just declare that the anti ban/pro bar smoking people were right the whole time and that the smoking ban is wrong and misguided?

Sorry, don't agree with Godwin. Let the debate go on!!!

I'm told people cant smoke outside within 14 feet of public areas either. Even though I'm for the ban, that's rediculous if true.

John W. wrote:Sorry, don't agree with Godwin. Let the debate go on!!!

Why you...you....NAZI!!!!

Dude, Godwin was such a Nazi...

John W. wrote:Cecil Adams:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

And even if it is proven that SHS kills, then people who don't want to put themselves in that kind of danger, shouldn't go to places where this possible danger exists. If it is important enough for non-smokers to avoid tobacco smoke, they wouldn't go to bars where people smoke. I think the reason that the dissenting opinions are dwarfed by the other side of the matter is because we live in a culture of fear. Hyping the idea that people around you who smoke induces slow death sells ads and panders to the (in my opinion, slightly neurotic and increasingly common) notion that we need to live in an unreasonably antiseptic world. Incidentally, I think that Fox news would be on the anti-smoking side of this issue, since it generates fear... but that's pure speculation on my part.

A frivolous factoid, the Nazis were fiercely anti-smoking.

"Those places" you are referring to are public spaces...again unless we are talking about private clubs which we are not. And if you were to replace the words 'non-smokers' and 'tobacco smoke' in your post with, say with 'black people' and 'violent racism', you may see that sort of argument/equation doesn't exactly jive.

Yes, the Nazis also liked cleanliness and order. Not all the things they were for were hateful... just the hateful things.

Total bullshit, this smoking ban in Chicago and elsewhere.

I don't smoke, but the whole hoopla involving trying to ban smoking in certain parts of major cities is silly and quite frankly illegal. If I own a restaurant or tavern, that is my property and I'll decide if people can smoke there or not. A government should not legislate such stuff involving private property and, really, such a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things.

Whether someone smokes or not is a choice... like free speech. It may potentially hurt others around them (just how free speech might inspire hate crimes, etc.), but in the end, it's up to the owner of a bar if people are allowed to smoke (or speak in racial slurs, going by your argument). If the analogy you're drawing was correct, this issue wouldn't be up for debate. But, there is a precedent that it's okay to smoke in bars by smokers and non-smokers alike and now the city council is suddenly saying 'you can't do this anymore because some scientists (not all) think SHS is deadly' -- this is unlike segregation.

John W. wrote:Whether someone smokes or not is a choice... like free speech. It may potentially hurt others around them (just how free speech might inspire hate crimes, etc.), but in the end, it's up to the owner of a bar if people are allowed to smoke (or speak in racial slurs, going by your argument). If the analogy you're drawing was correct, this issue wouldn't be up for debate. But, there is a precedent that it's okay to smoke in bars by smokers and non-smokers alike and now the city council is suddenly saying 'you can't do this anymore because some scientists (not all) think SHS is deadly' -- this is unlike segregation.

Whether a person smokes or not IS their choice...nobody is taking that away from you. Go smoke. Have a ball. The law will limit WHERE you can do it... just as the law limits WHERE you can drink alcohol. It's true. Go ahead, drink some in a moving car or even on a city sidewalk... or a school yard... you may be introduced to some laws you were not aware of.

No...speech does not physically hurt those around you... it is very different. Free speech (to an extent...not slander, etc) is a freedom we share. And I did not say 'speak racial slurs' I said 'violent racism' which there IS a law against...a few actually. A bar owner can not ignore a law in his bar because it is his bar. That is wishful thinking.

And Matthew, it is not just private property when it comes to bars and restaurants (unless you are a private club) open to the public. A business of this sort can not just make it's own rules and abide or not abide by the laws... Earlier I likened it to an owner deciding NOT to have a fire exit or NOT to have handicap accessible bathrooms. Sorry guys. These are not decisions an owner of a bar or restaurant can make lawfully. There are codes they must meet, laws they must follow. So tell me how you think a smoking ban is 'illegal' as you say? Is it illegal to limit the age of drinking? No. Is it illegal to set boundaries where you can not drink or carry open containers of alcohol? No. So why would such a thing be illegal to ban smoking in bars and restaurants? What about it makes you think the smoking ban illegal?

vockins wrote:

scott wrote:
So you're saying it is or is not okay for the restaurant to sell products that include red meat? Which is it?

When I eat a steak, my colon gets fucked. The waiter is completely independent from my steak consumption. His colon is not affected. It isn't necessary for me to regurgitate my steak into the waiter's throat. My shitty (but tasty) diet has zero effect on my waiter's health.

When I smoke a cigarette, my lungs get fucked. The act of smoking requires that one must exhale, and contrary the protests of Las Vegas magicians and shills on the payroll of Philip Morris, there's bad shit in that exhaled smoke. Your bartender is getting his lungs fucked up from your cigarette. There is no technology that can adequately prevent this from happening.

Your red meat analogy is not an analogy at all..

Actually, your steak is part of a larger problem. The cows need grazing land, so they are burning rainforests to provide acreage. The cows release vast amounts of methane which is changing the environment. The cows are pumped full of antibiotics which is making them less effective for humans to use, which gives disease an advantage over us, and is evident in puberty kicking in so early for children these days. Your steak is actually destroying the Earth. Hell, the amount of farmable land that goes to feeding that cow could produce an astounding amount of human food, which means the luxury of your steak, is actually helping keep other people hungry.

I don't smoke, and I do not like smelling like smoke. I don't put those little circular band-aids on sucking chest wounds either. In terms of our health, second hand smoking is not on the radar. We live in a city made of peeling lead paint, and Superfund sites. The air quality sucks in Chicago, and it is going to suck for a long time after every cigarette in the city is put out forever.

For the record, while I am a non-ethical vegetarian, I have no problem with people who eat meat. For the purposes of argument, I wish I were eating meat, so my point would not be so precious. I could probably list 20 things easily that are taken for granted that would be of greater benefit to the people of this city than this ban.