Ban smoking in bars, clubs

Ban smoking in bars, clubs

There are 497 comments on the The Daily Advertiser story from Apr 2, 2011, titled Ban smoking in bars, clubs. In it, The Daily Advertiser reports that:

Grammy winner Chubby Carrier and fellow performers David Egan and Joey Richard talked with us recently about what is, for them and thousands of bartenders and barbacks, an occupational hazard - second-hand cigarette smoke.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Advertiser.

Since: Jun 12

Waterloo, Canada

#437 Jul 6, 2012
That Presidential list is long and everyone of them were "tricked" due to stupidity. LOL ! Why oh Why, did I miss the word "list" the first time was I tricked LOL
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#439 Jul 6, 2012
Pillbilly wrote:
The basis of a good part of the anti-smoking argument as put forth by Hugh Jass is that smokers are stupid ...
That is not true. Intellect is no protection from disease. Smokers are almost (not quite) all nicotine addicts. That DISEASE impairs their decision-making abilities where nicotine is concerned. That's part of the definition of an addiction, not "the anti-smoking argument as put forth by Hugh Jass".

As to the children who begin smoking, no one expects them to be sophisticated enough to be a match for the applied marketing research the tobacco industry developed over decades with full knowledge that almost no one was going to fall for their products after their brains finished developing. That's why there are laws intended to protect children.

Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence.

What's more, it is part of my argument against permitting the tobacco industry to continue to operate, not against smoking.

Since: Jun 12

Waterloo, Canada

#441 Jul 6, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true. Intellect is no protection from disease. Smokers are almost (not quite) all nicotine addicts. That DISEASE impairs their decision-making abilities where nicotine is concerned. That's part of the definition of an addiction, not "the anti-smoking argument as put forth by Hugh Jass".
As to the children who begin smoking, no one expects them to be sophisticated enough to be a match for the applied marketing research the tobacco industry developed over decades with full knowledge that almost no one was going to fall for their products after their brains finished developing. That's why there are laws intended to protect children.
Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
What's more, it is part of my argument against permitting the tobacco industry to continue to operate, not against smoking.
Smoking is an adult thing and the children know it.
French safes are an adult thing and the Children know it.
Booze is an adult thing and the chilren know it.
Children know how to be good.
Children know how to be bad.
Children know there are child protection acts and can turn on the parents.
Adults are parents who have to be responsible, do they know it?
Adams-Ex

Dallas, TX

#442 Jul 6, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true. Intellect is no protection from disease. Smokers are almost (not quite) all nicotine addicts. That DISEASE impairs their decision-making abilities where nicotine is concerned. That's part of the definition of an addiction, not "the anti-smoking argument as put forth by Hugh Jass".
As to the children who begin smoking, no one expects them to be sophisticated enough to be a match for the applied marketing research the tobacco industry developed over decades with full knowledge that almost no one was going to fall for their products after their brains finished developing. That's why there are laws intended to protect children.
Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
What's more, it is part of my argument against permitting the tobacco industry to continue to operate, not against smoking.
Well now you're just tap dancing and back pedaling. You did indeed suggest that the tobacco industry spent big money to advertise to people who were "stupid enough to buy them". You don't need to advertise to people who are already "addicted" so your comment plainly meant that only stupid people would succumb to their ads.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who wants to outlaw smoking...I might even support it. But the tact displayed here is tantamount to wanting to outlaw cars and closing down the roads to do it. As long as purchasing and smoking cigarettes is legal the Americans who smoke have the same rights you do...like it or not.
intioga

Pineville, LA

#443 Jul 6, 2012
Dumbshit, i quit smoking 6 months ago, but, to ban smoking in a bar, beer and cigz go hand in hand
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#444 Jul 6, 2012
Adams-Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now you're just tap dancing and back pedaling. You did indeed suggest that the tobacco industry spent big money to advertise to people who were "stupid enough to buy them".
When did I say that? I recall posting that that was part of the industry's defense when they wriggled out of the couple hundred billion dollar segment of the verdict against them in the RICO case. It referred to a vanishingly small portion of their customer base, but THEY claimed that there had to be SOME people around who were so stupid they would have taken up smoking even if the companies HADN'T engaged in criminal activity to ensure an adequate market.

That is not even close to what you claim that I said, so get out of my interface.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#445 Jul 6, 2012
Adams-Ex wrote:
As long as purchasing and smoking cigarettes is legal the Americans who smoke have the same rights you do...like it or not.
You make little sense there. The tobacco companies have been found guilty of fraud and of circumventing the laws against marketing to children, and the determination of the court was that the companies would almost certainly continue their misbehavior.

The tobacco companies have spent fortunes to ensure that the public perception remains that the consumers are the problem, setting people against people. As an example, you are saying "purchasing and smoking cigarettes is legal" and making what you see as a case around the rights of smokers, and you think you are arguing against my suggestions that something definitive be done about the tobacco industry, which has absolutely been behaving illegally.

The only smokers who are not unquestionably victims of the tobacco industry's crimes are those who began smoking as adults--of which there are few.

Sure, being a victim of a criminal is legal. Your point is?
gfy

Cincinnati, OH

#446 Jul 7, 2012
what's up Hugh ?
after following ( reading ) your strategy from thread to thread for some time now ,it seems you are starting to struggle and fall along the way with your objectives, you have become somewhat slacked, not as strong in your opinions , view points or overhaul take on things, you seem to repeat yourself alot as if you think you have not been heard, could it be that others with stronger view points are taking it's toll on you,?. They are giving you a run for your money,....so to speak. You are becoming worn,stagnant.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#447 Jul 7, 2012
pops wrote:
For how many years did resturaunts ask; 'smoking or non?' It worked.
No, it most certainly DIDN'T work. The non-smoking section of a restaurant is exactly as effective as the non-peeing section of a swimming pool. If that did work, we wouldn't have smoking bans.
pops wrote:
Maybe they should have also asked,'small kids or no kids?' & seperate them too.
Actually, they do. See any children in bars?
pops wrote:
People that had been drinking were spending more time & driving more miles to get home.
Nice Red Herring. Attempting to put the blame for driving and driving ANYWHERE besides the drunks who drive is ludicrous. You suddenly don't believe in personal responsibility?
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#448 Jul 7, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out Bloomy did not think it worthwhile smokers would have licence to the parks ( a Right!)
Ah. So you agree that unrestricted access to ALL areas of the public is a right of ALL citizens. There may be hope for you yet.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#449 Jul 7, 2012
gfy wrote:
what's up Hugh ?
after following ( reading ) your strategy from thread to thread for some time now
Good For You.
gfy wrote:
...it seems you are starting to struggle and fall along the way with your objectives, you have become somewhat slacked, not as strong in your opinions , view points or overhaul take on things
[My "overhaul take on things"? Nice grasp of language there...not.]

The struggle is to put up with responding to the same misrepresentations of what I have said and of reality from bozo after bozo--and in many cases from the same user name.
gfy wrote:
you seem to repeat yourself alot
Make up your mind. Are you accusing me of repeating myself or of not repeating myself strongly enough?
gfy wrote:
as if you think you have not been heard,
Clearly, the posters who continue to throw the same tired, discredited crap at me time after time have either failed to "hear" or failed to comprehend. With idiots like those, repetition is essential to communication.
gfy wrote:
could it be that others with stronger view points are taking it's toll on you,?.
I'll tell you what. Go diagram that "sentence", "clause", or whatever you think it is and come back when you have some grasp of noun/pronoun agreement, okay? No, never mind. I shudder to think what convoluted, incomprehensible trash you'd come up with once you thought you had a more complex understanding of things. I'll just pretend you made sense grammatically and move on to address the nonsense in your reasoning.

What "could be"--and IS--is that I tire of the futile task of addressing the same delusions over and over and over because people think they have a winner and are not going to let go of it no matter how clearly fatuous it becomes. They get tired of being handed their head and start chatting with each other about how good they were, because they need to pump themselves back up after being so resoundingly shot down.

Gobble Frozen Yogurt.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#450 Jul 7, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>No, it most certainly DIDN'T work. The non-smoking section of a restaurant is exactly as effective as the non-peeing section of a swimming pool. If that did work, we wouldn't have smoking bans.
<quoted text>Actually, they do. See any children in bars?
<quoted text>Nice Red Herring. Attempting to put the blame for driving and driving ANYWHERE besides the drunks who drive is ludicrous. You suddenly don't believe in personal responsibility?
your 1st 2 sentences aren't even like comparing coconuts & banannas. your off of topic there.
The same with a bar comparision to Applebees, TGIF, Chipolte etc. Coconuts & bannanas again.
NO Red Herring here. I do believe in personal responsility but isn't it a fact that alcohol makes many people irresponsible? Many DO drive drunk so you're willing to add to their time & miles on the road. That's pretty much what you just said.
Pillbilly

Dallas, TX

#451 Jul 7, 2012
I'm sure you consider me one of the "Bozos" and even though that's insulting it won't stop me from trying to make a reasonable argument against your desire to discriminate against those who smoke up until your ultimate dream of making cigarettes illegal and putting the evil tobacco companies out of business is a reality.

Some of the things that can not be argued are...

1) In 2012 an adult can buy and smoke as many cigarettes as they desire.

2) Smoking is and should be banned in all/most public places in the U.S.

3) Like drinking alcohol, most people have their first cigarette, illegally, when they are a minor.

Really the one and only thing we disagree on is whether or not a smoker should be allowed to go to a privately owned bar, restaurant or club and smoke.

It is my belief that as an American I have the right to dictate whether someone can smoke in my privately owned home or privately owned business.

People will either come there and make my business successful or stay away and make it fail. I've even suggested that having appropriate signage and ventilation should be required.

If I understand your argument correctly you don't think I or anyone else should have that right and that is a point where irregardless of your persistence you will not sway my opinion.

From where I sit, that part of your argument, is dead wrong.

Since: Jun 12

Waterloo, Canada

#452 Jul 7, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Ah. So you agree that unrestricted access to ALL areas of the public is a right of ALL citizens. There may be hope for you yet.
Bloomy ( who thinks he is mayor of the world and a former smoker) with his partner Gates no doubt are part of NGO tactics on smoking they would be aware and imformed through their foundation. When you license something all who have a license are all one and the same thing.
Although I am a smoker I can agree non smokers do have rights, but those rights in no way should undermine those of the smoker. Privately owned places should operate as they see fit, and do not undermine the CHOICES of the people. What is not too well understood on these boards is that the issues that have been discussed such as smoking, drinking, and fat foods are a world wide discussion. The WHO is central to it all in other words Chief Operations Nanny. Where I live it is legal for a women to be topless anywhere, and by law. Even though it is legal it is rare to see this. Seems strange that a child could witness this, yet they are not allowed to view cigarettes behind a store counter covered smoke display.
Also funny that same child can view some one carry the smokes in full view out side the store. The antis are warped between the ears and have no vision.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#453 Jul 7, 2012
One of the most difficult issues on contentious topics is when people alter your statement & then try to counter or rebut something that you never said seemingly just to argue or to espouse their point of view.
BUT one can espouse their own opinion independantly without changing the post that they disagree with, simply disagree folks. Don't rewrite. It plainly diminishes the supposed rebutal & makes a statement about the lucididy of the intelligence of commenter.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#454 Jul 7, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Privately owned places should operate as they see fit, and do not undermine the CHOICES of the people.
So they should be able to choose to allow dogfighting, serving minors, pissing in your food, child labor, slavery....? Sorry to break it to you, but we live in a society. A society with laws. The bar you seek is in Somalia.
pops wrote:
One of the most difficult issues on contentious topics is when people alter your statement & then try to counter or rebut something that you never said seemingly just to argue or to espouse their point of view.
Like when you try to claim that smoking bans, not the drivers, are responsible for drunk driving?
gfy

Cincinnati, OH

#455 Jul 7, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Good For You.
<quoted text>
[My "overhaul take on things"? Nice grasp of language there...not.]
The struggle is to put up with responding to the same misrepresentations of what I have said and of reality from bozo after bozo--and in many cases from the same user name.
<quoted text>
Make up your mind. Are you accusing me of repeating myself or of not repeating myself strongly enough?
<quoted text>
Clearly, the posters who continue to throw the same tired, discredited crap at me time after time have either failed to "hear" or failed to comprehend. With idiots like those, repetition is essential to communication.
<quoted text>
I'll tell you what. Go diagram that "sentence", "clause", or whatever you think it is and come back when you have some grasp of noun/pronoun agreement, okay? No, never mind. I shudder to think what convoluted, incomprehensible trash you'd come up with once you thought you had a more complex understanding of things. I'll just pretend you made sense grammatically and move on to address the nonsense in your reasoning.
What "could be"--and IS--is that I tire of the futile task of addressing the same delusions over and over and over because people think they have a winner and are not going to let go of it no matter how clearly fatuous it becomes. They get tired of being handed their head and start chatting with each other about how good they were, because they need to pump themselves back up after being so resoundingly shot down.
Gobble Frozen Yogurt.
I sense a tad bit of irritation. I am a little taken by your lack of being able to handle constructive criticism, "me" thinking you would step up your game, but "you" retaliated. yes, your overhaul ...' verb--travel past",'over take", "pass" ,"progress", seems more about "you", moreso than the "all" or "everyone concerned". Your reasons for calling people dullards that do not agree with you weakens your opinions. I am sure that the majority of the people posting on Topix are not suffering from mental retardation.
gfy

Cincinnati, OH

#456 Jul 7, 2012
I did read somewhere that in 2008 a research published by Adams and Cotti in the Journal of Public Economics that examined statistics of drunken driving fatalilities and accidents in areas where smoke free laws have been implemented in bars and found that fatal drunken driving accidents increased by 13%.........could it be becuse drunk drivers were in a hurry to get to a place were smoking was allowed ?....I do believe this question came about somewhere in this article......"however, this is not my personal opinion"
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#457 Jul 7, 2012
Pillbilly wrote:
It is my belief that as an American I have the right to dictate whether someone can smoke in my privately owned home or privately owned business.
Do what you please in your home. Your business, which exists because you applied for and received permission from the government to conduct business with the public? You don't make the rules.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#458 Jul 8, 2012
Pillbilly wrote:
I'm sure you consider me one of the "Bozos"
I'm sure I will, if you push idiocy on me hard and long enough that I trouble to consider you at all.
Pillbilly wrote:
it won't stop me from trying to make a reasonable argument against your desire to discriminate against those who smoke up until your ultimate dream of making cigarettes illegal
You can try all you want to, but just the windmill you set up to tilt against puts your argument outside the realm of the "reasonable". You lose that round when indulge yourself with the hyperbole of saying "discriminate". I'm used to addressing people who have unreasonable arguments, though, and yours doesn't stand out as particularly bad. So, I will even disregard the further example in your assertion that this is somehow my "ultimate dream".
Pillbilly wrote:
making cigarettes illegal
It is not the illegality of cigarettes that I see as desirable (and very likely to come to pass). I have said time and again that I would much prefer the resolution to come from a safe and effective treatment for nicotine addiction. If that comes around, the entire industry will wither and die just from the forces of supply and demand.
Pillbilly wrote:
Some of the things that can not be argued are...
1) In 2012 an adult can buy and smoke as many cigarettes as they desire.
Regarding the foulness of the tobacco industry, I insist here that you acknowledge another unarguable truth. Without the ILLEGAL activities of the tobacco industry over the course of decades and leading to the RICO conviction a decade or so ago, there would be nowhere near the number of adults today who desired to buy OR smoke any cigarettes at all.

In fact, the lowest figure I have seen for the percentage of smokers who don't DESIRE to desire such things is 60%.

I guess I'll let that end this post, and see how you handle that much.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lafayette Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Leon Thibodeaux 13 hr Poo-Yie 6
babysitter (Jun '12) 13 hr hmmmm 8
BBQ Plate Lunches (Mar '10) 13 hr hmmmm 24
who will be the next police Chief 13 hr Jenny 9
Dale Thibodeaux (Feb '10) 14 hr Doug 36
dale thibodeaux (Oct '17) 14 hr Doug 5
Sexless marriage (Nov '11) May 22 PrisonAtHome 61

Lafayette Jobs

Personal Finance

Lafayette Mortgages