• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Smoking ban begins today in Washington, DC!

Calm2Chaos said:
So why not go to a non smoking facility bar or restaurant. Unless you live in the backwoods there should be a few around. Unless of course your friends just like the atmosphere at that place better. 1 beer every 2 hours...... they would prefer you stay home anyway...LOL


By the way they passed a smoking ban in Delaware and it killed a lot of small bars and restaurants. Along the state border a number of the restaurants closed. I'm sure those owners were happy about the smoking ban
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet they were laughing all the way to the bank. :roll: :mrgreen:
 
The truth is I understand the desire for non smoking facilities. And I have no problem with a bar or restaurant catering strictly to a non smoking crowd. And f I go to one of these places I need to go outside to smoke. I just don't see if I am capable of making this decision to go someplace others aren't.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SMOKE DON'T GO TO SMOKING BARS AND RESTAURANTS !!!...

Not exactly sure why thats a problem. Instead of making that personal decision ,why does this crowd insist on making the rest of the people conform to there ideals. I frequent non smoking restaurants on occasions. I do this by choice, the same choice you have to not frequent smoking restaurants. Course you won't have choice long with the smoking nazi crew....LOL
 
Captain America said:
Believe me, around here, in beer capitol USA, that is no assumption. However, I am sure there are a handful that do not go to the bar to get drunk so your point is well taken. But here, that's like one out of 30 people....
:drink
Click to expand...

LOL! Ummm, I am almost embarrassed to admit that I don't know where is beer capital USA. Milwaukee?
 
aps said:
LOL! Ummm, I am almost embarrassed to admit that I don't know where is beer capital USA. Milwaukee?
Click to expand...
Weekends at my house...:cool:
 
Calm2Chaos said:
So what you seem to be saying is you can't have some places cater to smokers because thats were the people would go and the non smoking facilities would not have as big a crowd??? SO again your making decisions for me. Or your having local government do it. If non smoking was that big of an issue I don't see what "effect" it would have on these establishments. Surely every non smoker would go to them and leave the smoking bars to the minority smokers. Meaning the majority of the people would be in the non smoking facility. If this is the case then there would be NO effect on these places. If this isn't the case then the local government is forcing PRIVATE business owners to change the way they do business for absolutely no legitimate or legal reason. Or just to appease some whiners because they are forced to make a decision on where to go to eat or drink at night.....
Click to expand...

If businesses could agree as to whom should be smoking facilities and whom should be nonsmoking facilities, I would be happy with that. But come on, Calm, that is not feasible. I think the owners of these bars/restaurants would not be able to reach an agreement. So make the ban across the board.

To say that there is no legitimate reason is nonsense, since there is no question that second-hand smoke is detrimental to health. I don't mind being labeled as a whiner, if that is what you're calling me.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Philly ain't no beer capitol ya raciest person on the forum (LOL). All philly is known for is Cheese Steaks. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Nope...

You forgot tire fires and sports teams that can't cross the finish line...:2wave:
 
Calm2Chaos said:
So why not go to a non smoking facility bar or restaurant. Unless you live in the backwoods there should be a few around. Unless of course your friends just like the atmosphere at that place better. 1 beer every 2 hours...... they would prefer you stay home anyway...LOL

By the way they passed a smoking ban in Delaware and it killed a lot of small bars and restaurants. Along the state border a number of the restaurants closed. I'm sure those owners were happy about the smoking ban
Click to expand...

LMAO Hey, I'm a social drinker!

They are worried about people leaving DC to go to Virginia since Virginia does not have a ban (but the parts of Maryland that border DC have bans). Time will tell.
 
cnredd said:
Nope...

You forgot tire fires and sports teams that can't cross the finish line...:2wave:
Click to expand...

Don't hate the Giants for being better than the Eagles. Maybe you'll get a shot next year.... :mrgreen:
 
aps said:
LMAO Hey, I'm a social drinker!

They are worried about people leaving DC to go to Virginia since Virginia does not have a ban (but the parts of Maryland that border DC have bans). Time will tell.
Click to expand...

DC sucks anyways. All the buildings are white, which means it's anti-black. WHERE THE HELL IS AL SHARPTON AND JESSE JACKSON?!?!?!?!:mrgreen:
 
aps said:
LOL! Ummm, I am almost embarrassed to admit that I don't know where is beer capital USA. Milwaukee?
Click to expand...

You got it! <hiccup :3oops: >
 
aps said:
I support the legislation because I really can't stand how I cannot go into a bar and have a beer or even just hang out with friends who are drinking without being surrounded by cigarette smoke. Yes, I know I can choose to NOT go to happy hours and such, which is what I do now (I rarely go to happy hour with my friends). So for me, the thought of going and hanging out with my friends and having a beer in a bar and NOT being surrounded by cigarette smoke is heaven.

The ban has taken effect for restaurants that do or do not have bars only. In January 2007, the ban takes effect on bars (bars that are solely bars and not part of a restaurant). I don't think it would be practical to allow some places to cater to smokers because of the effect it would have on those places that don't cater to smokers. If smokers cannot smoke in all bars, they won't be discriminating against the bars that don't allow smoking.

When I was in Seattle (which recently banned smoking from all bars and restaurants), I asked one of the places I went to if their business had been affected by the ban. The owner told me that it had had no impact since smokers could not smoke in any restaurant.
Click to expand...

So you support the legislation because you want there to be bars that don't allow smoking, so you can go to a bar without the clouds of cigarette smoke, right?

You know what the most effective way of doing this (without ****ing over 1/5th of the population)? Get everyone who shares this feeling, and start going to bars that don't allow smoking. Make it economical for a bar to not allow smoking.

But that'll never happen, because the vast majority of the supporters of this legislation really don't care all that much, but since it requires no effort on their behalf, sure, why the hell not, right? I mean, why dedicate the effort to make your life better when you can just piggy back off 20% of the population, right?

The simple fact is this is a product of the liberal thought process, that if there's a problem, then it's government's, not your responsibility to solve it. If there were anywhere close to as many people who legitimately give a **** about this issue as CLAIM to give a **** about this issue, 80% of bars wouldn't allow smoking. It's as simple as that.

But instead, we get ****ed over because you people are too lazy to fix your own problems.
 
galenrox said:
So you support the legislation because you want there to be bars that don't allow smoking, so you can go to a bar without the clouds of cigarette smoke, right?

You know what the most effective way of doing this (without ****ing over 1/5th of the population)? Get everyone who shares this feeling, and start going to bars that don't allow smoking. Make it economical for a bar to not allow smoking.

But that'll never happen, because the vast majority of the supporters of this legislation really don't care all that much, but since it requires no effort on their behalf, sure, why the hell not, right? I mean, why dedicate the effort to make your life better when you can just piggy back off 20% of the population, right?

The simple fact is this is a product of the liberal thought process, that if there's a problem, then it's government's, not your responsibility to solve it. If there were anywhere close to as many people who legitimately give a **** about this issue as CLAIM to give a **** about this issue, 80% of bars wouldn't allow smoking. It's as simple as that.

But instead, we get ****ed over because you people are too lazy to fix your own problems.
Click to expand...

So is your anger directed at me, galenrox? I have two words for you--quit smoking. Fix your own problem. Then you won't be so offended by the smoking bans. I believe this is the wave of the future.

Why not start a petition to get cigarette makers to make a cigarette that doesn't release smoke? Or are you too lazy?
 
aps said:
If businesses could agree as to whom should be smoking facilities and whom should be nonsmoking facilities, I would be happy with that. But come on, Calm, that is not feasible. I think the owners of these bars/restaurants would not be able to reach an agreement. So make the ban across the board.

To say that there is no legitimate reason is nonsense, since there is no question that second-hand smoke is detrimental to health. I don't mind being labeled as a whiner, if that is what you're calling me.
Click to expand...


Aggree on what. I open a bar in the window is a sign either saying "Smoking Allowed" Or "Smoking Prohibited". The decision is up to the individual owner. They are granted a license as either but not both. So they are now a licensed smoking facility or non smoking facility. The only way to change this would be to purchase another costly license. If there is a large enough economic base for non smoking establishments then you will see them being instituted. The balance should occur natuarally through supply and demand.

If you spend 7 days a week 12 hours a day in the bar I MIGHT possibly under considerable pressure consider the "Second Hand Smooke" Theroy. But an hour or two a week, month or year. Sorry that dog don't hunt in my book
 
aps said:
LMAO Hey, I'm a social drinker!

They are worried about people leaving DC to go to Virginia since Virginia does not have a ban (but the parts of Maryland that border DC have bans). Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Thats actualy what happened in Delaware
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Thats actualy what happened in Delaware
Click to expand...

I was acknowledging your point in my post.
 
aps said:
So is your anger directed at me, galenrox? I have two words for you--quit smoking. Fix your own problem. Then you won't be so offended by the smoking bans. I believe this is the wave of the future.

Why not start a petition to get cigarette makers to make a cigarette that doesn't release smoke? Or are you too lazy?
Click to expand...

Doesn't release smoke? Then it wouldn't be called SMOKING, now would it?
 
aps said:
So is your anger directed at me, galenrox? I have two words for you--quit smoking. Fix your own problem. Then you won't be so offended by the smoking bans. I believe this is the wave of the future.

Why not start a petition to get cigarette makers to make a cigarette that doesn't release smoke? Or are you too lazy?
Click to expand...
My anger's not towards you, you know I love you, my anger is towards the immaturity of the thought process that leads to these smoking bans.

But let me get this straight, you think the problem is that I am doing something that only really hurts me, but it annoys you, right?

See, this is a fundamental difference in thought process, I see the problem as people coming in and saying "We don't like a certain legal activity, but not so much that we'll actually dedicate the slightest amount of effort to solve this problem, even if it's as simple as making it profitable to run a bar that is catering to people who don't like to be around this legal activity, so instead we'll just have some politicians tell private business owners that they cannot allow this legal activity inside their own private property."

Let's go back to the example of mesturation, how would you react if they passed a law banning women mensturating in bars, because people like me don't like being around period blood?
 
George_Washington said:
Um, he lived until 1998, Einstein. Also, recall that we had color photos since like the late 20's...
Click to expand...

Einstein? I ain't no crackpot jew! :mrgreen:

Franky was really abducted by aliens along with Elvis and MC Hammer.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Doesn't release smoke? Then it wouldn't be called SMOKING, now would it?
Click to expand...
Don't be patronizing. aps is very intelligent, don't treat her like a child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom