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.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Look man, I have zero problems with people smoking indoors...in a separate closed off section. I just honestly don't want to be inconvenienced for other people's thing, you smell me? Go do your thing, but not at my expense.

But the REVERSE holds true. You want to inconvenience other people to fit your idea of comfort. Using the FORCDE of law to do so is disgustingly wrong. WANTING non smoking bars is fine. FORCING it on business owners is WRONG. Now do you see?

At least you would be fine with a separate section. That is getting closer to a reasonable viewpoint.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by dmahurin

He's a troll, that's why I gave troll responses.

Yeah I'm trolling and you're the one that's making cogent, well-thought-out arguments. Good point.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Wow. So you want laws to legislate courtesy now. that is ****ed up.

Come on bro, don't take my shit out of context. I'm not trying to argue with you here. When the shit was legal, obviously I dealt with it. Because any bar that didn't allow smoking back then was a lame ass douche bag establishment. The law is what it is, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work in the favor of the majority...That's what it comes down to in my opinion. The majority of people in the bar aren't smoking. I think the majority should always win the final vote.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Why do I not have a right to serve whoever I want in my establishment? Why do I have to serve black or gay people? Why can't I have cows on my property? why can't I build up as high as I want? Why can I put a giant neon sign on the top of my house that says "vaginal blood fart"?

Why are none of these fundamental in inalienable rights, but allowing smoking in my bar is somehow radically philosophically different? You're not really attempting to make any case as to why this "right" is so much different than every other zoning and property law out there on the books. You're just waving your hands a lot about bullies and majority rule. It's obvious you're very emotionally invested in this issue for some reason.

I get the concept you're making about majority rule, believe me I really do. And there have been times in history majority rule has done some very bad things. But I do not believe that this is remotely one of those cases. There are very real potential health effects, and a very very real gigantic nuisance effect to smoking in bars.

because those are PROTECTED classes. How do you not get this? You DO have the right to not server bald people or whatever.. as long as they aren't protected.

No, I have clearly laid out why it isn't the same as most zoning laws( some zoning laws are crazy and shouldn't be on the books... so those are the same). YOU have yet to address my analogy. Are you or are you not ok with a law prohibiting a bar from allowing patrons to wear Chiefs gear?

As for the health issue. That has been addressed. ETS doesn't violate OSHA standards.

As for the nuisance... the same could be said from the other side.

So far, your ONLY justification is mob rule.

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Yeah I'm trolling and you're the one that's making cogent, well-thought-out arguments. Good point.

That wasn't about you.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

So, there we have it. You support majority rule and don't recognize private property rights taking precedence. So, back to my analogy, you are fine with the majority making it illegal for a bar owner to have pink interior walls? Or allow patrons to wear Chiefs gear? Yes, those are ridiculous... but your logic dictates that laws like that (however ridiculous) are ok if the majority deems them so.

Really? You haven't listened to my arguments at all? How many times as I stated that I'm a pragmatist? I look at the good caused and the potential harm created. There would be absolutely no good created by this law. So I would not be okay with it. And I'm pretty sure a majority would never vote for it. That's the beauty of our system. The majority gets it right more often than not, and definitely more often than a dictator or a set of axioms.

[AustinChief]

[quote=Cmd'r&Chief;9333975]Come on bro, don't take my shit out of context. I'm not trying to argue with you here. When the shit was legal, obviously I dealt with it. Because any bar that didn't allow smoking back then was a lame ass douche bag establishment. The law is what it is, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work in the favor of the majority...That's what it comes down to in my opinion. The majority of people in the bar aren't smoking. I think the majority should always win the final vote.[/QUOTE]

This is the problem. You fail to recognize the rights of the ONE person that matters in all this. THE OWNER OF THE BAR. You don't get to come into a bar and have a vast majority of people who hate country music DEMAND that the bar owner turn off his jukebox because it is playing country. His bar, his rules.

Now do you see where your sense of entitlement is bugging the shit out of me. It's not YOUR bar, you don't get to set the rules. Period.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

But the REVERSE holds true. You want to inconvenience other people to fit your idea of comfort. Using the FORCDE of law to do so is disgustingly wrong. WANTING non smoking bars is fine. FORCING it on business owners is WRONG. Now do you see?

At least you would be fine with a separate section. That is getting closer to a reasonable viewpoint.

Like I said. All of your points are very valid. I just don't think the cons outweigh the pros on this one.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Really? You haven't listened to my arguments at all? How many times as I stated that I'm a pragmatist? I look at the good caused and the potential harm created. There would be absolutely no good created by this law. So I would not be okay with it. And I'm pretty sure a majority would never vote for it. That's the beauty of our system. The majority gets it right more often than not, and definitely more often than a dictator or a set of axioms.

I've listened, you simply haven't made your case in the least. Your concept of what is "good" is a MAJOR problem., It's YOUR OPINION of what is good. Who the **** are YOU to decide that for a bar owner... for all the patrons? You have it in your head that your opinion of what is good is more than just your opinion. It isn;t. Nor is my opinion important. The ONE PERSON who has an opinion that matters is the private property owner. Otherwise you are left with what you seem to be advocating... letting the whims of public opinion strip others of their rights.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

[quote=AustinChief;9333988]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Come on bro, don't take my shit out of context. I'm not trying to argue with you here. When the shit was legal, obviously I dealt with it. Because any bar that didn't allow smoking back then was a lame ass douche bag establishment. The law is what it is, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work in the favor of the majority...That's what it comes down to in my opinion. The majority of people in the bar aren't smoking. I think the majority should always win the final vote.[/QUOTE]

This is the problem. You fail to recognize the rights of the ONE person that matters in all this. THE OWNER OF THE BAR. You don't get to come into a bar and have a vast majority of people who hate country music DEMAND that the bar owner turn off his jukebox because it is playing country. His bar, his rules.

Now do you see where your sense of entitlement is bugging the shit out of me. It's not YOUR bar, you don't get to set the rules. Period.

I sure as **** wish he would change that shit ass ****ree music though..what an inconsiderate prick he is to his paying guest.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Come on bro, don't take my shit out of context. I'm not trying to argue with you here. When the shit was legal, obviously I dealt with it. Because any bar that didn't allow smoking back then was a lame ass douche bag establishment. The law is what it is, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work in the favor of the majority...That's what it comes down to in my opinion. The majority of people in the bar aren't smoking. I think the majority should always win the final vote.

Well then I'm sure you're all for gun control...

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Well then I'm sure you're all for gun control...

I agree people have a right to have weapons for hobby. It isn't my hobby, but I can respect if it's yours. But I do believe that something needs to be done. And it will likely need to be drastic. The laws need some serious, serious tightening.

[dmahurin]

[quote=Cmd'r&Chief;9333999]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I sure as **** wish he would change that shit ass ****ree music though..what an inconsiderate prick he is to his paying guest.

Suzzer, this is the troll I was referencing.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

because those are PROTECTED classes. How do you not get this? You DO have the right to not server bald people or whatever.. as long as they aren't protected.

No, I have clearly laid out why it isn't the same as most zoning laws( some zoning laws are crazy and shouldn't be on the books... so those are the same). YOU have yet to address my analogy. Are you or are you not ok with a law prohibiting a bar from allowing patrons to wear Chiefs gear?

As for the health issue. That has been addressed. ETS doesn't violate OSHA standards.

As for the nuisance... the same could be said from the other side.

So far, your ONLY justification is mob rule.

No I would not be okay with a law prohibiting the bar from allowing patrons to wear Chiefs gear, because that does no good and causes harm just by being a stupid law on the books. If you don't understand that's my argument, you really haven't been following very closely.

Now why don't you tell me why food inspections are so much different? Shouldn't I have the right to serve whatever food I want to my customers? If I make them sick they just won't come back.

You remember bars where you could barely see 10 feet of visibility? You're going to tell me a bartender spending 40 hours a week in that doesn't face potential health problems? I'm sure pro football helmets don't violate OSHA safety standards either. And we all know where that's headed.

[suzzer99]

[quote=dmahurin;9334015]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Suzzer, this is the troll I was referencing.

Got it