New York Soda Law

[ThatRobGuy]

Great, so you'd willingly, needlessly threaten the health of your employees just for cash. What kind of person does that make you?

A person who supports the idea that the government has no business telling a person what they can & can't put in their body.

If the majority of bar-goers want to smoke, they shouldn't have that taken away from them just because the other 20% don't want it. That other 20% needs to stay home "I don't like the smoke, it's not healthy...it's unsafe" (as they do a shot of whiskey and get behind the wheel of their car ). When the minority has a bigger voice than the majority, it's always a problem in my opinion (with the exception of human rights violations --- but drinking in a smoke free bar isn't a basic human right)

It bothers me more when I'm in a nice restaurant and people bring in their screaming kids...is that a good reason for the state to implement a "children under 5 in restaurant" ban?

Look at what else the smoking ban did...the banned it in VFW halls even though the members didn't want the ban. These are older gentlemen who served our country, and we're going to enforce a rule in their club...based on the wants of a small group that doesn't even belong to their club and more importantly, doesn't value the freedom those men fought for?

 

[Desk trauma]

Great, so you'd willingly, needlessly threaten the health of your employees just for cash. What kind of person does that make you?

If one is concerned about the respiratory health of restaurant and bar personnel or cliental then the better course of action is the one that was pursued in some southern Californian cities prior to the state wide ban on smoking indoors. Rather then ban smoking the cities instituted indoor air quality rules. A business was free to allow their patrons to smoke tobacco, light wood fires, weld metal so long as the ventilation system of the venue kept the air up to a certain standard. Granted the expense of keeping that standard promoted many venues to ban smoking but if the issue is health rather then behavior the law makes a great deal more sense.

 

[HalfoffSale]

No I haven't, you're just using this as your strategy to win an argument.

Rather than posting data of your own to refute the data I'm providing, you've decided to give the impression that the issue is with how I'm using the data...essentially attacking me rather than defending your own position.
(I believe we've gone through this all before on a gun control thread if I'm thinking of the right person)

Correct. I have not refuted your point even once. I have not addressed anything except your misapplication of statistics. I'm not saying Pepperoni isn't the most popular topping, I'm saying you're a fool for basing that off total peperoni sales on the national level. You could be right that it's the most popular, but you would still be right for the wrong reasons, and it would be an unreliable conclusion. As I said before, until you understand even the nature of criticisms aimed at you, there is no further discussion to be had.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If one is concerned about the respiratory health of restaurant and bar personnel or cliental then the better course of action is the one that was pursued in some southern Californian cities prior to the state wide ban on smoking indoors.

First off, Excellent points!

I've always found California to be interesting in terms of the positions they take on certain issues...just from observing their culture and speaking to my cousin (she lives out there and has for a few years now and has become kind of immersed in the culture)

They'll fight and protest to the government to lift the ban of one particular inhalable drug...but then in terms of another inhalable drug, they'll fight to get it banned

Her, and a group of her friends have partaken in public protests stating that they should be allowed to "use their medicine in public places" in their city...yeah, right, medicine

I can't figure out if they're either

A) clueless to the fact that their second hand weed smoke has just as many carcinogens as tobacco smoke
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke.

or...

B) they purposely just try to oppose the conservative position on any topic...