|
|
| Author |
Message |
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
 Posted: 12/07/03 - 21:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Answer: Smoke Bar. Bars were created so people could get a drink and talk, why not have privately owned places where all you do is smoke? Cancerholics would dig it, I'm sure. And that way, smokers can meet smokers and only smokers and establish much more solid relationships.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Thenger
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 17 Oct 2002
Posts: 715
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 12:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
This whole issue with going to a bar and having a few drinks, is just as bad as smoking unless you took a taxi or have a friend who didn't drink drive you home. Hell it's worse, when was the last time you heard, he ran some little kid over cause he just had a cig before he got behind the wheel of the car.
Like I said earily the only way to really make both people happy is for bars, resturants and the like to REALLY have a smoking and non smoking area. Like a seperate area and a good divider or great ventalation.
As for the people who only smoke at bars, they are a very small part of it, in CT they, as in business, are back peddling trying to change the law cause bars & resturants are loosing to much money from the smokers who now just say "f**k it" and leave.
Still after quitting I still say people have as much choise to go to bar and resturant as the people who don't smoke. Take away one persons right to make another person happy? Hmm... Maybe now we just need to have smokers wear an armband, like Hitler made the Jews where the Star...
Sorry, I just find this such tottal b******t, people go to bars and complain then dont' go to the f*****g bar, it's been this way for god damn years... I fear change. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 12:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Thenger wrote: | This whole issue with going to a bar and having a few drinks, is just as bad as smoking unless you took a taxi or have a friend who didn't drink drive you home. Hell it's worse, when was the last time you heard, he ran some little kid over cause he just had a cig before he got behind the wheel of the car.
Like I said earily the only way to really make both people happy is for bars, resturants and the like to REALLY have a smoking and non smoking area. Like a seperate area and a good divider or great ventalation.
As for the people who only smoke at bars, they are a very small part of it, in CT they, as in business, are back peddling trying to change the law cause bars & resturants are loosing to much money from the smokers who now just say "f**k it" and leave.
Still after quitting I still say people have as much choise to go to bar and resturant as the people who don't smoke. Take away one persons right to make another person happy? Hmm... Maybe now we just need to have smokers wear an armband, like Hitler made the Jews where the Star...
Sorry, I just find this such tottal b******t, people go to bars and complain then dont' go to the f*****g bar, it's been this way for god damn years... I fear change. |
Walking into a restaurant/bar and releasing toxins into the air while people are eating constitutes as a right now?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 13:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Thenger wrote: | This whole issue with going to a bar and having a few drinks, is just as bad as smoking unless you took a taxi or have a friend who didn't drink drive you home. Hell it's worse, when was the last time you heard, he ran some little kid over cause he just had a cig before he got behind the wheel of the car.
Like I said earily the only way to really make both people happy is for bars, resturants and the like to REALLY have a smoking and non smoking area. Like a seperate area and a good divider or great ventalation.
As for the people who only smoke at bars, they are a very small part of it, in CT they, as in business, are back peddling trying to change the law cause bars & resturants are loosing to much money from the smokers who now just say "f**k it" and leave.
Still after quitting I still say people have as much choise to go to bar and resturant as the people who don't smoke. Take away one persons right to make another person happy? Hmm... Maybe now we just need to have smokers wear an armband, like Hitler made the Jews where the Star...
Sorry, I just find this such tottal b******t, people go to bars and complain then dont' go to the f*****g bar, it's been this way for god damn years... I fear change. |
Walking into a restaurant/bar and releasing toxins into the air while people are eating constitutes as a right now? |
If it was a public library your argument might hold water.
-- restaurants, bars, casinos, etc are privately owned
-- they should be allowed to decide whether or not patrons smoke on their establishments
-- patrons seeking a place to go eat/drink/gamble will make an informed decison as to where they want to go based on how the management runs the place.
Either way they will lose money, it's just a matter of how much and who's money they care about more, the smoker or the non smoker.
It's really simple you just don't see it because you feel it is your right to walk into any establishment and lay down your moral code on everyone else. Yes it's your right to go to a smoke free environment to eat or drink. And you have the god given willpower to pick such an establishment. What part of this are you not understanding?
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Alerik
Sir Postalot
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 13:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So a restaurant can decide if someone has the right to expose me to second hand smoke while I eat a meal?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 13:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Alerik wrote: | | So a restaurant can decide if someone has the right to expose me to second hand smoke while I eat a meal? |
So you don't have the right not to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 13:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Alerik wrote: | | So a restaurant can decide if someone has the right to expose me to second hand smoke while I eat a meal? |
Don't eat there. It's sooooo f*****g simple. Tell the business that you won't support then by NOT PAYING. If they care they will change their policy to accomodate you. If they don't.. then you're just going to have to find someplace else to eat.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Alerik
Sir Postalot
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
What I dont get is why people complain about it when restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections? Usually they are far enough apart that it doesn't bother anyone.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The part where the toxins are leaving the smoker's mouth and entering the environment of other human beings. I'm not at all disputing the fact that the barowners can allow that, but smoking can hardly be considered a "right". It's just an act protected by rights in certain situations imo.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | but smoking can hardly be considered a "right". It's just an act protected by rights in certain situations imo. |
So what's your point?
Don't you drive a car? Who gave you the right to deplete our planet's non-renewable fossil fuels? To destroy the ozone layer? To add to the already nice thick blanket of smog parked over our major cities?
Your exhaust will cause more damage than mine will. (I don't drive but I do smoke)
-Nah-
Last edited by Nahualli on 12/08/03 - 14:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Bait Masterson
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3842
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
yeah man I want exhaust free cities please.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | but smoking can hardly be considered a "right". It's just an act protected by rights in certain situations imo. |
So what's your point?
Don't you drive a car? Who gave you the right to deplete our planet's non-renewable fossil fuels? To destroy the ozone layer? To add to the already nice thick blanket of smog parked over our major cities?
Your exhaust will cause more damage than mine will. (I don't drive but I do smoke)
-Nah- |
Your wonderful habit of changing the subject is f*****g annoying.
My point is that hiding behind the word "right" when referring to smoking is b******t.
Here's a fact for ya - what you blow out your piehole has the potential to kill other people that might be there to do something other than contract cancer thanks to your disgusting vice. It's definately not your right to kill other citizens in a bar or restaurant with a colt .45, nor should it be your "right" to do it with a cigarette. No bar, restaurant, brothel, etc owner has a "right" to allow shootings in their private establishment, do they?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
SO THEN WE NEED TO NOT BE GOING TO THE SAME BARS. I AM NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO SUCK IN MY SMOKE I AM SAYING YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACES FREQUENTED BY SMOKERS.
YOU GO TO YOUR f*****g BAR LET ME GO TO MINE. DON'T ASSUME THOUGH THAT EVERYONE WANTS A BAR LIKE YOU DO.
WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING????
-Nah-
Last edited by Nahualli on 12/08/03 - 14:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | SO THEN WE NEED TO NOT BE GOING TO THE SAME BARS
WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING????
-Nah- |
You f*****g cretin, I already agreed with that.
THIS. IS. NOT. MY. POINT.
Turn those neons off, you used to be smarter than this. Something's sapping the juice from upstairs or some shit.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You want logic from this fool?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You want logic from this fool? |
Wait a minute, so you're telling me you can't tell the difference between marjiuana and cigarettes?
Kbarr, I would have expected more from such a supreme being as yourself.
<insert wigger picture, wigger comment, reiterated insult and Fred Flinstone avatar here>
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You want logic from this fool? |
Wait a minute, so you're telling me you can't tell the difference between marjiuana and cigarettes?
Kbarr, I would have expected more from such a supreme being as yourself.
<insert wigger picture, wigger comment, reiterated insult and Fred Flinstone avatar here> |
More of the same stupidity.
At no time did I give an opinion about the smoking, just your ability to disperse logic.
You stupid child.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 14:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
Spit.. Im not here to debate the semantics of the word "right" or what it entails. Don't bother trying to get me into that quagmire. It's a stupid waste of time.
You call it what you want the basic element of choice doesn't change.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too? |
Just seems to me like your argument against smoking cigs applies to pot too. If you think marijuana isn't toxic, and doesn't pollute others' air... well you haven't been around too much. Did you know that the two share 50 similar carcinogens? Throw in the fact that marijuana smoke does more damage to one's lungs because more smoke is inhaled per puff and freuqently held up to four times longer.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too? |
Just seems to me like your argument against smoking cigs applies to pot too. If you think marijuana isn't toxic, and doesn't pollute others' air... well you haven't been around too much. Did you know that the two share 50 similar carcinogens? Throw in the fact that marijuana smoke does more damage to one's lungs because more smoke is inhaled per puff and freuqently held up to four times longer? |
Hi, I smoke in my house and not in your restaurant.
Edit: Just noticed your carcinogen comment. Show me some proof of that, because from the documentation and studies that have been carried out in the past decade, marijuana does not contain a single carcinogen and has not been linked to any cancer cases.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too? |
Just seems to me like your argument against smoking cigs applies to pot too. If you think marijuana isn't toxic, and doesn't pollute others' air... well you haven't been around too much. Did you know that the two share 50 similar carcinogens? Throw in the fact that marijuana smoke does more damage to one's lungs because more smoke is inhaled per puff and freuqently held up to four times longer? |
Hi, I smoke in my house and not in your restaurant. |
Idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too? |
Just seems to me like your argument against smoking cigs applies to pot too. If you think marijuana isn't toxic, and doesn't pollute others' air... well you haven't been around too much. Did you know that the two share 50 similar carcinogens? Throw in the fact that marijuana smoke does more damage to one's lungs because more smoke is inhaled per puff and freuqently held up to four times longer? |
Hi, I smoke in my house and not in your restaurant. |
Idiot. |
f*****g retard. Can't you stay on topic for 3 posts without going off on your allmighty idiot tangents?
Jesus christ, you old senile m**********r.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
Been to many concerts?
Can't remember the last time I didn't smell pot at one of those.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Why is a pot smoker railing against the right to smoke cigs? |
You using neon lights too? |
Just seems to me like your argument against smoking cigs applies to pot too. If you think marijuana isn't toxic, and doesn't pollute others' air... well you haven't been around too much. Did you know that the two share 50 similar carcinogens? Throw in the fact that marijuana smoke does more damage to one's lungs because more smoke is inhaled per puff and freuqently held up to four times longer? |
Hi, I smoke in my house and not in your restaurant. |
Idiot. |
f*****g retard. Can't you stay on topic for 3 posts without going off on your allmighty idiot tangents?
Jesus christ, you old senile m**********r. |
LOL
Idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Edit: Just noticed your carcinogen comment. Show me some proof of that, because from the documentation and studies that have been carried out in the past decade, marijuana does not contain a single carcinogen and has not been linked to any cancer cases. |
Oh god, you can find tons on Benzpyrene. Take a look online yourself. There are plenty more, but I can recall that about 75% of all cases of lung cancer come about from the absence of a gene benzpyrene inhibits. The concentration of this substance in marijuana compared to tobacco? About 50% more.
I feel bad for ya if you think marijuana is safe lol.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Spitulski wrote: | | Edit: Just noticed your carcinogen comment. Show me some proof of that, because from the documentation and studies that have been carried out in the past decade, marijuana does not contain a single carcinogen and has not been linked to any cancer cases. |
Oh god, you can find tons on Benzpyrene. Take a look online yourself. There are plenty more, but I can recall that about 75% of all cases of lung cancer come about from the absence of a gene benzpyrene inhibits. The concentration of this substance in marijuana compared to tobacco? About 50% more.
I feel bad for ya if you think marijuana is safe lol. |
This is highly off topic and would prolly fit better on the derailment massacre, but
| Quote: | | 75% of all cases of cancer come from an absence of a gene benzpyrene inhibits. |
Gene and receptor inhibition is in no way related to the complete lack of a gene or receptor.
50 different carcinogens is also a very, very different statement than 50% more carcinogenic concentration.
Benzpyrene is a chemical byproduct caused by ignition of biochemicals present in many difference organic substances - pine needles release a large amount of benzpyrene when burned.
What surprises me is that with all of this "carcinogenic" benzpyrene apparently found in marijuana, not a single death has been directly related to smoking marjiuana. What also surprises me is that the proven carcinogen that's in a lot of cooked starch-based foods (i.e. french fries) hasn't caused any cancer either.
Of course I don't feel marijuana is completely safe - I believe fully that it is safer than a lot of legalized vices though. I also only smoke about a joint's worth per day on days that I do smoke. A pack of cigarettes a day is not at all uncommon to a regular cigarette smoker - that's barely 1 an hour, and plenty of people (especially here at work) can hardly make it a half hour without a drag or ten.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 15:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Are there any deaths that have been scientifically attributed to smoking? I know a lot of people say "smoking killed him" and stuff but has an official cause of death ever been attributed to smoking?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/08/03 - 16:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | 50 different carcinogens is also a very, very different statement than 50% more carcinogenic concentration. |
I mentioned just one substance (completely off the top of my head), for which the concentration was 50% more. There are about 50 substances in all. Don't forget, there are over 400 substances in marijuana smoke. Chemistry is a wonderful thing.
| Spitulski wrote: | | Benzpyrene is a chemical byproduct caused by ignition of biochemicals present in many difference organic substances - pine needles release a large amount of benzpyrene when burned. |
/nod
And how close do you want to be to a burning forest? Plenty of natural events out there are not healthy to the human body.
| Spitulski wrote: | | What surprises me is that with all of this "carcinogenic" benzpyrene apparently found in marijuana, not a single death has been directly related to smoking marjiuana. What also surprises me is that the proven carcinogen that's in a lot of cooked starch-based foods (i.e. french fries) hasn't caused any cancer either. |
Most people who smoke pot also smoke tobacco. You can see the problem this would have in calculating 'smoking related' deaths.
| Spink wrote: | | Of course I don't feel marijuana is completely safe - I believe fully that it is safer than a lot of legalized vices though. I also only smoke about a joint's worth per day on days that I do smoke. A pack of cigarettes a day is not at all uncommon to a regular cigarette smoker - that's barely 1 an hour, and plenty of people (especially here at work) can hardly make it a half hour without a drag or ten. |
Do you think one cigarette a day would kill someone? Don't confuse the habit with the drug, you better believe those with expensive pot habits are feeling pretty bad too.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
