Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 142
  1. #21
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,734

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    I need to see a picture of a clean air machine for a bar, how big is that mother airfilter

    As a smoker I'm not going to fight a law that is a semi-inconvenience for me but protects the health of others.


    This reminds me of the argument around seatbelt laws when some says they don't want to be trapped by a seatbelt they want to be thrown clear of an accident

  2. #22
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:

    the part i bolded, i dont disagree with..if you end up with lung cancer, as a result of smoking, you have nobody to blame but yourself..if you smoke around your children, you are a terrible parent, plain and simple

    as i said, if smoking makes you uncomfortable (which includes me), dont go to a place, or work at a place where people traditionally smoke like chimneys

    the examples you posed are all universal things..very large scale..so is smoking, but its known that everybody needs medicine at some point, everybody needs food, and everybody is effected by the emissions of vehicles..smoking effects the people in the immediate area of it..you cant avoid a need for medicine, or food, and you cant avoid the environmental and health effects of vehicle emissions, but you can indeed stay away from people that smoke and places that allow smoking in large numbers

    the way people support this it seems like theyre just realizing that bars exist where people smoke..like these places are something new all of a sudden..bars have been operating this way since the 1800's in the united states (and canada)..to start changing these things all of a sudden in my opinion only seems to confirm that were part of a generation of human beings that are just getting dumber and dumber as the years pass..also, fatter and fatter..people want more places to go where they cant get cancer from smoke, but can instead get it from drinking excessively and eating obscene amounts of greasy food
    I'll give you that my examples were less "local" than smoking.
    The argument I was trying to make was against those people who claim the "choice" to live healthy (ie. not smoke) is there.
    People can kill themselves all they want, that is not my problem, it's when you start infringing on my choice to be healthy.
    As a stated before, if most bars have smoking, does someone really have a choice to work somewhere else?
    There are minimum standards in place for workplace safety at say, an oil rig, why shouldn't there be at every job?
    An employer shouldn't have the right to say "If you don't like that my workplace is unsafe, you can work somewhere else".
    It's not like the US is a third world country.


    It comes down to, does the government/scientists know whats best?
    In this case, it's hard to argue the person inhaling (and causing adjacent people to inhale) thousands of carcinogens really knows best.
    Your right to choice ends when it affects other people.
    Drinking, eating greas food etc. have no effect on innocent bystanders.
    you are still missing the point..smoking was always allowed in bars, and its almost like you are taking the approach that these people worked fine and suddenly people started smoking out of nowhere..they knew when they applied for such a job that the place would be filled with smoke..i dont wanna get shot, so im not in the army..i dont wanna lose a hand, so im not working on the rigs in alberta..i dont wanna fall from a tall building, so im not a bricklayer..i hate smoking, and feel sick around heavy amounts of smoke, which is why i have no intention on working in a bar..its as simple as that..i get your scientific approach and what not, its common knowledge amongst society to this point, but at some point youve gotta be realistic..your scientific info is correct, as i said, common knowledge at this point, but the fact still remains, if a person isnt comfortable around smoke, its as simple as this: dont go to a bar where smoke is present, and dont apply for a job there either
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  3. #23
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "vikinggreg" wrote:
    I need to see a picture of a clean air machine for a bar, how big is that mother airfilter

    As a smoker I'm not going to fight a law that is a semi-inconvenience for me but protects the health of others.


    This reminds me of the argument around seatbelt laws when some says they don't want to be trapped by a seatbelt they want to be thrown clear of an accident
    everybody has to get in a car to get someplace basically everyday..you dont have to go to a bar..theres nothing about a bar that can be compared to the everyday need for a car
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  4. #24
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:

    Why become a bartender/bar maid when you know the job involves working in a smoky bar?
    Because you need a paycheck...

    Should we ban sick people, who'sillness is contagious, from going to clinics & hospitals? After all do they not run the risk of making nurses, doctors & other patients sick?
    Poor example.
    Sick people go to hospitals because hospitals can provide them with the means to get better.
    People who smoke don't go to bars because they can help them quit smoking.
    One perpetuates the problem, the other one solves it...


    That argument is weak at best. You act as if jobs in bars are the only jobs these people can get & are forced to work there. Sorry, but there are tons of job opportunities one can get that are not in bars. Bar-tending is a profession that often involves being educated in the field by people who are well aware of the risk.
    Regardless of choice/options for employment,
    there is a responsibility as an employer to minimize the health risks of your employees as much as possible.
    It should never be a condition of employment to be exposed to cancerous fumes without proper protection.
    To say the employee should be aware of the risk is simply a weak attempt to divert blame and responsibility.
    Lets just lose all workplace safety why don't we, then we can all choose our jobs based on which ones have the risk which appeals to us most.


    What have they done now? They have taken the smokers & their smoke that was once was contained inside a closed environment, where smoke was filtered by clean air machines & put them outside in the open air where there is absolutely no control or filtering at all.
    Clean air machines?
    Are you honestly saying it's safer to breathe air inside a smoke filled bar than it is outside?


    I also wonder how many times the complainers take the time to even think how much they are endangering others health & safety as they drive their cars, trucks & SUV's down the road, billowing carbon monoxide & other toxic poisonous gases out of their tailpipes.

    How many of them drive electric/hybrid cars, take public transportation or walk for that very reason alone. How many of them fight for the ban of cars that burn fossil fuels?
    #1.
    At least they're doing it outside
    #2.
    It's much easier to stop smoking around others than it is to not drive.
    Comparing a lack of willpower with the need for transportation isn't the same.
    #3.
    There is not near as strong a correlation between air pollution caused by exhaust fumes and health problems as there is with second hand smoke.


    Do the harmful vapors cigarettes produce come from the pure tobacco leaf itself or is it a byproduct of the chemicals added to it during the process of making cigarettes & filters?
    Both...
    so is the army going to stop using bombs, weapons, and real ammunition because somebody trying to get a paycheck might get shot, or die?

    are we going to stop building skyscrapers because somebody could potentially fall while they were just trying to make some cash?

    nobody forces you into the army..nobody forces you into construction, and especially nobody forces you to work as a bartender..if anything about working in a bar bothers you, find another job..if an aspiring bartender cant handle smoke, then hes lieing to himself about how badly he wants to do that as a job

    as for the 2nd bolded part, it actually worsens the problem..a bunch of smokers in a bar killing each other, or lal of them being forced to stay home where they can blow smoke all over their children?..i like the first one better



    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  5. #25
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "olson_10" wrote:

    so is the army going to stop using bombs, weapons, and real ammunition because somebody trying to get a paycheck might get shot, or die?
    The risks of visiting or working for a private business in North America should never be compared to the risks of war.
    Not only that, but accepting the risks associated with defending a nation are a little more acceptable and unavoidable when compared to asking people to butt out in public buildings.

    are we going to stop building skyscrapers because somebody could potentially fall while they were just trying to make some cash?
    The key again is not risk, but avoidable risk.
    Working at high altitudes is necessary to build skyscrapers (and they have many safety protocols put in place by law, deaths are usually preventable and caused by not following those protocols).
    Inhaling carcinogens should never be necessary to serve customers or mix drinks.

    nobody forces you into the army..nobody forces you into construction, and especially nobody forces you to work as a bartender..if anything about working in a bar bothers you, find another job..if an aspiring bartender cant handle smoke, then hes lieing to himself about how badly he wants to do that as a job
    Just because that is the way it is now, does not mean it is the way it has to be.
    Society would be much better off if smoking and cigarettes were phased out in the coming generations (as it is declining now...)

    as for the 2nd bolded part, it actually worsens the problem..a bunch of smokers in a bar killing each other, or lal of them being forced to stay home where they can blow smoke all over their children?..i like the first one better
    You know those aren't the only two options right?




    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  6. #26
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    I hate cigarette smoke but I don't agree with the smoking ban in bars. I do agree that clubs should be smoke free. I don't like dancing while inhaling smoke.

  7. #27
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "olson_10" wrote:

    so is the army going to stop using bombs, weapons, and real ammunition because somebody trying to get a paycheck might get shot, or die?
    The risks of visiting or working for a private business in North America should never be compared to the risks of war.
    Not only that, but accepting the risks associated with defending a nation are a little more acceptable and unavoidable when compared to asking people to butt out in public buildings.

    are we going to stop building skyscrapers because somebody could potentially fall while they were just trying to make some cash?
    The key again is not risk, but avoidable risk.
    Working at high altitudes is necessary to build skyscrapers (and they have many safety protocols put in place by law, deaths are usually preventable and caused by not following those protocols).
    Inhaling carcinogens should never be necessary to serve customers or mix drinks.

    nobody forces you into the army..nobody forces you into construction, and especially nobody forces you to work as a bartender..if anything about working in a bar bothers you, find another job..if an aspiring bartender cant handle smoke, then hes lieing to himself about how badly he wants to do that as a job
    Just because that is the way it is now, does not mean it is the way it has to be.
    Society would be much better off if smoking and cigarettes were phased out in the coming generations (as it is declining now...)


    as for the 2nd bolded part, it actually worsens the problem..a bunch of smokers in a bar killing each other, or lal of them being forced to stay home where they can blow smoke all over their children?..i like the first one better
    You know those aren't the only two options right?


    thats still another thing i dont disagree with

    the point still remains, you can continue to provide scientific evidence and what not, but the common sense logic still remains: bars are a place where people have historically smoked for over 100 years in both the united states and canada..smoking didnt just now find its way into bars..bartenders deal with smoke, which is one of the reasons why they do that job..if 2nd hand smoke bothers you, dont work at a bar, or go to one

    also, smoking has already been banned from most public buildings, which is why smoking in bars is so common

    no smoking=less customers=less tips for bartenders..i personally know people that quit their bartending jobs when manitoba adopted the smoking ban simply because they were personally losing 100 bucks a night from tips alone

    say you make people smoke outside..inside that bar are 5 people, and the bar is located on a very busy street for pedestrian traffic..people go out front to smoke where its possible that 100 people may walk by..now, 100 people that walked by inhaled those fumes, compared to the 5 that wouldve in the bar
    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  8. #28
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    I will add.
    It should be a CHOICE!!!!!!
    If the market demands a need for smoke free bars that people would support with business it will happen.
    Or if an owner of a bar doesn't like smoking it should be his right to ban smoking from HIS bar.


    We couldn't get the government to sign the kyoto treaty, but we'll ban smoking for our own health?

  9. #29
    olson_10's Avatar
    olson_10 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "Schutz" wrote:
    I will add.
    It should be a CHOICE!!!!!!
    If the market demands a need for smoke free bars that people would support with business it will happen.
    Or if an owner of a bar doesn't like smoking it should be his right to ban smoking from HIS bar.


    We couldn't get the government to sign the kyoto treaty, but we'll ban smoking for our own health?
    lol very good point..truth is, polluting the planet is still generally acceptable..the planet, the place that provides human beings with all the necessary natural products to survive is far less important than a building that people CHOOSE to go to

    People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.

  10. #30
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Minnesota bars beat smoking ban

    "olson_10" wrote:

    thats still another thing i dont disagree with

    the point still remains, you can continue to provide scientific evidence and what not, but the common sense logic still remains: bars are a place where people have historically smoked for over 100 years in both the united states and canada..smoking didnt just now find its way into bars..bartenders deal with smoke, which is one of the reasons why they do that job..if 2nd hand smoke bothers you, dont work at a bar, or go to one
    Keep in mind, scientific evidence is a much stronger argument for change than "history" is against it.
    People used to use cocaine in dental procedures, heroin used to be sold in pharmacies, DDT used to be an effective pesticide that was used, etc.


    If there wasn't a "history" of use of cigarettes and tobacco, there is no way it would be approved for sale in North America today(or any sane country).
    Just because something has been done one way in the past doesn't mean it should be done that way in the future.

    also, smoking has already been banned from most public buildings, which is why smoking in bars is so common
    As if it wasn't before?
    Addicts will find somewhere to smoke regardless, even if it was banned in bars.

    no smoking=less customers=less tips for bartenders..i personally know people that quit their bartending jobs when manitoba adopted the smoking ban simply because they were personally losing 100 bucks a night from tips alone
    My personal experience dictates otherwise.
    Bars in Alberta are just as busy if not more than they were before.
    If every bar has smoking banned it's not like people will have an option to go somewhere else.
    It's not like people stop going to bars because they can't smoke there.
    Alcohol is still the #1 reason I'm sure most people go to bars
    :

    say you make people smoke outside..inside that bar are 5 people, and the bar is located on a very busy street for pedestrian traffic..people go out front to smoke where its possible that 100 people may walk by..now, 100 people that walked by inhaled those fumes, compared to the 5 that wouldve in the bar
    You reduce the exposure astronomically.
    Not only is there a sink for the fumes (the atmosphere), you can also factor in wind that blows the smoke away.
    The exposure time is decreased significantly (a few second compared to hours), and the concentration on the pollutants is also significantly lower.
    The health risks for that type of exposure are negligible compared to being around smoke for hours.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minnesota Bowl Eligible - Beat IL 27-20
    By COJOMAY in forum College Ball
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 06:09 PM
  2. Bill would ban swearing in bars
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 01:16 PM
  3. Vikings bars
    By V-Unit in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 07:24 PM
  4. #15 and #23 Top Bars In America, SI
    By koolkev8 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 10:53 AM
  5. Can Minnesota beat the titans?
    By Abyss in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 05:33 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •