515 Crew

@nonymous wrote:

davo wrote:I'm so tired of this one. There is plenty of other employment options. Most people that work in bars or other businesses that allow smoking do so by choice. In most cases they smoke themselves. It would be like passing a law, that people in the Asbestos removal industry can not work in enclosed areas with Asbestos. Most people that work in Bars do so cause there is a better tips and more money. They all can get jobs elsewhere.

Freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want.

i can't have a debate with people who compare battered wives and working with asbestos to workers' rights, so i'll drop it.

the bottom line is that no one should be able to tell you what to do--but you have to take the responsibility to put that structure in place. complaining every time the government passes a law that doesn't benefit you, while continuing to support it's structural base, won't produce results i'm afraid.

Who the fuck says I support the reduction of civil rights in anyway. I think it goes without saying that you do. The fact is this is more about casinos insuring that they will not have to ban smoking while smaller businesses that are local owned and operated, will have to struggle to stay in business and invest more money to smoker's business. This bill wouldn't even be before the state if it wasn't for the big business operators of casinos in Iowa. They want it state wide to take the power out of the hands of local government. This should be decided by local governments. In fact there are bigger issues to deal with state wide like education, bank reform, ecomomic growth, etc.. that they should be working on. Instead of ping ponging this bill back and forth between the two houses. This thing has been through the house and senate, what 6 or 7 times? Stop wasting time and getting headlines and get back to work.

Big Fat Retard wrote:If you don't like inhaling second hand smoke, yet you choose to apply for a job at a place that allows smoking, then you are a fucking retard. It's that fucking simple.

All you commies who are for the government intruding on the rights of private business owners should read this. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/p ... S/80312024
Money talks, bullshit walks.

Best one so far but I'm sure this will go to the house and they will change it again and send it back to the senate.

@nonymous wrote:i can't have a debate with people who compare battered wives and working with asbestos to workers' rights, so i'll drop it.

i figured youd be the last person to pass on a debate, but ok.

@nonymous wrote:complaining every time the government passes a law that doesn't benefit you, while continuing to support it's structural base, won't produce results i'm afraid.

i dont really understand this. i complain 99.999999 percent of the time that theres a law passed.

i would guess that 90 percent of the businesses i frequent are smoke free. i dont go places based on whether i can smoke.

i dont think the govt should tell me what i can and cant do and where i can or cant do it. which i think we agree on...mostly?

davo wrote:Who the fuck says I support the reduction of civil rights in anyway. I think it goes without saying that you do.

i could give a fuck about the smoking ban. i chimed in because it seems strange that it's issues like this that are the height of criticism regarding abusive state regulations, rather than the truly fucked up one's that destroy lives and environments.

joseph wrote:i dont think the govt should tell me what i can and cant do and where i can or cant do it. which i think we agree on...mostly?

yes, i believe we're saying the same thing.

@nonymous wrote: i could give a fuck about the smoking ban. i chimed in because it seems strange that it's issues like this that are the height of criticism regarding abusive state regulations, rather than the truly fucked up one's that destroy lives and environments.

i think the reason that its talked over so much is people, for the most part, dont care about anything until it affects them. so yes youre right. but...

joseph wrote:i think the reason that its talked over so much is people, for the most part, dont care about anything until it affects them. so yes youre right. but...

that's true. but the logging industry affects people, so do the industries that put harmful chemicals in our food. there needs to be a change in how we deal with these things--then perhaps these silly debates would be moot.

if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.

@nonymous wrote:

joseph wrote:i think the reason that its talked over so much is people, for the most part, dont care about anything until it affects them. so yes youre right. but...

that's true. but the logging industry affects people, so do the industries that put harmful chemicals in our food. there needs to be a change in how we deal with these things--then perhaps these silly debates would be moot.

if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.

living affects people.
all the industries and businesses that do "bad" need to be pointed out that they do bad. and be able to defend themselves. and govt needs to be govt and not business. although it might work better if it were business. but i still think less is more.

joseph wrote:living affects people.
all the industries and businesses that do "bad" need to be pointed out that they do bad. and be able to defend themselves.

to be fair, there is a difference between living and profiting from industries that exploit and destroy natural habitats. those institutions should not be merely "pointed out", but put to an end by any means necessary. that is, if you're concerned about any sort of sustainability of the planet and our species.(see hank's thread for more on this here!)

@nonymous wrote:

joseph wrote:living affects people.
all the industries and businesses that do "bad" need to be pointed out that they do bad. and be able to defend themselves.

to be fair, there is a difference between living and profiting from industries that exploit and destroy natural habitats. those institutions should not be merely "pointed out", but put to an end by any means necessary. that is, if you're concerned about any sort of sustainability of the planet and our species.(see hank's thread for more on this here!)

What defines a natural habitat? Wouldn't you consider where you live to be an un-natural habitat? And if yes, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite for pseudo-supporting the destruction of natural habitats?

JUST SEYIN IZ ALL

looks like some legislatures are trying to exclude restaurants and bars from this bill now.

smoking is fucking dumb. in fact, the smoke in Hairy Marys kept me --and a few other people i've talked to-- from going to lots of shows. i can't stand smoke. and i like my lungs/heart/arteries/veins/etc. the way they are.
i don't think smokers have more rights than non-smokers. non-smokers have a right to breathe fresh air, just as smokers have the right to smoke. but look at it this way: i have the right to drink, right? well, if i have the right to drink anywhere i want, what if i want to drink in my car when i'm driving? it's true i might kill someone, but they chose to be on the road, they chose to take that risk and if i happen to kill them, well, it's my right to drink, what can we do?
the only difference between this and smoking is that smoking and cigarette smoke cause a slow, painful death.

ilikehorses wrote: i have the right to drink, right? well, if i have the right to drink anywhere i want, what if i want to drink in my car when i'm driving? it's true i might kill someone, but they chose to be on the road, they chose to take that risk and if i happen to kill them, well, it's my right to drink, what can we do?

but you dont have the right to kill somebody...

joseph wrote:but you dont have the right to kill somebody...

you are reenforcing his point, here- one may have a right to smoke but that doesn't give them a right to decrease the quality of life for those around them.

robdigi wrote:

joseph wrote:but you dont have the right to kill somebody...

you are reenforcing his point, here- one may have a right to smoke but that doesn't give them a right to decrease the quality of life for those around them.

maybe i am....but no one is forced to be in a business that allows smoking. just because youre in a place of business that allows smoking doesnt mean smokers are forcing you to breathe in their smoke.

maybe im going at this the wrong way.

i would like people to decide for themselves what is the social norm. if people didnt want to be around smokes then they have plenty of options of other businesses to frequent and vice versa.

i dont think its for the govt to decide what a social norm is....

joseph wrote:

ilikehorses wrote: i have the right to drink, right? well, if i have the right to drink anywhere i want, what if i want to drink in my car when i'm driving? it's true i might kill someone, but they chose to be on the road, they chose to take that risk and if i happen to kill them, well, it's my right to drink, what can we do?

but you dont have the right to kill somebody...

NEITHER DOES A SMOKER. THAT'S THE POINT.

joseph wrote:maybe im going at this the wrong way.

i would like people to decide for themselves what is the social norm. if people didnt want to be around smokes then they have plenty of options of other businesses to frequent and vice versa.

i dont think its for the govt to decide what a social norm is....

that's the thing: non-smokers must make their decisions based on if youre going to be smoking. suddenly, their right to be out in public is limited if they want to breathe non-smoke filled air.

ilikehorses wrote:

joseph wrote:

ilikehorses wrote: i have the right to drink, right? well, if i have the right to drink anywhere i want, what if i want to drink in my car when i'm driving? it's true i might kill someone, but they chose to be on the road, they chose to take that risk and if i happen to kill them, well, it's my right to drink, what can we do?

but you dont have the right to kill somebody...

NEITHER DOES A SMOKER. THAT'S THE POINT.

XXXNEVERMINDXXXX

I think you're both right.

ilikehorses wrote:

joseph wrote:maybe im going at this the wrong way.

i would like people to decide for themselves what is the social norm. if people didnt want to be around smokes then they have plenty of options of other businesses to frequent and vice versa.

i dont think its for the govt to decide what a social norm is....

that's the thing: non-smokers must make their decisions based on if youre going to be smoking. suddenly, their right to be out in public is limited if they want to breathe non-smoke filled air.

some smokers also base their decisions on if they can smoke. movies, dinner etc. there are far less places you can smoke in than cant,

i thought we were talking about businesses? here

business rights absolutely trump nonsmokers or smokers rights. always have. they may lose business over it but thats their problem and their right.

Bullet Tooth wrote:business rights absolutely trump nonsmokers or smokers rights. always have. they may lose business over it but thats their problem and their right.

Is this your determination, or based on actual decisions by the courts?

Wheatstache wrote:

Bullet Tooth wrote:business rights absolutely trump nonsmokers or smokers rights. always have. they may lose business over it but thats their problem and their right.

Is this your determination, or based on actual decisions by the courts?

no comprendo

storkus wrote:LOL.

WHAT ABOUT DILDOS? THOSE ARE LEGAL, AND WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO SHOVE THEM UP OUR ASSES ALL OVER THE FUCKIN' PLACE.

FUNNIEST.
LOL.

-Joe.

Wheatstache wrote:

Bullet Tooth wrote:business rights absolutely trump nonsmokers or smokers rights. always have. they may lose business over it but thats their problem and their right.

Is this your determination, or based on actual decisions by the courts?

all mine, baby.

thats how i understood the laws to be.

if they arent, they should be. if i own a place, i'll do with it what i want.

joseph wrote:

Wheatstache wrote:

Bullet Tooth wrote:business rights absolutely trump nonsmokers or smokers rights. always have. they may lose business over it but thats their problem and their right.

Is this your determination, or based on actual decisions by the courts?

no comprendo

I'm asking BT if this is his opinion/observation or if this is backed by similar situations that have been taken to the courts to decide.

ilikehorses wrote:smoking is fucking dumb. in fact, the smoke in Hairy Marys kept me --and a few other people i've talked to-- from going to lots of shows. i can't stand smoke. and i like my lungs/heart/arteries/veins/etc. the way they are.
i don't think smokers have more rights than non-smokers. non-smokers have a right to breathe fresh air, just as smokers have the right to smoke. but look at it this way: i have the right to drink, right? well, if i have the right to drink anywhere i want, what if i want to drink in my car when i'm driving? it's true i might kill someone, but they chose to be on the road, they chose to take that risk and if i happen to kill them, well, it's my right to drink, what can we do?
the only difference between this and smoking is that smoking and cigarette smoke cause a slow, painful death.

I think you just made an important point. If you don't allow smoking in bars, smokers are going to go to that business cause they don't allow smoking. There reason that bars are smoking is on any given night about 90% of the people drinking are in fact smoking. Hell even people that do not smoke normally will smoke when they are drinking. Sorry to bust you bubble but smoking and drinking is the social norm. It's a big part of bar culture as much as whiskey, music and beer.

Mary's never really got that bad unless there was over 100 people in there cause there would be 90 people smoking plus the band members. I have to admit in the past there have been shows at VM when it was 10 below that I would have gone to if they allowed smoking. I'm not alone on that one. With this latest version only all ages shows would be required to be smoke free. How it would effect a place like DuBay's is in question. A lot of the food is bought by people under 21, and we are non-smoking till 10pm but that maybe extended to later if it effects business.

Wheatstache wrote:

joseph wrote:no comprendo

I'm asking BT if this is his opinion/observation or if this is backed by similar situations that have been taken to the courts to decide.

i didnt understand what BT was talking about

joseph wrote:

Wheatstache wrote:

joseph wrote:no comprendo

I'm asking BT if this is his opinion/observation or if this is backed by similar situations that have been taken to the courts to decide.

i didnt understand what BT was talking about

Oh. BT help us out here.