Dog Community

OT Ramblings, Musings and other OT Stuff -- WARNING -- OT

probe1957

Posted : 2/1/2007 5:52:56 PM

Our boss, in the spanking thread, asked us to start another thread if we wanted to go off of the topic of spanking, so here we are. To me, it seems like NDR is, by its nature, off topic, but always being one to follow the rules, silly as I think it sometimes is to do so, here I am.

I thought I would just start a thread where anyone could post anything they want and, since the title of the thread is off topic, well...anything goes. Anything within the rules, of course, but in this thread, there is no such thing as off topic as the entire thread is off topic.

Okay, getting back off topic:

ESPENCER: >>Then you need to go to any bar in Mexico City,<<

It has been years since I have been there but I really liked Mexico City. Especially this one working girl... [

]

CANDACE: >>but they do raise your chances of survival. You can't argue with that. <<

I certainly can argue that. Would you like to?

>>and those people still deserve to be able to go to the bar. <<

I agree, but you miss my point, which is, the government has no place in the decision whether or not to allow smoking in a bar. That should be up to the discretion of the bar management. If they make the wrong decision, market forces will demonstrate that quite clearly.

>>You left out the part where I said that normal people just follow these laws naturally and don't need to be told. The laws are there for the people that don't.<<

So you pass a law so abnornal people, who don't obey the law, will obey the law? See, I left it out because it made no sense.

>>Yes there are alot of restrictions, but I don't think that getting a license to aquire guns is really a bad thing. You still have to get a license to drive a car right? Do you take gun ownership lightly? I would hope not. <<

The Constitution recognizes my right to own a gun. The Constitution says nothing about driving. I completely object to requiring a license to own a gun. Licensing is the first step towards confiscation. The government has no business knowing if I own a gun or how many I own. The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about me being able to protect myself from a tyrannical government.

jjsmom06

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:23:41 PM

Alright Billy… against my BETTER judgment.. I will bite… Let#%92s start with my comment I pm#%92d you about and go from there …

Billy said:
The only one who could possibly be hurt my decision not to wear a helmet is me.

MY response via pm:

Well with many people I think it is actually a great way to help the "natural selection" process along...

That said... I have worked with way too many peoples families who are hurt by their loved ones choice to NOT wear a helmet (or seatbelt)... especially when the family is that one that is wipping the drool from their face after having to feed them , or wiping their a$$ when can't do it themselves... just my opinion though!

Billy#%92s Response:

Feel free to express it in the forum. I would very much enjoy engaging you in a debate

Alright Billy..so if you disagree on my comments, debate away... [

]

gayle

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:27:40 PM

thanks jerk, someone needed to start this thread.

i want to know why its ok to pollute ones liver and get all wasted (we are at the bar here if ya cannot tell), but dog forbid anyone lights up a smoke? people go to the bar for one reason and it isnt to stay healthy.

rwbeagles

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:33:28 PM

Actually beer or wine in moderation is good from a health standpoint...in many cases [

]

I enjoy beer and alcohol....I like the taste and I enjoy the buzz as well...I enjoy spending time with adult people like my husband..listening to music and dancing a little....I don't mind smoke, tho I am not a smoker...but I do appreciate a GOOD ventilation system and I don't mind a smoking porch either.

Getting wasted isn't okay, nor IMO does it have the image of being so...public drunkeness, garners strange looks, derision, disgust and avoidance in many cases...legal action in others.

jjsmom06

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:39:06 PM

i want to know why its ok to pollute ones liver and get all wasted (we are at the bar here if ya cannot tell), but dog forbid anyone lights up a smoke? people go to the bar for one reason and it isnt to stay healthy.

Gaylemarie- while I TOTALLY do agree with you on this ...it does seem really silly, I know at least in California the law was not to protect the bar customers, but the employees that work there...

Thanks to a California law that took effect at the beginning of the year, bar, restaurant, tavern and gaming patrons can no longer smoke inside these establishments. The law was designed to give employees of these businesses the same workplace protection against secondhand smoke that workers in other business are afforded.

rwbeagles

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:40:56 PM

Right...they are there 8 hours a day...and patrons are there only a few on average. Makes sense!

huskymom

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:43:43 PM

ORIGINAL: gaylemarie

thanks jerk, someone needed to start this thread.

i want to know why its ok to pollute ones liver and get all wasted (we are at the bar here if ya cannot tell), but dog forbid anyone lights up a smoke? people go to the bar for one reason and it isnt to stay healthy.

Actually I know plenty of people who go to the bar to play pool or dance and don't drink. In a small town there are not usually other options of places to go.

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 2/1/2007 6:48:37 PM

as a non-smoker i appreciate the smoking bans. as i said in the thread about useless laws, greenville, sc just banned smoking in restaurants and bars. in the city only, out where we live in the county smoking is still allowed. for the most part, i would be more inclined now to drive downtown and pay a little more for a meal knowing the guy next to me isnt about to light a cigarette.

the bars in particular thought their business would be negatively affected by the new law. however, it seems that most of the places quit complaining about the new laws after the first week or so. a bar we go to for lunch a good bit has seen increased business actually.

i just wish that the county or the other cities/towns in the county would follow suit and enact similar laws.

gayle

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:15:26 PM

my husband is a welder, he knows the fumes are lethal, if he didnt like it he would do something else. a bar employee should not work in a bar if they do not want to be around smoke.

while i do not think it is ok to expose people to smoke, i think it should be up to the owners of the establishment whether they want to allow smoking or not. that way smokers could go to the bars that smoked and the people who didnt want to be exposed could go to a different bar.

people are just so nitpicky these days.

sp edit

huskymom

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:17:02 PM

ORIGINAL: probe1957

CANDACE: >>but they do raise your chances of survival. You can't argue with that. <<

I certainly can argue that. Would you like to?

Bring it on!

>>and those people still deserve to be able to go to the bar. <<

I agree, but you miss my point, which is, the government has no place in the decision whether or not to allow smoking in a bar. That should be up to the discretion of the bar management. If they make the wrong decision, market forces will demonstrate that quite clearly.

If it was left up to bar management, none would ban smoking. I know several bar owners and all of them, not just a couple of them, fought hard against the smoking ban. They felt they would lose customers. And I suppose they would if they were the only ones doing it. Let's face it, ALOT of people that drink also smoke, even if its just when they are drinking. Since Ontario banned smoking in bars, there has been no decrease in the business that the bars see on a nightly basis. There has however been a decrease in smoking. Especially in those bars where there is no access to an outdoor area where you can take your drink with you. I don't see that as a bad thing.

>>You left out the part where I said that normal people just follow these laws naturally and don't need to be told. The laws are there for the people that don't.<<

So you pass a law so abnornal people, who don't obey the law, will obey the law? See, I left it out because it made no sense.

No, you pass a law so that people without the common sense to do what would keep them safe, would be required to do so anyway. Whether they do so or not is irrelevent. Someone that is going to break the law just because they don't want to conform, is going to do so anyway. I'm not talking about lawbreakers. I'm talking about stupid people, to put it bluntly.

>>Yes there are alot of restrictions, but I don't think that getting a license to aquire guns is really a bad thing. You still have to get a license to drive a car right? Do you take gun ownership lightly? I would hope not. <<

The Constitution recognizes my right to own a gun. The Constitution says nothing about driving. I completely object to requiring a license to own a gun. Licensing is the first step towards confiscation. The government has no business knowing if I own a gun or how many I own. The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about me being able to protect myself from a tyrannical government.

How do you use a gun to protect yourself from a tyrannical government? Thats just scary. And of course the Constitution says nothing about driving. It was written how long ago?

jones

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:18:08 PM

I loved, loved the smoking ban in Boston. You mean I can go out to a bar with my friends and not have to come home and shower? I don't have to launder my jacket/coat and everything else I was wearing? Now that we moved to a place w/out a smoking ban I don't enjoy bars as much, and there are some I can't set foot in at all. Smoking is one thing... I do not mind if I'm hanging out with someone and they light up a cigarette. 25-100 people smoking in a closed building is another story. It's disgusting. My beer does not make YOU drunk just by standing next to it. ...The reason the government has to step in with smoking bans is purely economic. One bar will not opt to have a smoking ban if everyone else doesn't want to, but if the ban is enforced everywhere no one loses money. In Mass you can still allow smoking if you're a private club, and that seems fair to me.

huskymom

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:22:04 PM

ORIGINAL: gaylemarie

while i do not think it is ok to expose people to smoke, i think it should be up to the owners of the establihment whether they want to allow smoking or not. that way smokers could go to the bars that smoked and the poeple who didnt want to be exposed could go to a different bar.

As I mentioned above, a LOT of people smoke when they drink. But alot of them have friends who do not. Now why should thier friends be segregated just because the smokers would obviously choose the bar that allowed smoking. And like I said, there would be very few if any bars that actually banned smoking since if there was a place to go where you could smoke, the non smoking bars would get very little business.

gayle

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:35:42 PM

As I mentioned above, a LOT of people smoke when they drink. But alot of them have friends who do not. Now why should thier friends be segregated just because the smokers would obviously choose the bar that allowed smoking. And like I said, there would be very few if any bars that actually banned smoking since if there was a place to go where you could smoke, the non smoking bars would get very little business.

the government does not own bars, private parties do. therefor i do not feel they have the right to decide whether smoking is permitted or not. so and so's non-smoking friend does not own the bar either, they should not have the upper hand on what goes on inside it either. the fact that the nonsmoking bars wouldn't get any business says it all to me. if the smoking friends really cared whether the non-smoking friend was exposed they would simply go to the non smoking bar and step out when they wanted to.

i do not think it should be one way or the other, that would be violating one or the others rights. i think the only deciding factor should be the proprieter.

Xerxes

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:43:12 PM

>>Yes there are alot of restrictions, but I don't think that getting a license to aquire guns is really a bad thing. You still have to get a license to drive a car right? Do you take gun ownership lightly? I would hope not. <<

The Constitution recognizes my right to own a gun. The Constitution says nothing about driving. I completely object to requiring a license to own a gun. Licensing is the first step towards confiscation. The government has no business knowing if I own a gun or how many I own. The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about me being able to protect myself from a tyrannical government.

Gun confiscation was one of the first steps before the revolutionary war. Every farmer, soldier, baker, butcher, smith or wright that fought in the war with their own rifle was breaking the law. Good thing they didn't surrender their weapons.

Remember the "shot heard 'round the world?" That happened at a British sponsored gathering to confiscate weapons.

Weapons bans don't work. They never have. They didn't work in medieval Europe, fuedal Japan or during the formation of China. Weapons bans give power to the criminals, and seize power from the law abiding citizens.

Remember police are not there to prevent crime, they are there to investigate and hopefully solve the crimes that have already been committed.

There is the argument that alot of children die from accidental shootings each year. That's a horrible thing. More children die in backyard swimming pools than by gunshot. Should we ban them too?

"When government fears the people, that is Democracy. When the people fear the government, that is tyranny." -Unknown.

jones

Posted : 2/1/2007 7:44:57 PM

the government does not own bars, private parties do. therefor i do not feel they have the right to decide whether smoking is permitted or not.

Well, but the government controls whether or not bars/restaurants can sell wine, beer, and liquor. It also controls how late they can sell alcohol and how late they can stay open. Private clubs are different from privately owned bars... private clubs can still have smoking because they are considered private property in a way that a drinking establishment is not.