515 Crew

What about the fact that ciggs are legal?

My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

LOL.

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


Well, shit, that was sure intelligent.

and, I didnt know it was illegal to shove a dildo up your ass.

well, I didnt misunderstand the shit that was spewing outta your mouth in the Java thread.

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.

I agree. Stop the Dildo ban!! My livelyhood depends on dildo sales.

i like to be able to smoke my cigar while im chilling with my cranberry juice but my favorite spot has always been the alley between the mews and the mile. i dont care for hanging out in bars and when this ban comes around there will be places to smoke my cigar outside which suits me fine. no care ever about this ban.

I respect what you like to do and where you like to go Zach....

But, is it right to ban a legal substance in a private biz?

Im not talking about the Fair, Parks, or other public places...
Im talking about private business.

hairy wrote:I respect what you like to do and where you like to go Zach....

But, is it right to ban a legal substance in a private biz?

Im not talking about the Fair, Parks, or other public places...
Im talking about private business.

no, i dont think its right to ban a legal substance in a private business. restaurants, in public, things like that i can see. in a bar i think is kind of weird. that aside, a business owner should have the right to do what they want legally in their own business. going to a private business is a privilege, not a right. if the business owner then loses his ass, thats his problem. i think they should focus more on the problem of drinking and driving, binge drinking, alcoholism.

Big Fat Retard wrote:I agree. Stop the Dildo ban!! My livelyhood depends on dildo sales.

Sadly, we all know this is true.

I guess I've pretty much always figured that a bar is going to be smoky and I'll put up with it. I know a lot of my friends smoke cigars, but it does get a little unbearable in a small, crowded place (like GT's on a weekend) with a few people smoking cigars thrown in with the usual cigarette smoke. I guess that's what I get for all those years chain-smoking around everyone.

In a place like a bar, I guess I'm fine with it but I'd rather not be around it in other public places.

Oh, a few months ago I was in an apartment with the heater cranked up with two people chain smoking and I couldn't leave. I'll take this time to apologize to anyone I've ever smoked around.

Blowin smokes is an american right, dix.

smoking and drinking go (more or less) hand-in-hand.

an overall ban on smoking in bars is a complete dumbshit move on several levels.

freedom of choice...there are more than a few "smoke free" bars in the dmi to frequent. if you're than concerned about impressing some work-out queen w/your health-conscious lifestyle, and getting you ugly fucking mug in juice, then get there. apple-tinis are, indeed, quite gay. the last time i checked, this isn't nazi germany.

if you're a bar owner, then you're pretty much fucked. my pops lives in madison, wisconsin. while it's cool to walk down the road with your unshaven lesbian "life-partner" (and believe me, it's cool), it's not cool (or legal) to smoke a cig in any establishment within the city limits of madison. hence...most bars in m-town are struggling. meanwhile, the bars in middleton (the urbandale of madison) are banking.

i agree...second-hand smoke can be gross. i'm getting a place with a deck so that indoor smoking can be squashed. however...deciding which bar to patronize falls under one of he most constitutional rights...methink it's the one that states "the right to arm bear and smoke cigarettes".

long story, short...if you like your nicotine, or can at least tolerate those who do, then don't let the man get get you down.

otherwise...go down to the lift and get a face full of clint (i think i'm famous, and still think i am) curtis' "i can't believe it's not an ipod" monday"

...just don't flick your cig butt into the desert in nevada during the 2002 open-fire ban...jeff. the winnebago-warriors will have your ass, holmes.

Tom wrote:otherwise...go down to the lift and get a face full of clint (i think i'm famous, and still think i am) curtis' "i can't believe it's not an ipod" monday".

dude was in Blade

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

i wish.
i think bars should be able to make their own hours. i think bars should be able to serve until somebody passes out, its not the bars pushing someone to get loaded and its not the bars responsibility to keep someone from driving, thats a personal choice not a business choice.

if theyre going to ban cigarettes based on "health concerns" they should outlaw cigarettes. i hate the fact that city/state/federal officals pick and choose.

joseph wrote:

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

i wish.
i think bars should be able to make their own hours. i think bars should be able to serve until somebody passes out, its not the bars pushing someone to get loaded and its not the bars responsibility to keep someone from driving, thats a personal choice not a business choice.

if theyre going to ban cigarettes based on "health concerns" they should outlaw cigarettes. i hate the fact that city/state/federal officals pick and choose.

You know, bars do make their own hours. If a bar wants to close at 10pm or 2am it's up to the business. They just can't sell or allow the consuption of alcohol from 2am to 6am. In fact, if DuBay's wanted to be open 24hours a day, we could. As long as there is no booze being served during those hours. However, as the person that sets the bar hours and since there is no profit during those hours, we are closed.

I really do wonder if there would be a reduction in drunk driving and binge drinking if the state changed the law to allow businesses to serve and sell 24hours a day. Most people spend between 3 to 4 hours in a bar. Those that are usually there at last call will do a majority of shots within the last hour or at last call. Thus increasing the possiblity of them driving drunk. If there was no last call, maybe this would reduce this.

If the state was really interested in cutting down on drunk driving, it invest in public transportation and do something to about the lack of cabs. It's hard to get someone to take a cab when there is only one cab company and it will be an hour wait.

The other thing to consider is that the state is profiting greatly off the sell of alcohol. I doubt they are going to anything to try to reduce drinking.

DaVo wrote:

joseph wrote:i think bars should be able to make their own hours.

You know, bars do make their own hours. If a bar wants to close at 10pm or 2am it's up to the business. They just can't sell or allow the consuption of alcohol from 2am to 6am.

yes i know bars make their own hours. the point was they should be able to sell whatever they want WHENever they want...

joseph wrote:

DaVo wrote:

joseph wrote:i think bars should be able to make their own hours.

You know, bars do make their own hours. If a bar wants to close at 10pm or 2am it's up to the business. They just can't sell or allow the consuption of alcohol from 2am to 6am.

yes i know bars make their own hours. the point was they should be able to sell whatever they want WHENever they want...

Yes they should. What is the point of not allowing sells between 2am and 6am? I have yet to hear one good reason. If anything it dates back to temperance movement of a 100 years ago. Lower the legal age while you are at it. Look at most of Europe and notice a much smaller amount of teenage drinking, drunk driving and binge drinking. Not saying that it will reduce alcolohism but a reduction of prohibition may take some of the draw to get fucked up away. Nothing makes an American over due something like telling them they can't do it or it's bad for you. Stupid as it is, it's a big part of our culture.

hairy wrote:What about the fact that ciggs are legal?

employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

it's your choice until an Official decides it's not your choice anymore. that's how this great country works pal!

@nonymous wrote:

hairy wrote:What about the fact that ciggs are legal?

employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

it's your choice until an Official decides it's not your choice anymore. that's how this great country works pal!

i don't think the "they don't have to work there" argument is weak for many reasons. Call it a stretch, but, miners/oil-rig workers/longshore fishermen all have a much better chance of dying while doing their jobs due to occupational hazards. Breathing in smoke filled air isn't a part of their job description per se, but it would definitely be considered an occupational hazard in the service industry i.e. it comes with the territory.

another reason it's not so weak is that it's true. there are several bars in town that are smoke-free, and if you hate it that much, go apply at a smoke free bar (right after you asked yourself why you applied to work in an environment that you despise).

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

it's your choice until an Official decides it's not your choice anymore. that's how this great country works pal!

i think that's part of what he's trying to get across @, the fact that it shouldn't always be like that. I'm pretty sure there's more than a hint of sarcasm in your reply, but he's got a point.

@nonymous wrote:employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

you're right...they don't have to work there, they generally choose to work there. jesus dude, do you ever just relax?

i'm beginning to think that you want to be the "boy in the (p.c.) bubble".

@nonymous wrote:

hairy wrote:What about the fact that ciggs are legal?

employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

it's your choice until an Official decides it's not your choice anymore. that's how this great country works pal!

yeah screw rights as long as it falls on your side. some radical you turned out to be.

teej wrote:i don't think the "they don't have to work there" argument is weak for many reasons. Call it a stretch, but, miners/oil-rig workers/longshore fishermen all have a much better chance of dying while doing their jobs due to occupational hazards. Breathing in smoke filled air isn't a part of their job description per se, but it would definitely be considered an occupational hazard in the service industry i.e. it comes with the territory.

my point, like i stated, was that ALL occupations should be free of toxic chemicals, that would include oil-rig workers/longshore fisherman. sure, certain jobs might have higher risk than others, but breathing in toxic chemicals isn't a risk, it's just unhealthy no matter how you look at it.

i think that's part of what he's trying to get across @, the fact that it shouldn't always be like that. I'm pretty sure there's more than a hint of sarcasm in your reply, but he's got a point.

yes, but of course, that is my point. the irony of capitalism is that it's only good when it works to your benefit, and when it doesn't people complain that it's not giving them their "rights". they accept a system based upon other people making decisions for them but want their say when the system isn't in their favor.

most laws are rarely in people's favor, which is why they are broken so often.

tom wrote:you're right...they don't have to work there, they generally choose to work there. jesus dude, do you ever just relax?

i'm relaxing right now. just took some valerian root and am drinking some chamomile tea and reading.

bullet tooth wrote:yeah screw rights as long as it falls on your side. some radical you turned out to be.

my statement you're replying to was dripping with sarcasm and was attempting to point the irony i mentioned above.

tom, i prefer this:

skateboarding trumps bmx any day.

get with the times, son.

8===> ~o ~o ~o

skateboarding does trump bmx, you're right. but Rad is a much better movie than shitty pinball. clean it up.

i would...

however...compared to you, things don't get much more sterile.

@nonymous wrote: employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

weak argument?

thats like saying a wife thats getting beat by her husband at home cant leave. if youre in a bad environment/situation you can leave, theres always somewhere else to go.

@nonymous wrote: employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else).

they do. its iowas right to work act.

Tom wrote:skateboarding trumps bmx any day.

get with the times, son.

You are a fine tribute to the good name of thomas, and all of its derivitives. Keep up the good work. Carry on.

@nonymous wrote:

hairy wrote:What about the fact that ciggs are legal?

employees should have the right to work in a toxic-free environment(that includes cig smoke and anything else). consumers can choose not to go into these establishments, but employees don't have that option("they don't have to work there is a weak argument).

hairy wrote:My business, my choice.
Your money, your choice.

it's your choice until an Official decides it's not your choice anymore. that's how this great country works pal!

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.

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.

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.