Comments by crackinsack
Page 1 of 26 | Next
Posted on January 8 at 3:17 p.m.
Wendy's is some darn fine eating, I can tell you that much. That is at least the second time seriouslyfolks has made some obscure reference to the Wendy's bathrooms...what's that all about?
Posted on January 8 at 1:21 p.m.
methusla,
Yes, I have gone over the speed limit. Guess what? I got a ticket! That's right, speeding is dangerous and IS illegal. Just like smoking in public SHOULD be. Good point.
rbow,
I was thinking the same thing about how you might think a test by CAE would be biased or inconclusive at best. Even if pollutants were found in the air I think the argument then would be over "are those particles really dangerous?" and/or "how much is an unhealthy level?" I've seen studies (http://www.matchcoalition.com/hartfordre...) of indoor air quality before and after a smoking ban and they showed significantly lower levels of pollutants in the air. I don't think that would satisfy you, however, because you could still say, "I want proof that it makes us healthier."
From the link I provided above:
“In summary, results indicate that the level of indoor air pollution decreased by 76% after bars and restaurants were required to provide smoke-free environments. Policies that remove secondhand smoke are an effective strategy to reduce workers exposure to this toxin, which MAY translate into improved health outcomes for these employees.”
That “may” is what we’ll be fighting over next, no doubt.
Posted on January 8 at 11:55 a.m.
Fair enough, seriouslyfolks and Raff. I agree that it's fair to take it to a vote. I only got started posting to this particular article because the first poster attempted to trivialize it by trying to correlate smoking in public to fast food and alcohol. I just hope EOB isn't getting their hopes up only to be smashed in the public vote.
rbow,
If I’m eating my delicious Wendy’s burger in your bar, your health isn’t going to suffer so…what was your point again? Burger = My choice; my consequences. Cigarette = Your choice; everyone’s consequences.
It’s not within my means to have your air tested. :( If you’re so confident, would you be willing to foot the bill?
Posted on January 8 at 11:05 a.m.
rbow,
I see a few key words in your post. "WANT TO" and "PICK AND CHOOSE"
Aha! So it is as I suspected. You don't care about losing rights; you just care about your own selfish WANTS. There it is folks; the EOB is only looking out for themselves while CAE is doing what is best for all citizens. Case closed.
Posted on January 8 at 10:44 a.m.
seriouslyfolks,
I can't think of anything quite as "ban-worthy" as smoking in public... I mean, what else do people do that has no real benefit, yet it harms everyone in the vicinity? Is there anything else like this that doesn't benefit society and harms people who aren't even participating in the activity? I can't think of anything and that's why banning smoking in public places makes sense to me. I don't care if you smoke someplace where your smoke can't hurt others; your choice is only affecting you. I just don't want to suffer for YOUR poor choices.
To answer your question, I can't really think of anything else I'd like to see banned. Relax. There is no slippery slope. The sky isn’t falling. The government isn’t out to get you. Lay off the nicotine and you might just start thinking more clearly.
Posted on January 8 at 10:17 a.m.
rbow,
Really? You don't seem too concerned about your other rights. Why don't you fight to stay open later than 2AM? Why don't you fight to serve minors? Why don't you fight against maximum occupancy restrictions? Why don’t you fight to be able to sell/smoke marijuana? These are all rules that have been imposed on you by our evil government, so I'm not sure why you are ok with these.
I have been accused of being in favor of the ban simply due to my personal preferences.(not completely true) EOB’s argument sounds no different to me. You all love smoking so much that you’re willing to put your employees’ and customers’ health on the line for your own selfishness. It’s not about “rights period” or you would have been fighting other restrictions long ago. This is about your “right” to harm others while smoking and/or the right to operate an unsafe business.
Posted on January 8 at 8:37 a.m.
methusla,
You're right; pouring grease down someone's throat is dangerous and would probably be considered a violent act and therefore illegal. (I wouldn't actually do it, I was just making a point) Why then is it legal for you to pour your smoke down my lungs?
josiesbar,
I'm not upset it's going to the ballot. I believe the ban will go into affect either way. I just think it's silly people think smoking is worth fighting for. I kinda take it personally that you think you should have the right to harm me just because I’m in your bar. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted on January 7 at 2:47 p.m.
ralpheatsbeef,
You are one sarcastic EOB! At least your greasy food and drinking is only harmful to yourself. I think the next time a smoker lights-up next to me, I'll get a bucket of cooking grease so I can pour it down his throat and all over his hair and clothes. That way we'll be even. We'll both be exposed to something unhealthy that we didn't bring on ourselves. Plus, the smoker will smell like grease and be forced to take a shower before going to bed. …Unless, of course, he wants the pillow to smell bad.
Posted on January 7 at 11:36 a.m.
rbow,
Why do you think all smokers so violent? Is it the tobacco that makes them violent? Maybe it has something to do with the background of smokers that makes them violent. Or maybe it's just that people who make poor decisions and lack common sense will often smoke as well as start fights. Before you grill me, remember that you implied smokers are violent, not me.
Page 1 of 26 | Next
Posted on January 8 at 3:38 p.m.
Oh, I see...The other article included a quote saying the restrooms were phenomenal. That is a little silly for them to point that out. Sorry, seriouslyfolks.
On Not Dangerous?