Smoking ban in Chicago coming soon!!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So in that sense you would agree with madatory maximums an energy usage per household (ruining the enviroment so you can run your TV 20 hours a day is bad for my health), mandatory gas mile usage (banning SUV's, they cause global warming), banning alcahol (it didn't work before but we can handle it now, drunks are dangerous),  mandatory healthy meals enforced by the government (obesity  is a HUGE drain on society), ect... I you probably get what I am trying to say.

 

 

 

You REALLY need to post here more often.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

That is a legit question, but one with an easy answer.  Tell me what is a bar and what is a restaurant? 

 

It is not easy to differentiate between the two in many cases.  Does the neighborhood bar which also does a good portion of its business in food sales escape the ban while a corporate restaurant (which also has a bar area) has to comply?

 

To classify as a bar would a business have to stop serving food?  There are way too many cases where bar and restaurant is one and the same.  To try and come up with a regulated definition of a bar vs. a restaurant would be a nightmare and impossible.

 

The concept here is that if all places are affected equally, then the effects should be spread across the board.  Of course, some would be more affected than others, but that happens any time public policy is implemented.  We as a society adapt.

 

Actually Rex, alot of towns HAVE determined what is a bar and what is a restaurant. I know that Bloomingdale will not allow a BAR to open, but a restaurant if free to apply for a booze license. While I don't know what the specifics are, I do know that thay have a definition for what is a bar, and what is not.

[Rex Hudler]

Actually Rex, alot of towns HAVE determined what is a bar and what is a restaurant.  I know that Bloomingdale will not allow a BAR to open, but a restaurant if free to apply for a booze license.  While I don't know what the specifics are, I do know that thay have a definition for what is a bar, and what is not.

 

In this regard, I guarantee you it would be completely politicized and end up being decided by who had more money and a stronger lobby.

[Rex Hudler]

Rex, your kidding, right? “Insist to their owners to make the place non-smoking”?

 

Damn, too many Rex's. When I first read this I thought I was back on Mercy's bad side..... assuming I ever got out of the doghouse.

[mr_genius]

In this regard, I guarantee you it would be completely politicized and end up being decided by who had more money and a stronger lobby.

 

why should it be different than enything else in the city of chicago?

 

[GoodAsGould]

You've never seen a McDonalds? Or Wendy's? Or Burger King? Or Panera Bread, Atlanta Bread?

 

You consider McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King restaurants? They are fast food place and if someone had a problem with smoking there they could just use a drive thru.....

[Mercy!]

Damn, too many Rex's.  When I first read this I thought I was back on Mercy's bad side..... assuming I ever got out of the doghouse.

I laughed so hard, I scared my cat who jumped up on top of my computer monitor and started meowing at me. I need to get one of those flat panel ones.

[Mercy!]

 

Now someone’s comparing overhearing a phone conversation to having to breathe cigarette smoke? Pshsh

 

All you pro-smoking, anti-government regulation types disappoint me. If you refuse to address the SPECIFIC public health and employee safety issues I (and others) raised above, I can only assume that you are incapable of doing so. This has gotten tedious. See ya.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

So in that sense you would agree with madatory maximums on energy usage per household (ruining the enviroment so you can run your TV 20 hours a day is bad for my health), mandatory gas mile usage (banning SUV's, they cause global warming), banning alcahol (it didn't work before but we can handle it now, drunks are dangerous),  mandatory healthy meals enforced by the government (obesity  is a HUGE drain on society), ect... I think you probably get what I am trying to say.

 

Show me where I said smoking should be banned completely.

 

I think each of those should be dealt with in a case-by-case manner, and I would hope the best interest of the general public would be kept in mind (it isn't always, but it should be) along with what would make the most sense in terms of time, budget, acceptance by the people, etc. Again, more of a personal opinion than anything else.

 

But I like how you stated what I would agree and want based on a single case and look forward to having you tell me my stance on everything else.

Edited October 3, 2005 by SleepyWhiteSox

[YASNY]

I'm a smoker. Sorry to have to say that, but I am. I take the attitude that if a particular location, whether it be a bar, a restaurant or every place in the city or state, is non-smoking, I'll play by the rules.

 

I won't smoke in the Cell where it's not allowed and I won't smoke, or b**** about it, in a restaurant or bar that's smoke free. It's my problem, not anyone else's.

[Stocking]

if you cannot just go outside for a smoke, you are just f***ing pathetic. ex smoker, bartender, cannot wait for this ban to happen. Been smoke free for a year and every friday i feel like i smoked a pack by myself. f*** you, inconsiderate self centered pricks.

 

 

 

... &

[SpringfieldFan]

Forcing people in bars to go outside to smoke? You know what, considering the amount of smoking that goes on in bars, it would almost be just as easy to force the non-smokers to go outside to have a drink. I don't know, I think the free market should be able to address this issue. There are what, 6 million people in the Chicago area? I would think there are enough non-smoking drinkers among that number to keep a handful of smoke-free bars profitable.

 

Frankly, I think if the gov't is so anti-tobacco, they need to stop leveraging the issue for revenue and just ban it. What is the legal smoking age, 18? Well then, its simple Anyone who is born before 1987 (i.e. already "hooked") can continue to smoke, and it is illegal for anyone younger to smoke. Granted, enforcement would be nearly impossible, but if the gov't really isn't being hypocritical and really wants whats "best for us", it needs to stop taxing tobacco and just ban it...

 

SFF

Edited October 3, 2005 by SpringfieldFan

[mr_genius]

  Been smoke free for a year and every friday i feel like i smoked a pack by myself. f*** you,  inconsiderate self centered pricks.

... & 

 

 

simple solution, don't go out where there is excessive second hand smoke... it's a fairly simple concept. Remember, you are going to someone else's establishment. You don't own it, it's not like people are coming into your home and smoking. YOU are going to THEIR property, not the other way around. Smoking is legal and if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in THEIR bar YOU should avoid THEIR bar.

 

 

But i'm sure you feel you have the right to decide what everyone else does in their own home or enterprise. idiot

[Rex Kickass]

You consider McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King restaurants?  They are fast food place and if someone had a problem with smoking there they could just use a drive thru.....

They are establishments where over 50% of the revenue is derived from the service of food. They are restaurants. You just may not like them.

[southsider2k5]

simple solution, don't go out where there is excessive second hand smoke... it's a fairly simple concept.  Remember, you are going to someone else's establishment. You don't own it, it's not like people are coming into your home and smoking.  YOU are going to THEIR property, not the other way around.  Smoking is legal and if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in THEIR bar YOU should avoid THEIR bar.

But i'm sure you feel you have the right to decide what everyone else does in their own home or enterprise. idiot

 

Using this specific logic here, why are you and I paying to rebuild New Orleans? THEY went into an enviornment that THEY knew was below sea level, and was only a matter of time before the perfect storm came along and destroyed it. No one MADE them live there, they could have lived anywhere. THEY went where they knew it was dangerous, not ME, why should I have to suffer? THEY are the idiots here, not ME, right?

[Mercy!]

Using this specific logic here, why are you and I paying to rebuild New Orleans?  THEY went into an enviornment that THEY knew was below sea level, and was only a matter of time before the perfect storm came along and destroyed it.  No one MADE them live there, they could have lived anywhere.  THEY went where they knew it was dangerous, not ME, why should I have to suffer?  THEY are the idiots here, not ME, right?

Live long enough, and I think you finally come to the conclusion that that the appropriate labels are not Democrat, Republican or Libertarian; liberal or conservative; but Social and Anti-Social.

[mr_genius]

Using this specific logic here, why are you and I paying to rebuild New Orleans?  THEY went into an enviornment that THEY knew was below sea level, and was only a matter of time before the perfect storm came along and destroyed it.  No one MADE them live there, they could have lived anywhere.  THEY went where they knew it was dangerous, not ME, why should I have to suffer?  THEY are the idiots here, not ME, right?

 

Correct.

 

Yes, you rebuild the the infrastructure neccesary... I don't agree with the federal government rebuilding peoples homes that build in high risk areas. If you do live in a high risk area you should purchase insurance. I suggest you look into statistics of the government rebuilding multi-million dollar homes of billionaires (not once, or twice..over three times) that build their mansions directly on beach properties. I'm sure you don't think we should pay for these houses to be rebuilt, right?

[mr_genius]

Live long enough, and I think you finally come to the conclusion that that the appropriate labels are not Democrat, Republican or Libertarian; liberal or conservative; but Social and Anti-Social.

 

I would classify you more in the anti-social category.

[Soxy]

Forcing people in bars to go outside to smoke?  You know what, considering the amount of smoking that goes on in bars, it would almost be just as easy to force the non-smokers to go outside to have a drink.  I don't know, I think the free market should be able to address this issue.  There are what, 6 million people in the Chicago area?  I would think there are enough non-smoking drinkers among that number to keep a handful of smoke-free bars profitable.

It's not that outrageous, people in New York know they have to go outside to smoke. So they do. It's not a big deal.

 

simple solution, don't go out where there is excessive second hand smoke... it's a fairly simple concept.  Remember, you are going to someone else's establishment. You don't own it, it's not like people are coming into your home and smoking.  YOU are going to THEIR property, not the other way around.  Smoking is legal and if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in THEIR bar YOU should avoid THEIR bar.

But i'm sure you feel you have the right to decide what everyone else does in their own home or enterprise. idiot

 

Hey Genius, did you read the post? He's a bartender--that's his job. I.e. he has to work in an unsafe enviroment.

[mr_genius]

It's not that outrageous, people in New York know they have to go outside to smoke. So they do. It's not a big deal.

Hey Genius, did you read the post? He's a bartender--that's his job. I.e. he has to work in an unsafe enviroment.

 

 

Thats the job he chose. He wanted to work a "cool" and "fun" job now he has to deal with bad parts of the job. Sorry, no sympathy from me. My brohter works in a dangerous construction job, he doesn't complain. A lot of good friends of mine are bike messengers (super dangerous job), I'm sure they think exhaust fumes from a CTA bus is bad for them (which it definately is)... OK so lets ban busses too.

 

Hey, it's never too late to change careers.

[Kid Gleason]

This is discrimination!!! Why should I be banned from places in Chicago just because I am smoking hot?

[Stocking]

Thats the job he chose. He wanted to work a "cool" and "fun" job now he has to  deal with bad parts of the job.  Sorry, no sympathy from me.  My brohter works in a dangerous construction job, he doesn't complain.  A lot of good friends of mine are bike messengers (super dangerous job), I'm sure they think  exhaust fumes from a CTA bus is bad for them (which it definately is)... OK so lets ban busses too.

 

Hey, it's never too late to change careers.

 

And doesnt the government set standards and protections on lower speed limits with minimum fines/jail time? CTA buses, emission laws. Smoking restrictions.......dont worry they are coming, f***ing prick.

[mr_genius]

And doesnt the government set standards and protections on lower speed limits with  minimum fines/jail time?  CTA buses, emission laws.  Smoking restrictions.......dont worry they are coming, f***ing prick

 

Yea, they set standards. How about set a ventilation standard in bars? That would be the reasonable solution "comrad". You, sir, are a clueless douche bag.

 

 

ps. Do you even live in Chicago? wtf?

Edited October 4, 2005 by mr_genius

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's not that outrageous, people in New York know they have to go outside to smoke. So they do. It's not a big deal.

Hey Genius, did you read the post? He's a bartender--that's his job. I.e. he has to work in an unsafe enviroment.

 

 

The Bartender knows damn well that people are going to smoke there and that theres gonna be a lot of second hand smoke. They take the job anyway. Its sort of like working outside on a construction job or something. Construction workers know that prolonged exposure to the sun could cause cancer but they accept that risk and keep on trucking.

[kapkomet]

Hey douchbags and f***ing idiot self centered pricks, knock off the s***ball references, or take some time off, mmmmmkay?