Premier Rock Forum

matthew wrote: trying to ban smoking in certain parts of major cities is silly and quite frankly illegal.

Shit, good point. Someone call the police.

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.

Yes they are taking that choice away from people, by banning it in the most common place people like to smoke... bars. Drinking in a moving car or a school yard doesn't equal smoking in a bar.

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.

The reason I used the example of speaking in racial slurs instead of violent racism, is because comparing violent racism to smoking is just too much of a stretch for me. Again, the comparisons you are drawing don't seem to jive with the issue at hand.

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?

Again, not having a fire exit or handicap accessible bathrooms is nowhere near in the same league as allowing smoke in a bar. For me personally, 'Illegal' just means 'against the law' and laws that make no sense are easily passed, so I guess I would have to say that it's all relative. For instance, Pit Bulls: there is talk of making this an illegal breed because of their (undeserved) reputation -- statistically, the data doesn't warrent such a law, but since there is a noisy section of the population that can latch on to this type of fear, my neighbor might have to get her dog (that is a completely friendly pooch) put to sleep.

Just about all regulations can be legitimized in the name of public safety. I'm arguing that it should be up to the owners of restaurants and bars to make the choice when it comes to smoking.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.freechicago.org/freechicago/index.html

matthew wrote: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.

you open your 'private establishment' to the public and you automatically have a lot of responsibility and limitations.

bars/restaurants/venues etc aren't there so people can smoke. they're there so people can drink or eat or dance or watch music. non-smokers should have just as much right to patronize these places as smokers.

this whole 'if you don't like smoke don't go there' attitude is so silly and irresponsible. that's like saying 'don't go into that alley if you don't want to get raped' instead of trying to do something about it. to a lesser degree having a smoking ban on a restaurant is a lot like making sure they have a wheelchair ramp. you guys think it should be up to the owner, but if you're opening up your restaurant to the PUBLIC, you need to ACCOMODATE the public and bars/restaurants/etc need to be accountable for that.

government should not legislate stuff involving private property? so you think people who own strip clubs should be allowed to open their places up to minors and small children? come on.

you open your 'private establishment' to the public and you automatically have a lot of responsibility and limitations.

Yes, but we are arguing that smoking shouldn't be one of these limitations because of a suspect health issue and the easy option for people not to frequent places that have always been filled with smoke.

bars/restaurants/venues etc aren't there so people can smoke. they're there so people can drink or eat or dance or watch music. non-smokers should have just as much right to patronize these places as smokers.

That's your opinion. What about somebody who does go to bars to smoke? I know a lot of people that don't normally smoke, but they enjoy smoking at bars. And no one is saying that non-smokers can't go to these places.

this whole 'if you don't like smoke don't go there' attitude is so silly and irresponsible. that's like saying 'don't go into that alley if you don't want to get raped' instead of trying to do something about it. to a lesser degree having a smoking ban on a restaurant is a lot like making sure they have a wheelchair ramp. you guys think it should be up to the owner, but if you're opening up your restaurant to the PUBLIC, you need to ACCOMODATE the public and bars/restaurants/etc need to be accountable for that.

Being raped and breathing cigarette smoke are not anywhere near similar... nor is a person who doesn't like to breath smoke like a handicapped person. None of your analogies work for me. Yes, you need to accommodate the public, but there are limits to such accommodation. I argue that banning smoking goes beyond these limits.

government should not legislate stuff involving private property? so you think people who own strip clubs should be allowed to open their places up to minors and small children? come on.

A smoker isn't like a minor at a strip club.

Yes, but we are arguing that smoking shouldn't be one of these limitations because of a suspect health issue and the easy option for people not to frequent places that have always been filled with smoke.

this is where i get less objective, i guess, as i see second hand smoke as a very real health concern. regarding 'easy option', that shouldn't be an issue at all. in order to accept the smoking/wheelchair ramp comparison you have to acknowledge that second hand smoke is hazardous to your health (you really don't believe this??), but i mean tacking on 'especially 'cause it's easy to frequent a non-smoking environment' is kind of a feeble statement to shovel in at the end of your piece.

That's your opinion. What about somebody who does go to bars to smoke? I know a lot of people that don't normally smoke, but they enjoy smoking at bars. And no one is saying that non-smokers can't go to these places.

people primarily go to restaurants to eat, bars to drink and venues to see shows. i think that somewhat slightly transcends 'opinion'.

Being raped and breathing in cigarette smoke are not anywhere near similar... nor is a person who doesn't like to breath smoke like a handicapped person. None of your analogies work for me. Yes, you need to accommodate the public, but there are limits to such accommodation. I argue that banning smoking goes beyond these limits.

why don't you agree with these analogies? like i said, you need to accept that second hand smoke is detrimental to your well-being, but if you can swallow that then indeed my examples are valid hyperbole.

government should not legislate stuff involving private property? so you think people who own strip clubs should be allowed to open their places up to minors and small children? come on.

-A smoker isn't like a minor at a strip club.

agreed - this was a direct argument to the dude who wrote that private property owners who open their establishment to the public should be allowed to make all the calls. i should have distinguished this better from the rest of my points.

non-smokers have no real reason to be shunned from bars. government would never say that bars are inappropriate for non-smokers, probably because like i said earlier a bar is primarily there so people can drink. THEREFORE non-smokers should be given the same treatment/consideration as smokers by the bar and vice versa and in this particular case it's the smokers that need to suck it up.

this is where i get less objective, i guess, as i see second hand smoke as a very real health concern. regarding 'easy option', that shouldn't be an issue at all. in order to accept the smoking/wheelchair ramp comparison you have to acknowledge that second hand smoke is hazardous to your health (you really don't believe this??), but i mean tacking on 'especially 'cause it's easy to frequent a non-smoking environment' is kind of a feeble statement to shovel in at the end of your piece.

I think the health argument is used as a cover for the fact that people just don't like the smell of smoke. The health risks, if existent, are so small that they don't bother me in the least. How is my final statement 'feeble'? It's the truth.

people primarily go to restaurants to eat, bars to drink and venues to see shows. i think that somewhat slightly transcends 'opinion'

Like I said, I know of plenty of people who go to bars primarily to smoke.

non-smokers have no real reason to be shunned from bars. government would never say that bars are inappropriate for non-smokers, probably because like i said earlier a bar is primarily there so people can drink. THEREFORE non-smokers should be given the same treatment/consideration as smokers by the bar and vice versa and in this particular case it's the smokers that need to suck it up.

Non-smokers aren't being shunned. I know many non-smokers who aren't bothered by SHS and enjoy going to bars.

Okay, I'm starting to talk in circles here (or have been for a while now). Smokers aren't allowed to smoke in bars. The activists got their way. Me clattering on a keyboard here isn't going to change that. Enjoy your victory! I still don't think it's right.

What happened? Why did the bickering end?

Did you folks finally resolve this issue for the world?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:What happened? Why did the bickering end?

Did you folks finally resolve this issue for the world?

Did you play a show wearing boots?

toomanyhelicopters wrote:Did you play a show wearing boots?

You might say this! Or maybe they are called "trail shoes" these days.

It is all very confusing to me.

Chicago, wtf. You have dropped maybe seventeen feet of snow on my head in two days. For this, Chicago, I find you very sexy.