PDA

View Full Version : since it's Giants week


Wile_E_Coyote
12-13-2005, 05:42 AM
legal question

Pants
12-13-2005, 07:14 AM
I don't know about everything, but restaurants... f*ck, yeah, ban it. I don't want to smell that shit when I'm eating my chinese. That is unless the restaurant wants to make a completely isolated section for smokers. Sorry, but putting me 20 feet away doesn't really do much.

ChiefsFanatic
12-13-2005, 07:33 AM
I don't know about everything, but restaurants... f*ck, yeah, ban it. I don't want to smell that shit when I'm eating my chinese. That is unless the restaurant wants to make a completely isolated section for smokers. Sorry, but putting me 20 feet away doesn't really do much.

When I ask for non-smoking, and the hostess puts me next to a smoking table, I always tell her, in a friendly manner, that she must be fu**ing stupid if she thinks sitting three feet from a smoking table is non-smoking, and that she must be even more fu**ing stupid if she thinks I am going to sit there while I eat.

They always look at me and say "Well sir, this is non-smoking." I say "Just because the table does not have an ashtray, doesn't mean it is non-smoking." and because I am pissed that she said that to me, I usually follow that up with some unpleasantries.

But I'm an asshole anyway.

Saulbadguy
12-13-2005, 07:35 AM
Yeah, sure. I'm a non-smoker, so I could really care less about the rights of smokers. :shrug:

Pants
12-13-2005, 07:41 AM
Yeah, sure. I'm a non-smoker, so I could really care less about the rights of smokers. :shrug:

Go look up what "right" means in a dictionary, Saul. If it's a nuisance to public, it's not a right. Just like you can't be very loud in your condo, even though it's your private property.

Saulbadguy
12-13-2005, 07:41 AM
Go look up what "right" means in a dictionary, Saul. If it's a nuisance to public, it's not a right. Just like you can't be very loud in your condo, even though it's your private property.
I wasn't being sarcastic.

Iowanian
12-13-2005, 07:44 AM
In honor of Giant's week, I think its only right to bring back the ELI-Fark page.

Pants
12-13-2005, 07:47 AM
I wasn't being sarcastic.

Wow, that was some weak sauce sarcasm.

Iowanian
12-13-2005, 07:49 AM
I think all smokers should have to leave a restaraunt and go smoke in the alley.

Nothing nastier than trying to eat in the "non smoking section" which is exactly 1 table away from the smoking section. OK...there are alot of things nastier but I don't like people smoking around me when I'm eating.

JohninGpt
12-13-2005, 07:52 AM
I smoke, but never indoors, especially when I'm eating or around my kids. So sure, ban it in restaurants, I don't like it when other people smoke while I'm trying to eat, or where my kids will be exposed to the smoke.
I don't hang out in bars anymore, but I couldn't imagine not being able to light up while drinking, that would suck.
I think work places should do it just like we have in the Navy, an outdoor smoking area. If it's in an office building, do it like airports, the glassed in choke room.

Seek
12-13-2005, 08:30 AM
I cant stand people at work who leave every 30 mintues for a smoke break. So every 30 minutes I take an internet break, just to be fair.

patteeu
12-13-2005, 08:53 AM
Why can't people who don't like smoke with dinner go to smoke-free restaurants or stay home instead of insisting on eating in a restaurant that caters to smokers?

Reaper16
12-13-2005, 08:58 AM
I don't smoke; the idea abhors me. But I have nothing against a good smoking section. In fact, I usually sit in the smoking section with friend who do smoke. It doesn't bother me.
But I understand, especially families, not wanting to be anywhere near it.

bkkcoh
12-13-2005, 09:16 AM
I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment to determine whether or not the establishment is smoking or non-smoking.

Smoking cigarettes is NOT against the law, even though it is a very disgusting habit.

If they are going to ban the public use of it, ban it altogether, but they wont do that because they, the states and federal government, are getting money from the taxes and big tobacco. That is a total hypocrisy to me.

Seek
12-13-2005, 09:18 AM
Why can't people who don't like smoke with dinner go to smoke-free restaurants or stay home instead of insisting on eating in a restaurant that caters to smokers?
'
Cause the retaurants that are smoke free are either High Priced, or FOO FOO food.

Why should a person become a hermit and just stay home, because a person is so weak and depended on cigarettes that they can't go even an hour without smoking.

Hey I used to chew! Would it offend you if I spit my tobacco juice on your clothes, in your hair, in your nose, on your kids while you went out for dinner. It is basically the same thing, except you are not actually inhaling the cancer.

patteeu
12-13-2005, 10:11 AM
'
Cause the retaurants that are smoke free are either High Priced, or FOO FOO food.

Why should a person become a hermit and just stay home, because a person is so weak and depended on cigarettes that they can't go even an hour without smoking.

Hey I used to chew! Would it offend you if I spit my tobacco juice on your clothes, in your hair, in your nose, on your kids while you went out for dinner. It is basically the same thing, except you are not actually inhaling the cancer.

I wouldn't go to a restaurant that allowed you to spit on me. And if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't let you spit on people. But I'd probably have a smoking section and do my best to keep both smokers and tolerant non-smokers happy. There would be a few zealots who couldn't stand being in the same building as a smoker but I'd write them off as the cost of doing business.

There is no inalienable right to eat in some other guy's restaurant. Let the owners set the rules for these places and then we can all vote with our wallets.

jspchief
12-13-2005, 10:17 AM
I think smokers should be forced to hold their cigarettes no further than 2 inches from their own nose, mouth, or eyes at all times. I also think they should have to exhale their smoke into a tank that they are then forced to inhale their breathing air from.

I should mention that I don't smoke, so my opinion may be a bit slanted.

el borracho
12-13-2005, 10:40 AM
Smoking sucks. I don't even care that it is bad for you as much as I just can't stand the smell. It ****ing stinks. I can barely be around someone after they smoke because they ****ing stink- their hands, their hair, their clothes and especially their nasty ****ing breath. If there is a devil, I imagine he has smoker's breath. If there is a hell, I imagine Satan just breathes on you with his hot, stank-ass, smoker's breath until you pass out. Then he just keeps on breathing that nasty crap on your unconscious face and then, when you wake up, he does it again.

Seek
12-13-2005, 11:12 AM
[QUOTE=patteeu]I wouldn't go to a restaurant that allowed you to spit on me. And if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't let you spit on people. But I'd probably have a smoking section and do my best to keep both smokers and tolerant non-smokers happy. There would be a few zealots who couldn't stand being in the same building as a smoker but I'd write them off as the cost of doing business.QUOTE]

I think you missed the point. There is no difference in someone spitting tobacco juice on you, than blowing their smoke on you. Yet, you found it disgusting. I agree it is absolutely disgusting. But so is other peoples smoke. It is just as rude and inconsiderate of smoker to sit there and hold the cigarette away from them, and directly in the persons face next to them while only taking maybe two drags off it during their whole conversation, only to light up another one becuase they spent most of the last ciagarette talking.

If someone needs to smoke that bad, step outside. I can't think of one smoker who would walk away from an eating establishment because it is smoke free.

I agree it is the owners decision, but if the government is going to get involved in baseball and steroids. Or Ban certain substances like Weed. Get ready for the government to band smoking in public places. The current results in the poll, is a good sign it is going to happen sooner than later.

Another good sign that it is coming sooner than later is the fact that Tobacco companies are advertising quiting cigarettes. IE Phillip Morris.

Reaper16
12-13-2005, 11:43 AM
^^^
I find being spit on much less desirable than having smoke blown at me. Smoke isn't wet.

bkkcoh
12-13-2005, 11:46 AM
QUOTE=patteeu]I wouldn't go to a restaurant that allowed you to spit on me. And if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't let you spit on people. But I'd probably have a smoking section and do my best to keep both smokers and tolerant non-smokers happy. There would be a few zealots who couldn't stand being in the same building as a smoker but I'd write them off as the cost of doing business.[/QUOTE]

[I think you missed the point. There is no difference in someone spitting tobacco juice on you, than blowing their smoke on you. Yet, you found it disgusting. I agree it is absolutely disgusting. But so is other peoples smoke. It is just as rude and inconsiderate of smoker to sit there and hold the cigarette away from them, and directly in the persons face next to them while only taking maybe two drags off it during their whole conversation, only to light up another one becuase they spent most of the last ciagarette talking.

If someone needs to smoke that bad, step outside. I can't think of one smoker who would walk away from an eating establishment because it is smoke free.

I agree it is the owners decision, but if the government is going to get involved in baseball and steroids. Or Ban certain substances like Weed. Get ready for the government to band smoking in public places. The current results in the poll, is a good sign it is going to happen sooner than later.

Another good sign that it is coming sooner than later is the fact that Tobacco companies are advertising quiting cigarettes. IE Phillip Morris.

Make it illegal then, it is a legal substance. :banghead:

Tobacco wouldn't have the anti-smoking advertising if the government didn't force them to with the tobacco settlement.

Seek
12-13-2005, 11:50 AM
^^^
I find being spit on much less desirable than having smoke blown at me. Smoke isn't wet.

Okay, there is a difference. But only in texture, smell, and quantity.

Seek
12-13-2005, 11:52 AM
Make it illegal then, it is a legal substance. :banghead:

Tobacco wouldn't have the anti-smoking advertising if the government didn't force them to with the tobacco settlement.[/QUOTE]

I know, I had a guy who worked for Phillip Morris, take night classes with me. This was about the time Phillip Morris got slammed. He ended up retiring half way through school because he didn't like the way things were looking.

sedated
12-13-2005, 11:56 AM
Why can't people who don't like smoke with dinner go to smoke-free restaurants or stay home instead of insisting on eating in a restaurant that caters to smokers?

Why do smokers have the right to ruin everyone else's dinner?

If I went to a restaurant and jizzed in everyone's food, they would ask me to leave.

sedated
12-13-2005, 11:58 AM
they should have to exhale their smoke into a tank that they are then forced to inhale their breathing air from.

They must wear suits that trap the smoke in with them, so the only lungs and clothes they are ruining are their own.

Plus, they would die off a lot quicker, making this a better world for all.

(and, yes, I am a smoker)

sedated
12-13-2005, 12:18 PM
what the hell does this have to do with Giants week, anyway?

patteeu
12-13-2005, 12:18 PM
I think you missed the point. There is no difference in someone spitting tobacco juice on you, than blowing their smoke on you. Yet, you found it disgusting. I agree it is absolutely disgusting. But so is other peoples smoke. It is just as rude and inconsiderate of smoker to sit there and hold the cigarette away from them, and directly in the persons face next to them while only taking maybe two drags off it during their whole conversation, only to light up another one becuase they spent most of the last ciagarette talking.

If someone needs to smoke that bad, step outside. I can't think of one smoker who would walk away from an eating establishment because it is smoke free.

I didn't miss the point at all. The owner ought to be able to decide whether he wants to allow smoking and/or spitting in his restaurant. I believe most owners would not tolerate spitting while they probably would tolerate smoking. If that is true, it would be strong evidence that your analogy is flawed.

If smokers wouldn't walk away from smoke-free establishments, you'd see more smoke-free establishments around.

I agree it is the owners decision, but if the government is going to get involved in baseball and steroids. Or Ban certain substances like Weed. Get ready for the government to band smoking in public places. The current results in the poll, is a good sign it is going to happen sooner than later.

Another good sign that it is coming sooner than later is the fact that Tobacco companies are advertising quiting cigarettes. IE Phillip Morris.

I don't think you really agree.

patteeu
12-13-2005, 12:21 PM
Why do smokers have the right to ruin everyone else's dinner?

If I went to a restaurant and jizzed in everyone's food, they would ask me to leave.

It doesn't have anything to do with the smoker's right. The owner ought to be able to cater to smokers or non-smokers in whatever way they think the public will support. The potential customers have the right to decide not to eat at the place if they don't like being jizzed on..

patteeu
12-13-2005, 12:24 PM
(and, yes, I am a smoker)

There's nothing* sadder than a guilt-ridden, self-loathing smoker. ;)








--------------------

* Well, "nothing" is probably a considerable exaggeration. :p

Wile_E_Coyote
12-13-2005, 12:29 PM
what the hell does this have to do with Giants week, anyway?

Dolphins week it was about marijuana
Raiders-prostitution
Texans-cannibalism
Broncos-cousins marry

4 for 4-don't question mojo MOFO

BigMeatballDave
12-13-2005, 12:43 PM
I think smokers should be forced to hold their cigarettes no further than 2 inches from their own nose, mouth, or eyes at all times. I also think they should have to exhale their smoke into a tank that they are then forced to inhale their breathing air from.

I should mention that I don't smoke, so my opinion may be a bit slanted.I quit 9 years ago and completely agree...

BigMeatballDave
12-13-2005, 12:45 PM
Smoking sucks. I don't even care that it is bad for you as much as I just can't stand the smell. It ****ing stinks. I can barely be around someone after they smoke because they ****ing stink- their hands, their hair, their clothes and especially their nasty ****ing breath. If there is a devil, I imagine he has smoker's breath. If there is a hell, I imagine Satan just breathes on you with his hot, stank-ass, smoker's breath until you pass out. Then he just keeps on breathing that nasty crap on your unconscious face and then, when you wake up, he does it again.
ROFL

Seek
12-13-2005, 01:37 PM
I don't think you really agree.[/QUOTE]

I do agree, It is America. It is supposed to be a free country and taking that away from its citizens is plain wrong.

They only flaw in my anology is that Smoking is so widely common. The affects of me spitting my tobacco juice all over a smoker is the same affect of them smoking around me. Actually Smoking is worse, because I would actually be inhaling it. While the spitting the juice on you does nothing to the second person's health.

Both are unwelcomed, it is all over you until you take a bath and wash your clothes, it will either make you cough or GAG. It stinks, and the reason it happend is becasue someone else put it there while you try to enjoy a dinner.

The only difference is one is commonly accepted, while the other is not. Both result in the same action, except one is wet and other actually does damage to the second hander.

I went to dinner with my wife, son and sister Friday night. We ate at the bar. The person next to me smoked like a train. I know why my wife, an ex-smoker for 10 years, tookt he seat furthest from him. We both expected the smoke int he face, so she opted to make me sit there.

At least he was polite enough, to not light up a cig, while I was holding my. Since he was polite, I handed my son back over so he could smoke again. So yes, I do understand. I just can't stand it. If someone can't even wait 1 hour to smoke, I will be happy to introduce them to my uncles. Two of them are dead from lung cancer and one is on his way.

Braincase
12-13-2005, 01:41 PM
I recognize smokers have rights... but I don't want to pay for the medical bills when the time comes.

patteeu
12-13-2005, 01:51 PM
They only flaw in my anology is that Smoking is so widely common. The affects of me spitting my tobacco juice all over a smoker is the same affect of them smoking around me. Actually Smoking is worse, because I would actually be inhaling it. While the spitting the juice on you does nothing to the second person's health.

Both are unwelcomed, it is all over you until you take a bath and wash your clothes, it will either make you cough or GAG. It stinks, and the reason it happend is becasue someone else put it there while you try to enjoy a dinner.

The only difference is one is commonly accepted, while the other is not. Both result in the same action, except one is wet and other actually does damage to the second hander.

I went to dinner with my wife, son and sister Friday night. We ate at the bar. The person next to me smoked like a train. I know why my wife, an ex-smoker for 10 years, tookt he seat furthest from him. We both expected the smoke int he face, so she opted to make me sit there.

At least he was polite enough, to not light up a cig, while I was holding my. Since he was polite, I handed my son back over so he could smoke again. So yes, I do understand. I just can't stand it. If someone can't even wait 1 hour to smoke, I will be happy to introduce them to my uncles. Two of them are dead from lung cancer and one is on his way.


Why did you go to a smoke-filled bar for dinner when none of you want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke? That's the problem you're having. It's not really the smokers.

bkkcoh
12-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Why did you go to a smoke-filled bar for dinner when none of you want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke? That's the problem you're having. It's not really the smokers.


You know I was thinking the same thing, but then realized that there probably wasn't a choice to go to a non-smoking bar.

It would be nice to have the choice. I am sure that if owner's of bars would think it would benefit them financially, they would cater to the non-smoking crowd.

Frazod
12-13-2005, 01:59 PM
I love these smoking threads. They draw all the f#cking Nazis into one compact little group.

sedated
12-13-2005, 02:08 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with the smoker's right. The owner ought to be able to cater to smokers or non-smokers in whatever way they think the public will support. The potential customers have the right to decide not to eat at the place if they don't like being jizzed on..

I agree in cases that aren't inherently dangerous to the health of everyone around you: drinking, cussing, walking around naked, whatever

an owner should always have the right to please their customers, whether it's uptight conservative neo-cons, or flaming homos.

But if there is such a place that "caters" to smokers, it should be well marked (like the gay bars putting up rainbows), so some unsuspecting group doesn't walk in and get f*cked in the ass (or lungs)

Seek
12-13-2005, 03:24 PM
Why did you go to a smoke-filled bar for dinner when none of you want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke? That's the problem you're having. It's not really the smokers.

Because I love the food there, and the service. I prefer that food and service a whole bunch more than the smoke free Bravo just a block away. Which is why your comment about choosing a smoke free place over one that allows smokers is what got me responding to you. Why do I have to weigh the good food and service over the disgust neighbor while eating and the time until I can get home and take a shower, and then wake up with sinus problems. It is sad how many times going out to dinner with my family at a venue we like to eat at wins. We do look for seat that are next to non-smokers or areas where only one person will be affected.

Seek
12-13-2005, 03:27 PM
Do you guys think that if a eating establishment is required by law to go smoke free, that it would lose business?

Seriously do people go to restaurants just to smoke. If they made it a law to be smoke free are people going to quit going out and stay at home, or go to more fast food joints.

Reaper16
12-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Do you guys think that if a eating establishment is required by law to go smoke free, that it would lose business?

Seriously do people go to restaurants just to smoke?
In the case of Perkins in Liberty, MO: Yes.

chiefsfan987
12-13-2005, 08:47 PM
The restaurant I work at went smoke free two years ago. Immediately after doing so the sales went up 10% and have only risen since then. As a non smoker I'm thrilled that we changed, I never enjoyed inhaling that s*** anyways. Hmmm I wonder if I can sue them later if I end up getting lung cancer from it....

listopencil
12-13-2005, 10:33 PM
Look, here's the thing. I can go for quite a while without smoking. Especially if I'm busy. It doesn't bother me to go through a meal or a movie without one. It doesn't bother me to wait until appropriate break times to indulge my habit. But keep one thing in mind. Keep it in the forefront of your minds and never forget it. I have to have a place where I know I can go smoke eventually. If I don't, I will kill you all and chew on your bloody ****ing entrails until one of you mother****ers gets me a God-damned cig and a lighter. I mean that. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. And I'm nowhere near the only one like this. So keep that in mind.

listopencil
12-13-2005, 10:34 PM
Ok, well I guess it's time for a smoke now.

Brando
12-13-2005, 11:35 PM
I'll gladly give up smoking in public when there is a ban passed to keep those stupid Jesus fish off the back of people's cars.
You think it's difficult eating by smoke. Try driving while trying to get your fist through the windshield and up the driver in front of you's ass.

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2005, 11:40 PM
If you don't like being in a place with smokers, don't go to restaurants that allow people to smoke.

Citywide bans preventing private businesses from allowing a legal activity on their property are utterly ludicrous. The owners of the aforementioned places of business should be allowed to determine what is and isn't allowed, not be forced by legislation.

I hate cigarettes. I hate being around them. That has no bearing on the fact that it's ridiculous, overreaching legislation.

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2005, 11:46 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with the smoker's right.Marzipan. Pie plate. Bingo.

I love these smoking threads. They draw all the f#cking Nazis into one compact little group.ROFL

"**** FREEDOM! WHO NEEDS IT?! "

Logical
12-13-2005, 11:48 PM
The only thing I know for a fact is that the smoking ban has not hurt California businesses one iota and has made this a much nicer place to be out in public facilities. But it is after all a statewide ban.

Brando
12-13-2005, 11:55 PM
The only thing I know for a fact is that the smoking ban has not hurt California businesses one iota and has made this a much nicer place to be out in public facilities. But it is after all a statewide ban.

Statewide ban and climate are the key in Cali. In Syracuse it has put a good number of bars out of business. I was home over the summer and everyone was sitting outside smoking anyways. I've been told that when the weather is bad a lot of people stop going out.
Restaraunts make some sense but for bars? C'mon...if there was such a demand for non-smoking bars they would be out there.
If you're in a bar complaining about how bad smoking is you should skip the Saturday night out and go to church on Sunday with the rest of the hypocrites.

Logical
12-14-2005, 12:11 AM
Statewide ban and climate are the key in Cali. In Syracuse it has put a good number of bars out of business. I was home over the summer and everyone was sitting outside smoking anyways. I've been told that when the weather is bad a lot of people stop going out.
Restaraunts make some sense but for bars? C'mon...if there was such a demand for non-smoking bars they would be out there.
If you're in a bar complaining about how bad smoking is you should skip the Saturday night out and go to church on Sunday with the rest of the hypocrites.For me there is no moral component to the issue. I just dislike the noxious fumes, the odor and it is as simple as that.

Kerberos
12-14-2005, 06:41 AM
Smoking sucks. I don't even care that it is bad for you as much as I just can't stand the smell. It ****ing stinks. I can barely be around someone after they smoke because they ****ing stink- their hands, their hair, their clothes and especially their nasty ****ing breath. If there is a devil, I imagine he has smoker's breath. If there is a hell, I imagine Satan just breathes on you with his hot, stank-ass, smoker's breath until you pass out. Then he just keeps on breathing that nasty crap on your unconscious face and then, when you wake up, he does it again.


ROFL

Damn ... Why don't you tell us what "YOU" really think! :D


I agree that I have co-workers that go outside to smoke and come back in to our office area and I STILL have to smell that god awful smell. Then if I have to go somewhere with them I usually drive my OWN work van cause the cocksuckers don't have enough courtesy to NOT SMOKE in thier company/district vehicles, that are supposed to be smoke free mind you, while someone else is riding with them and can't stand smoke.

It should be a minimum counceling statement for smoking in Federal, State, Local Governement vehicles and after 3rd councel you are GONE.

I don't know WHY it is so hard to make these things a policy and ENFORCE IT. :shrug:


.