515 Crew

I stopped hanging out there back in the early 90s when they went smoke free and started doing Raves. I think I've been in there maybe 5 or 10 times since.

So who is the new owners? At one point I had heard that Fredrick's was buying them out. So if they have a problem with flyers, that might be the case cause they are very right wing christian.

Somehow I can't picture a rave happening in a cramped coffee house where there's hardly enough room to walk to the bathroom.

DaVo wrote:I stopped hanging out there back in the early 90s when they went smoke free and started doing Raves. I think I've been in there maybe 5 or 10 times since.

So who is the new owners? At one point I had heard that Fredrick's was buying them out. So if they have a problem with flyers, that might be the case cause they are very right wing christian.

A place being smoke free is kind of a shitty reason to boycott somewhere. I mean, can you really not walk outside? I really don't mean anything by this, I hope I read that wrong.

As for raves, I was not aware that any such events ever transpired. If they did, it has not been for a good while, and I'm sure it was hilarious.

You used to be able to walk into Java Joe's and score acid all the time. The good ol' days!

Thom wrote:

DaVo wrote:I stopped hanging out there back in the early 90s when they went smoke free and started doing Raves. I think I've been in there maybe 5 or 10 times since.

So who is the new owners? At one point I had heard that Fredrick's was buying them out. So if they have a problem with flyers, that might be the case cause they are very right wing christian.

A place being smoke free is kind of a shitty reason to boycott somewhere. I mean, can you really not walk outside? I really don't mean anything by this, I hope I read that wrong.

As for raves, I was not aware that any such events ever transpired. If they did, it has not been for a good while, and I'm sure it was hilarious.

We are talking years ago, 91 or 92. When they first opened they allowed smoking along with just about every other business. It was a lot more open back then and the smoking ban really was the first step toward what they have now become. It's kind of sad, cause it was Des Moines first Coffee house. As a smoker, yes it is a big deal to stop in the middle of a conversation and walk outside to have a cigarette. Especially there cause you would come back and someone was always took your table and your coffee would be gone. Also keep in mind that about 95% of those that hung out there smoked. I heard from one of the employees that they banned smoking to drive out the "scary" people.

Yeah, they had Raves and I don't think they did to well. This about the time the city craked down on them with the no dancing after 2am law. Also it was the only time back then that they charged a cover.

DaVo wrote:As a smoker, yes it is a big deal to stop in the middle of a conversation and walk outside to have a cigarette. Especially there cause you would come back and someone was always took your table and your coffee would be gone.

say "excuse me" and bring the coffee with you.
problem solved.

inx515xhell wrote:

DaVo wrote:As a smoker, yes it is a big deal to stop in the middle of a conversation and walk outside to have a cigarette. Especially there cause you would come back and someone was always took your table and your coffee would be gone.

say "excuse me" and bring the coffee with you.
problem solved.

Reasons I'm more than likely not going to hang out somewhere for more than an hour:
1.) No smoking.
2.) Shitty service
3.) Shitty music

There has to be something to really draw me and keep me there if it's non-smoking. Like family, a band I really want to see, I'm paid to be there, or really good food. In fact the only business that I'll spend more than an hour sitting in without smoking is the movies theatre. If I'm spending money to be entertained in my free time, it will involve smoking.

Oh by the way, looks like that stupid casino backed bill is not going to make it. At the rate they are going maybe they should just decide where you can smoke and work backward. The lastest included banning smoking at public parks, golf course and the state Fair.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

DaVo wrote: First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

jesus. fucking. christ. theyre not locking up or killing smokers. theyre just asking them to go outside. a little over-dramatic maybe?

storkus wrote:Seriously, fuck your post.

How do you muster the hubris to feel that you have the right to force me to endure terrible discomfort and breathe harmful chemicals that will eventually kill me, all because you made the incredibly stupid decision to smoke cigarettes?

No dice. Totally pathetic.

The point is that it is futher government control of our lives. yeah the quote was exterme and done for that reaction. We could go around and around on this one but smoking is a personal choice and one that is for the most part socially accepted. The point is that once they are done trying to make everyone stop smoking what are they going to move on to? Fast food, alcohol, sexually activities? The point is that once they open the door it gets harder and harder to close it.

Post subject: Re: Java Joe's, boycott that shit.

DaVo wrote:
First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drunks
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drunks.
Then they came for the fat people
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fat.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

If fast food was served in vapor form and spread throughout the room for everyone to inhale without choice I might get behind your argument, Davo.

storkus wrote:

DaVo wrote:
The point is that it is futher government control of our lives. yeah the quote was exterme and done for that reaction. We could go around and around on this one but smoking is a personal choice and one that is for the most part socially accepted. The point is that once they are done trying to make everyone stop smoking what are they going to move on to? Fast food, alcohol, sexually activities? The point is that once they open the door it gets harder and harder to close it.

You're missing an important cornerstone of the "personal choice" argument. Your choices are your own, and you should be given the right to make your own mistakes, so long as you're not harming anyone else.

You're harming other people, and you're not making a personal choice, you're making the decision for everyone else around you that they too have to breathe toxic chemicals.

Your slippery slope argument is a straw man.

Not as slippery as that of the second hand smoking issue. The facts are that the studies were done with people married and living with smokers, which is a choice. Futher more this is cases of exterme exposure and there is no way to say, on the level of an axiom, that second hand smoke does effect health. There is just too many variables. Like the age of those exposed, how often the exposure, the size of the area, and the general health of the person. Let's get real they are talking about banning it in areas outside? Come on let's get real, this has more to do with trying to force people to quit smoking then it does with the health issues of second hand smoke. Also one of the biggest pushes is coming from the casino lobby cause they are worried that local smoking bans will effect business. It's about profit not your health.

The general public has the right to choose weather or not to go somewhere where smoking is allowed. Employees choose to work in a business that allows smoking.

As I see it if someone is going to spend time around smoke they are in fact putting their own health in danger. In much the same way that if you choose to eat fast food or get drunk 7 days a week. It's fucking bad for you, it may kill you at a younger age. It's your fucking choice not the fucking governments.

robdigi wrote:If fast food was served in vapor form and spread throughout the room for everyone to inhale without choice I might get behind your argument, Davo.

but you have a choice to eat fast food don't you? Well, you have the same choice of weather or not to spend the night in a smoke filled room.

So the choice to smoke and potentially harm others' health trumps the choice to enjoy public areas without avoiding stinking and potentially harmful smoke?

The default behavior for people is not to smoke. Society should go out of its way to ensure that regular people can enjoy their lives without dealing with the consequences of those who choose to smoke. Yes, it is a choice to go out to restaurants and bars. Yes, it is a choice to smoke. How in your mind can the choice which puts others at risk be the one that should be more protected?

The idea isn't to get people to quit smoking. That's just a positive side-effect. The idea is to stop people from forcing a smoky atmosphere on others.


Clearly smokers as a generalized group (of course there are courteous smokers out there) are too selfish to think of their effects on others, so it comes down to laws and bans. Your rationalization of the issue just goes to show what's wrong in the first place.

DaVo wrote:

storkus wrote:

DaVo wrote:
The point is that it is futher government control of our lives. yeah the quote was exterme and done for that reaction. We could go around and around on this one but smoking is a personal choice and one that is for the most part socially accepted. The point is that once they are done trying to make everyone stop smoking what are they going to move on to? Fast food, alcohol, sexually activities? The point is that once they open the door it gets harder and harder to close it.

You're missing an important cornerstone of the "personal choice" argument. Your choices are your own, and you should be given the right to make your own mistakes, so long as you're not harming anyone else.

You're harming other people, and you're not making a personal choice, you're making the decision for everyone else around you that they too have to breathe toxic chemicals.

Your slippery slope argument is a straw man.

Not as slippery as that of the second hand smoking issue. The facts are that the studies were done with people married and living with smokers, which is a choice. Futher more this is cases of exterme exposure and there is no way to say, on the level of an axiom, that second hand smoke does effect health. There is just too many variables. Like the age of those exposed, how often the exposure, the size of the area, and the general health of the person. Let's get real they are talking about banning it in areas outside? Come on let's get real, this has more to do with trying to force people to quit smoking then it does with the health issues of second hand smoke. Also one of the biggest pushes is coming from the casino lobby cause they are worried that local smoking bans will effect business. It's about profit not your health.

The general public has the right to choose weather or not to go somewhere where smoking is allowed. Employees choose to work in a business that allows smoking.

As I see it if someone is going to spend time around smoke they are in fact putting their own health in danger. In much the same way that if you choose to eat fast food or get drunk 7 days a week. It's fucking bad for you, it may kill you at a younger age. It's your fucking choice not the fucking governments.

fuck you and your smoking. your killing yourself and everyone around you. it's unhealthy with NOTHING POSITIVE about it. (fuck, i even used to smoke)

DaVo wrote:

storkus wrote:Seriously, fuck your post.

How do you muster the hubris to feel that you have the right to force me to endure terrible discomfort and breathe harmful chemicals that will eventually kill me, all because you made the incredibly stupid decision to smoke cigarettes?

No dice. Totally pathetic.

The point is that it is futher government control of our lives. yeah the quote was exterme and done for that reaction. We could go around and around on this one but smoking is a personal choice and one that is for the most part socially accepted. The point is that once they are done trying to make everyone stop smoking what are they going to move on to? Fast food, alcohol, sexually activities? The point is that once they open the door it gets harder and harder to close it.

Post subject: Re: Java Joe's, boycott that shit.

DaVo wrote:
First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drunks
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drunks.
Then they came for the fat people
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fat.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

again, FUCK YOU. smoking is that fucking important to you, so important you can't stand going outside so youre not killing others around you? FUCK YOU.

and for the record, smoking doesn't just cause lung cancer. it causes a fucking thousand different deadly diseases. it's fucking awful and FUCK YOU, davo, if you think your choice of smoking is more important that someone's choice to live healthy.

robdigi wrote:The idea isn't to get people to quit smoking. That's just a positive side-effect. The idea is to stop people from forcing a smoky atmosphere on others.


Clearly smokers as a generalized group (of course there are courteous smokers out there) are too selfish to think of their effects on others, so it comes down to laws and bans. Your rationalization of the issue just goes to show what's wrong in the first place.

The same could be said of a number of anti-socail behavors. Including those that have unprotected sex or don't wash their hands after using the restroom. Should we pass laws on those too. They both effect the health of others around them. How much is it the governemts responsiblity to control the behavor of it's citizens? Where do you draw the line.

What we have here is special interests groups using the governemt to tell mostly small business how they should conduct business. Which in this case will great effect their profit.

This all started cause I said that I avoid businesses that do not allow smoking. Everyone has that choice. No one is out there force non-smokers to hang out in smoke filled rooms. They are in fact choosing to do so. If there is such a demand for non-smoking bars and restuarants then there would be more of them but the fact is there is only a handful of them for a reason. There isn't a big enough demand and most businesses understand that banning smoking will greatly reduce their demand. It's also why the casinos are involved in a state wide ban and not leaving it up to local governemnts cause they fear that cities and counties will pass bans. Which would drive smokers to Indian ran casinos.

ilikehorses wrote:

DaVo wrote:

storkus wrote:Seriously, fuck your post.

How do you muster the hubris to feel that you have the right to force me to endure terrible discomfort and breathe harmful chemicals that will eventually kill me, all because you made the incredibly stupid decision to smoke cigarettes?

No dice. Totally pathetic.

The point is that it is futher government control of our lives. yeah the quote was exterme and done for that reaction. We could go around and around on this one but smoking is a personal choice and one that is for the most part socially accepted. The point is that once they are done trying to make everyone stop smoking what are they going to move on to? Fast food, alcohol, sexually activities? The point is that once they open the door it gets harder and harder to close it.

Post subject: Re: Java Joe's, boycott that shit.

DaVo wrote:
First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drunks
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drunks.
Then they came for the fat people
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fat.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

again, FUCK YOU. smoking is that fucking important to you, so important you can't stand going outside so youre not killing others around you? FUCK YOU.

and for the record, smoking doesn't just cause lung cancer. it causes a fucking thousand different deadly diseases. it's fucking awful and FUCK YOU, davo, if you think your choice of smoking is more important that someone's choice to live healthy.

Did I make your liberal pussy hurt?

Second hand smoking kills people? Prove it. Fucking prove it. Oh and don't quote a study from 20 years ago that was conducted with mostly ex-smokers who were married to smokers from over 10 years and if you do want to use that study read the whole fucking thing not just the part you like.

You all have hung out in smoke filled rooms, haven't you? Why aren't you all dying off like flies? If you don't like the smoke then stay home or better yet why don't you stand outside.

I never said that smoking was good for you but I still feel regardless of the health risk, if a privately owned business wishes to allow smoking they should be able to. I'm all for banning at public building, schools, and enclosed public building. Hey wait a second that's already the case. In fact it has been for years. There's a number of places for non-smokers to hang out. You know the library, museums, court house, state offices, schools, and countless other places. Hang out there.

DaVo wrote: Did I make your liberal pussy hurt?

Second hand smoking kills people? Prove it. Fucking prove it. Oh and don't quote a study from 20 years ago that was conducted with mostly ex-smokers who were married to smokers from over 10 years and if you do want to use that study read the whole fucking thing not just the part you like.

gee, a smoker trying to say smoking isn't unhealthy. are you fucking kidding me? smoking is unhealthy. it causes cancer, hypertension, CHF, peripheral artery disease, emphysema, stroke, etc.etc.etfuckingcetera.

You all have hung out in smoke filled rooms, haven't you? Why aren't you all dying off like flies?

because it's not a fucking bullet. it's a carcinogen that slowly fucking kills, you old dumb fucker.

If you don't like the smoke then stay home or better yet why don't you stand outside.

because your right to smoke is more important than my right to be outside? you are one dumb fucker.

I never said that smoking was good for you

oh really? "Second hand smoking kills people? Prove it. Fucking prove it." so normal smoke is unhealthy, but second-hand smoke --the same exact smoke-- isn't unhealthy?

but I still feel regardless of the health risk, if a privately owned business wishes to allow smoking they should be able to. I'm all for banning at public building, schools, and enclosed public building. Hey wait a second that's already the case. In fact it has been for years. There's a number of places for non-smokers to hang out. You know the library, museums, court house, state offices, schools, and countless other places. Hang out there.

again, fuck you. i can't wait until you get a terrible fucking disease and realize that you fucking deserve it.

robdigi wrote:So the choice to smoke and potentially harm others' health trumps the choice to enjoy public areas without avoiding stinking and potentially harmful smoke?

The default behavior for people is not to smoke. Society should go out of its way to ensure that regular people can enjoy their lives without dealing with the consequences of those who choose to smoke. Yes, it is a choice to go out to restaurants and bars. Yes, it is a choice to smoke. How in your mind can the choice which puts others at risk be the one that should be more protected?

Default behavor? Go to any bar or night club on any weekend night and count the number of people smoking. It generally the majority. I would go as far as to say it's about 9 to 1. Even people who don't smoke tend to smoke when they drink. That is who they are targeting.

No one wants to talk about the effect that smoking bans have in fact had on businesses where they have been passed. When I was last in LA most clubs had an "outdoor" area where you could smoke. In most cases these were nothing more then a fenced in area aka the Patio. Chicago and Lincoln are about the same. The crazy part is that in most cases the smoking areas were pack while the inside of the bars were dead and empty.

DaVo wrote:
Default behavor? Go to any bar or night club on any weekend night and count the number of people smoking. It generally the majority. I would go as far as to say it's about 9 to 1. Even people who don't smoke tend to smoke when they drink. That is who they are targeting.

because douche bags who go to night clubs or go drink themselves stupid are also stupid enough to smoke themselves to death? i don't get your point when we're talking about a coffee shop, not a fucking night club.

No one wants to talk about the effect that smoking bans have in fact had on businesses where they have been passed. When I was last in LA most clubs had an "outdoor" area where you could smoke. In most cases these were nothing more then a fenced in area aka the Patio. Chicago and Lincoln are about the same. The crazy part is that in most cases the smoking areas were pack while the inside of the bars were dead and empty.

well, fuck, sounds like the collaboration and common solution to where smokers could stay and smoke outside and non-smokers could enjoy smoke-free air didn't stop anyone from having a good time or the bar from making money. SOUNDS LIKE ASKING SMOKERS TO SMOKE OUTSIDE IS A GOOD IDEA.

I live in a city with a smoking ban. Businesses survive, even small businesses. In fact, they're thriving. Small local bars are still packed nightly. Smoking bans take away the competition of smoking vs non-smoking establishments.. so it's not like the customers are going to flee anywhere. You think smokers just decide to sit at home and smoke all night instead of going out? People go out to the patio to smoke, sure... but they go back inside when they are done. It's pretty natural.. most people who aren't completely sleazy do the same thing at home. It's not the 1950s anymore. People don't complain much, either. Most smokers I know actually like it because even if you smoke it sucks to leave a bar smelling like stale shit. Your characterization of indoor smoke-free nightlife is pretty far off from the reality of it.

I want to blow smoke in yer non smokin face. You steamin'?

Fact: Cigarettes make you look tough.

Touche'.

robdigi wrote:So the choice to smoke and potentially harm others' health trumps the choice to enjoy public areas without avoiding stinking and potentially harmful smoke?

The default behavior for people is not to smoke. Society should go out of its way to ensure that regular people can enjoy their lives without dealing with the consequences of those who choose to smoke. Yes, it is a choice to go out to restaurants and bars. Yes, it is a choice to smoke. How in your mind can the choice which puts others at risk be the one that should be more protected?

If you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, simply don't go places that allow smoking.How fucking hard is that to comprehend? There's no need to whine to the government about it.

There is no reason the government should dictate the smoking policies of a privately owned business. Only a commie would think a government mandated smoking ban is ok. The free market should determine smoking policies. Places like the Mews and The Lift are non smoking and do quite well because of that. You assholes asking the government to step in and take over better be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

This is really really dumb.

What I got from this thread was this:

Davo has been boycotting java joes since the ice age, that makes him cool.

He and BFR are hopelessly addicted, and are really lazy. They actually feel inconvenienced when they have to move. Are you the same people that whine when you wait more than 30 seconds in a line at a store, and cuss out the 16 year old behind the counter when the advertised candy is sold out?



I don't smoke, drink, or eat fast food, EVER. Your argument fails. The point of this argument began when davo stopped going to java joes because THEY INDEPENDENTLY BANNED SMOKING, not because of a law, you nitwit.


and smoking really does make people look tough. I looked exponentially tougher before I quit.

heres what i got- nobody likes anybody. nobody cares. go home. blahblahblah

heres what i got:
OBVIOUSLY!

non-smokers:

davo: