Bob Evans goes non-smoking

[mrscsi]

Idea Maker wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good point about the government. Except for two things:
We already have the "no shirt, no shoes, no pets" law. If we are going to be this strict about keeping things clean, we might as well add "no smoking." Second hand smoke is filthier than sweat and pet dander.
Some parents, babysitters, etc bring their small children with them into the smoking section. If we don't outlaw smoking in restaurants, let's at least outlaw bringing small children into the smoking section.

Instead of being so quick to outlaw anything, why don't we let the free market decide.

That way restaurants will either be smoking or non-smoking but not both.

Just make one law, that there be no split restaurants. That way you don't have to keep wasting paper making more and more laws.

Because if the non-smokers are truly going to support a 100% non-smoking business, then they would survive. The same can be true about 100% smoking establishments.

But if you don't support such establishments don't be surprised if the free market goes the other way.

That's just the way the free market works. If there are more smokers patronizing restaurants than they will go smoking, it's the opposite it will go that way.

But we've gotten carried away with ourselves about writing laws when they can all be done with one simple rule. Segregation.

Mr. SCSI ryomag.com

[Alvin]

Maybe the non-smokers in a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers are sick of being bullied into patronizing a smoking establishment to appease the one smoker in a group. Just look at your own pouty, bully-type rants. Your family and friends of non-smokers don't want to listen to you so they go where you want. Oh, by the way, a huge percentage of the non-smoking establishments don't lend themselves to much socializing, just eating. Aren't you just about done with this?

[mrscsi]

Alvin wrote:

Maybe the non-smokers in a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers are sick of being bullied into patronizing a smoking establishment to appease the one smoker in a group. Just look at your own pouty, bully-type rants. Your family and friends of non-smokers don't want to listen to you so they go where you want. Oh, by the way, a huge percentage of the non-smoking establishments don't lend themselves to much socializing, just eating. Aren't you just about done with this?

Nope not even close to done.

simple solution to the above. dont let there be mixed establishments and dont sue for inclusion.

then you wont be bullied and I wont be bothered and all will be rosey in the world

[GRGirl]

I have to agree with mrscsi's idea of you're either smoking or non, period. I have asthma and when I go to a restaurant to eat with my family I really don't want smoke being blown in my face, it sucks and quite literally it hurts my chest. On the other hand...if I go to the Woods downtown for a martini I'll either sit outside where there's fresh air or I'll deal with the smoke inside...knowing that most people like to smoke in a bar. You take your chances I guess. But it should be up to the establishment to choose and if they choose to be non smoking maybe they should provide an enclosed patio type area to at least apease the smokers.

[Gentle Taz]

Alvin wrote:

Maybe the non-smokers in a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers are sick of being bullied into patronizing a smoking establishment to appease the one smoker in a group. Just look at your own pouty, bully-type rants. Your family and friends of non-smokers don't want to listen to you so they go where you want. Oh, by the way, a huge percentage of the non-smoking establishments don't lend themselves to much socializing, just eating. Aren't you just about done with this?

It's your own fault if you allow them to bully you. All you had to do was stick to your guns.
As for no smoking restaurants not lending themselves to much socializing, I fail to see how that can be. The socializing is entirely in the patrons control. I don't know of any restaurant that prohibits socializing.

[Alvin]

Gentle Taz wrote:

<quoted text>
It's your own fault if you allow them to bully you. All you had to do was stick to your guns.
As for no smoking restaurants not lending themselves to much socializing, I fail to see how that can be. The socializing is entirely in the patrons control. I don't know of any restaurant that prohibits socializing.

It's a little trickier when it's elderly folks, bosses, etc. Non-smoking restaurants are for people eating, maybe you just don't get the hint when they keep asking you if you want something else, or hand you the bill! They are telling you to go. Restaurants that serve adult beverages are smoking or the age-old token area.

[mrscsi]

Alvin wrote:

<quoted text>It's a little trickier when it's elderly folks, bosses, etc. Non-smoking restaurants are for people eating, maybe you just don't get the hint when they keep asking you if you want something else, or hand you the bill! They are telling you to go. Restaurants that serve adult beverages are smoking or the age-old token area.

You just don't have much fun in life do you?

I think you need to see a doctor to get your butt hole pushed back down from around your neck. It's obviously cutting off the oxygen in making your life miserable.

Simple solution to everybody's problem, resend the smoking bans, resend the federal mandate requiring all restaurants to be inclusive, let business owners decide which type of establishment they have, post huge signs on the front doors of everyone saying 100% smoking or 100% non-smoking

Let people choose which establishment to patronize.

Bar any lawsuits by any non-smokers seeking inclusion into a smoking establishment.

Can't get much simpler than that.

Mr. SCSI ryomag.com

[KCGR]

Excuse me I am a smoker, but when I go with friends and family members that are non smokers, I do not feel BULLIED into going to a non smoking establishment. Once again it is a matter of choice. I have even been to bars that are non smoking. Yes even with a group of smokers, we have been to non smoking establishments as it was a choice to visit or not. The owner of the establishment decided how they wanted to run their business, and we made a CHOICE to visit or not. We were not DICTATED too.

Alvin wrote:

Maybe the non-smokers in a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers are sick of being bullied into patronizing a smoking establishment to appease the one smoker in a group. Just look at your own pouty, bully-type rants. Your family and friends of non-smokers don't want to listen to you so they go where you want. Oh, by the way, a huge percentage of the non-smoking establishments don't lend themselves to much socializing, just eating. Aren't you just about done with this?

[curious]

I just posted on the new cell phone causes cancer blog. NYA NYA. Next there will be a ban on cell phones in public. Good for all of you. That's more annoying anyway. All the people blabbering on their cell phones while I'm trying to eat. I want to sit in the non-cell phone section at the restaurant. Hey, also, granite countertops emit radon gas which can cause cancer. NYA NYA. I don't use a cell phone OR have granite countertops. You're just as doomed as me. Only from other things, like I've been saying all along!!! Pick your poison and I'll pick mine.

[say what]

curious wrote:

I just posted on the new cell phone causes cancer blog. NYA NYA. Next there will be a ban on cell phones in public. Good for all of you. That's more annoying anyway. All the people blabbering on their cell phones while I'm trying to eat. I want to sit in the non-cell phone section at the restaurant. Hey, also, granite countertops emit radon gas which can cause cancer.

You need to get together with mrscsi because he seems to be under the impression that nobody knows what causes cancer but you seem to have a pretty good grip on some of the causes.

www.whyquit.com

[Alvin]

curious wrote:

I just posted on the new cell phone causes cancer blog. NYA NYA. Next there will be a ban on cell phones in public. Good for all of you. That's more annoying anyway. All the people blabbering on their cell phones while I'm trying to eat. I want to sit in the non-cell phone section at the restaurant. Hey, also, granite countertops emit radon gas which can cause cancer. NYA NYA. I don't use a cell phone OR have granite countertops. You're just as doomed as me. Only from other things, like I've been saying all along!!! Pick your poison and I'll pick mine.

And I bet MY chosen poison won't kill YOU.

[curious]

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to get together with mrscsi because he seems to be under the impression that nobody knows what causes cancer but you seem to have a pretty good grip on some of the causes.
www.whyquit.com

I have a medical degree. Do you?

[curious]

Alvin wrote:

<quoted text>And I bet MY chosen poison won't kill YOU.

Is it illegal?

[mrscsi]

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to get together with mrscsi because he seems to be under the impression that nobody knows what causes cancer but you seem to have a pretty good grip on some of the causes.
www.whyquit.com

I was just set to announce, coming in contact with "whiny, crying antismoking activists" can cause cancer.

How I could say this is if we will do a study, there will be a 2% to 5% instance rate.

You may not like the results, but it's a fact that you're going to get them. So we need to ban whiny crying antismoking activists, so we can save 2 to 5%, anything else would be criminal.

Mr. SCSI ryomag.com

[Jason]

curious wrote:

I just posted on the new cell phone causes cancer blog. NYA NYA. Next there will be a ban on cell phones in public. Good for all of you. That's more annoying anyway. All the people blabbering on their cell phones while I'm trying to eat. I want to sit in the non-cell phone section at the restaurant. Hey, also, granite countertops emit radon gas which can cause cancer. NYA NYA. I don't use a cell phone OR have granite countertops. You're just as doomed as me. Only from other things, like I've been saying all along!!! Pick your poison and I'll pick mine.

Right, but my countertops, and cell phone doesnt smell like the east end of a west bound shit wagon. Honestly, do you not think about the stank ou emit while smoking? I did smoke, snd have been free from it for several years, and I really enjoy not needing any kind of stimulant to get through each day. Better smelling than you too.........I wonder how many smokers will be sniffing thier cell phones now..........

[GHB]

Hahaha...ah, poor smokers still holding on to the dream that they might have a chance in the world.
You need to come to the realization that most of the public does not smoke, does not want to smell like smoke, nor do they want to look at your ugly wrinkled face. Well, at least they are doing away with 2 of the 3.
Good luck to smoking in public.

[mrscsi]

Jason wrote:

<quoted text>Right, but my countertops, and cell phone doesnt smell like the east end of a west bound **** wagon. Honestly, do you not think about the stank ou emit while smoking? I did smoke, snd have been free from it for several years, and I really enjoy not needing any kind of stimulant to get through each day. Better smelling than you too.........I wonder how many smokers will be sniffing thier cell phones now..........

I'll bet to many, your breath stinks, I'll bet to many your feet stink, I'll bet to many, your body odor stinks.

When you start banning something mainly because of personal dislikes your heading really down a slippery slope.

But why don't you complain to John Banzhaf, he created this mess on your behalf.

See the solution is simple, do not have any establishment that allow smoking and non-smoking, make them one of the other but don't allow them to have both.

Problem with that is that in the 70s when John Banzhaf sued on your behalf for inclusion, the federal government got involved and that includes the requirement still stands throughout the land.

So you guys "the non-smokers" created the mess. Help us fix it, join with us in having it repealed, let the free market decide if an establishment should be smoking or non-smoking.

If you're really going out is much as you claim to be, you shouldn't be worried about anything, if you really do have the majority like were all led to believe, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

So why hide behind the government's skirt tails, cannot stand up like a man, together we can do this.

Mr. SCSI ryomag.com

[Alvin]

curious wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it illegal?

What a dumb question, of course not. Boy, I sure hope my doctor doesn't spend his/her spare time blogging on WOOD.

[Jason]

mrscsi wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll bet to many, your breath stinks, I'll bet to many your feet stink, I'll bet to many, your body odor stinks.
When you start banning something mainly because of personal dislikes your heading really down a slippery slope.
But why don't you complain to John Banzhaf, he created this mess on your behalf.
See the solution is simple, do not have any establishment that allow smoking and non-smoking, make them one of the other but don't allow them to have both.
Problem with that is that in the 70s when John Banzhaf sued on your behalf for inclusion, the federal government got involved and that includes the requirement still stands throughout the land.
So you guys "the non-smokers" created the mess. Help us fix it, join with us in having it repealed, let the free market decide if an establishment should be smoking or non-smoking.
If you're really going out is much as you claim to be, you shouldn't be worried about anything, if you really do have the majority like were all led to believe, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
So why hide behind the government's skirt tails, cannot stand up like a man, together we can do this.
Mr. SCSI ryomag.com

WAY too long of a reply really. My point was the inane thought of granite, and cell phones vs. ciggs. Anyways, go back to your "down trodden boo hoo I'm going to go eat worm whine ass" lifestyle......

[say what]

curious wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a medical degree. Do you?

Actually, I do but how does that have anything to do with mrscsi asserting that nobody knows what causes cancer?
I suggested that you explain a few of those causative mechanisms since you seem to believe that we do in fact know at least some of the causes of cancer.