PDA

View Full Version : Smoking bans



Pages : [1] 2

hermhater
01-02-2008, 09:25 PM
Been missin' ya 'round these parts guy!

Did you have a good Christmas and New Years?

chief31
01-02-2008, 09:30 PM
Been missin' ya 'round these parts guy!

Did you have a good Christmas and New Years?

Not bad. I was able to provide a good Christmas for my kids, so that makes for a good Christmas for me.

As for New Years, I spent that with my kids as well. I made sure to go out to a restaraunt one last time, before the Soviet-union-like smoking ban went into effect, at the start of the year.

hermhater
01-02-2008, 09:33 PM
Not bad. I was able to provide a good Christmas for my kids, so that makes for a good Christmas for me.

As for New Years, I spent that with my kids as well. I made sure to go out to a restaraunt one last time, before the Soviet-union-like smoking ban went into effect, at the start of the year.

They started that smoking ban here last year.

The chamber of commerce is pissed off at the city council because it is killing business in Independence.

All the customers are going to Blue Springs and KC bars.

chief31
01-02-2008, 09:36 PM
They started that smoking ban here last year.

The chamber of commerce is pissed off at the city council because it is killing business in Independence.

All the customers are going to Blue Springs and KC bars.
I wish that I lived near to a border, so I could go into public some.

hermhater
01-02-2008, 09:47 PM
I wish that I lived near to a border, so I could go into public some.

How far is Creve from Chicago?

Is there a ban there too?

chief31
01-02-2008, 09:59 PM
How far is Creve from Chicago?

Is there a ban there too?

It is a staewide ban, and I live right in the middle of the state.

hermhater
01-02-2008, 10:05 PM
It is a staewide ban, and I live right in the middle of the state.

Wow. Statewide like California, eh?

That completely sucks *** dude.

Trapped in a communist state.

chief31
01-02-2008, 10:09 PM
Wow. Statewide like California, eh?

That completely sucks *** dude.

Trapped in a communist state.
I already hated this state before the smoking ban. I wish I could get out, but I am stuck here.

McLovin
01-02-2008, 10:34 PM
I Also live here and I agree with the rule on no smoking in Restaurants, but bars come on, people expect to smoke in a bar, I have a couple customers that own bars and they are afraid that the customers will go to their car to smoke and while they are out there drink more so they dont have to spend it inside.

I am a non smoker and very big against smoking, but sometimes government goes a lil too big brother.

The best part of this law for me is that it is everywhere though, because if it is just in one town or another it can hurt businesses that are in one town with a bordering town that allows smoking (bars, I don't think it is as much of a deal with restaurants)

So in the end I love that now I can go to whatever restaurant I want, My kids and I no longer have to smoke just because the restaurant allows it. I know there are smoking sections and non smoking but far far too many restaurants dont have a clue and to get to the non smoking section or from their to the bathroom you have to go through a smoking section.

There is a list of non smoking restaurants in the county I live in, and I have found that a lot of these restaurants have gotten busier because of going non smoking.

Like it or now before long I feel the US will have a public smoking ban.

BTW my father died from stopping breathing, a side effect of his cancer, all caused from smoking his whole life, when they talked about putting him on oxygen my mother said no because then she couldn't smoke in the house because of the tank.

My best friend growing up started smoking when he was 9, at 32 he found out he had cancer. Spent months not being able to work, months in the hospital, and lots of time in Chemo. Funny thing though, even though they told him it was mostly due to smoking,(Partially family background and genes) he still didn't quit, he has been back somewhat recovering for almost a year, he still cant work, and is trying for disability. He will likely never work again at 35, from knowing what he is going through I expect him to die within the next 5 years, he may live longer then that but I just don't think so because cancer is nothing to play with. I dont want my kids to have to go through that simply because we like to eat out in public.

chief31
01-02-2008, 10:54 PM
I Also live here and I agree with the rule on no smoking in Restaurants, but bars come on, people expect to smoke in a bar, I have a couple customers that own bars and they are afraid that the customers will go to their car to smoke and while they are out there drink more so they dont have to spend it inside.

I am a non smoker and very big against smoking, but sometimes government goes a lil too big brother.

The best part of this law for me is that it is everywhere though, because if it is just in one town or another it can hurt businesses that are in one town with a bordering town that allows smoking (bars, I don't think it is as much of a deal with restaurants)

So in the end I love that now I can go to whatever restaurant I want, My kids and I no longer have to smoke just because the restaurant allows it. I know there are smoking sections and non smoking but far far too many restaurants dont have a clue and to get to the non smoking section or from their to the bathroom you have to go through a smoking section.

There is a list of non smoking restaurants in the county I live in, and I have found that a lot of these restaurants have gotten busier because of going non smoking.

Like it or now before long I feel the US will have a public smoking ban.

BTW my father died from stopping breathing, a side effect of his cancer, all caused from smoking his whole life, when they talked about putting him on oxygen my mother said no because then she couldn't smoke in the house because of the tank.

My best friend growing up started smoking when he was 9, at 32 he found out he had cancer. Spent months not being able to work, months in the hospital, and lots of time in Chemo. Funny thing though, even though they told him it was mostly due to smoking,(Partially family background and genes) he still didn't quit, he has been back somewhat recovering for almost a year, he still cant work, and is trying for disability. He will likely never work again at 35, from knowing what he is going through I expect him to die within the next 5 years, he may live longer then that but I just don't think so because cancer is nothing to play with. I dont want my kids to have to go through that simply because we like to eat out in public.

So, if you don't like the way a restaraunt handles their smoking areas, you are o.k. with the government taking away their rights?

That is where we will disagree. (For starters)

As for the second-hand-smoke subject, there isn't one. You, nor your kids, will get lung cancer from walking through the smoking section of a restaraunt. It is nothing more than a very minor inconvenience.

The very few cases of second-hand-smoke related cancer patients have been people who worked and lived in a smoke-heavy atmosphere. Anything else is drummed-up lies and exaggeration.

As for the smokers that you have known who had complications, they made their own decisions, as I have made mine.

hermhater
01-02-2008, 11:01 PM
Smoking is bad.

So is the air you breath, the food you eat, and the liquids you drink.

Cancer is a gamble for everyone, and smoking just raises the odds a bit.

My GF quit for New Years, and I plan on stopping too.

If it is not illegal to buy cigs, then it shouldn't be illegal to smoke them.

McLovin
01-02-2008, 11:08 PM
So, if you don't like the way a restaraunt handles their smoking areas, you are o.k. with the government taking away their rights?

That is where we will disagree. (For starters)

As for the second-hand-smoke subject, there isn't one. You, nor your kids, will get lung cancer from walking through the smoking section of a restaraunt. It is nothing more than a very minor inconvenience.

The very few cases of second-hand-smoke related cancer patients have been people who worked and lived in a smoke-heavy atmosphere. Anything else is drummed-up lies and exaggeration.

As for the smokers that you have known who had complications, they made their own decisions, as I have made mine.
As for the restaurant thing, it is far more then a minor inconvenience to me. I cant eat with the smell of smoke, everytime we are around heavy smoke my kids get sick (sinus's, trouble breathing, coughing for days). And my kids are much healthier then a most kids I know, the oldest has never been to the hospital and the 5 year old has only been once. I though am much happier with Restaurants deciding to go smoke free then with the government taking the choice away. As you have the right to make your decision to smoke I have the right to go to restaurants that decide to not allow smoking, this does make it easier for me to go eat in public but I still cant commit to saying I think it was the right decision. Maybe have incentives for businesses that go smoke free, rather then to force them into it.

I maybe didnt make it clear in my write up about the law but I really am against it. My heart on the other hand loves that it happened. I do know also though that this is a touchy subject and those that are being forced to make this change might not see objectivity in my post. Because it is easier to find where I want it, then where I think it is wrong for the government to do this. In my heart I am cheering but in my brain I am hating this law.

prough91
01-02-2008, 11:10 PM
Smoking is bad.

So is the air you breath, the food you eat, and the liquids you drink.

Cancer is a gamble for everyone, and smoking just raises the odds a bit.

My GF quit for New Years, and I plan on stopping too.

If it is not illegal to buy cigs, then it shouldn't be illegal to smoke them.

I always get a kick how they say that people who chew have a 50% more chance of getting mouth cancer. I only know of three people who had mouth cancer and none of them smoked or chewed a day in their life. I don't mind the not smoking in restaurants though. I smoke, but for some reason, I can not stand to smell it when I eat.

hermhater
01-02-2008, 11:12 PM
Cancer or heart problems kill just about everyone in my family, so it's gonna happen whether I smoke or not it seems.

chief31
01-02-2008, 11:14 PM
That sentiment was definitely overshadowed in the first post. But I agree that it should not be forced upon store owners to do this.

I don't agree with the government giving incentives either though. That has me helping to pay them for it. I think that those incentives should come from local groups. Churches, or what have you.

McLovin
01-02-2008, 11:15 PM
I always get a kick how they say that people who chew have a 50% more chance of getting mouth cancer. I know three people who had mouth cancer and none of them smoked or chewed a day in their life.
Honestly though unless they choose to spit it on me I could care less if someone chews. But if I have to smoke part of a cigarette because the person next to me has to have one that bothers me. If someone chooses to do something harmful to themselves I could care less, it is when it involves me that I have a problem.

prough91
01-02-2008, 11:18 PM
Honestly though unless they choose to spit it on me I could care less if someone chews. But if I have to smoke part of a cigarette because the person next to me has to have one that bothers me. If someone chooses to do something harmful to themselves I could care less, it is when it involves me that I have a problem.

I agree somewhat. Read my post again, I was adding more to it when you quoted me. lol

chief31
01-02-2008, 11:28 PM
It may be over, but if this dicussion picks up again, it now has its own place.

McLovin
01-02-2008, 11:30 PM
Thanks for the move, got a lil off topic on the other thread. :)

hermhater
01-02-2008, 11:32 PM
Wow.

The power of a mod!

Good job chief31!

What were we talking about before anyways?

:lol:

chief31
01-02-2008, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the move, got a lil off topic on the other thread. :)

And we were caught by the topic-police. :lol: :lol:

rbedgood
01-03-2008, 01:48 AM
As some of you know I travel a lot for work, and a number of states have passed smoking bans. I'm not making a statement for or against them, just filling in the facts...

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/01/14.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Where_you_can_smoke.jpg)

Chiefster
01-03-2008, 01:51 AM
As some of you know I travel a lot for work, and a number of states have passed smoking bans. I'm not making a statement for or against them, just filling in the facts...

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/01/14.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Where_you_can_smoke.jpg)


Where you been young man! :11: :D

rbedgood
01-03-2008, 01:57 AM
Vacation...Boooyah!!! Went back to work today.

Chiefster
01-03-2008, 02:03 AM
Vacation...Boooyah!!! Went back to work today.

Don't ya just hate that? :D

hermhater
01-03-2008, 02:10 AM
Vacation...Boooyah!!! Went back to work today.

You make it sound like the Chiefs Crowd is work.

:lol:

Chiefster
01-03-2008, 02:13 AM
You make it sound like the Chiefs Crowd is work.

:lol:

Well speaking from experience... :D

hermhater
01-03-2008, 02:15 AM
Well speaking from experience... :D

Oh brother...

You'd be lost without us Chiefster!

:D

Chiefster
01-03-2008, 02:18 AM
Oh brother...

You'd be lost without us Chiefster!

:D

You forget who yer talkin to; heck I'm lost regardless...:11: :D

hermhater
01-03-2008, 04:42 AM
You forget who yer talkin to; heck I'm lost regardless...:11: :D


Meh!

:D

Canada
01-03-2008, 12:15 PM
So, if you don't like the way a restaraunt handles their smoking areas, you are o.k. with the government taking away their rights?

That is where we will disagree. (For starters)

As for the second-hand-smoke subject, there isn't one. You, nor your kids, will get lung cancer from walking through the smoking section of a restaraunt. It is nothing more than a very minor inconvenience.

The very few cases of second-hand-smoke related cancer patients have been people who worked and lived in a smoke-heavy atmosphere. Anything else is drummed-up lies and exaggeration.

As for the smokers that you have known who had complications, they made their own decisions, as I have made mine.

I won't say that there are drummed up exaggerations about cancer adn smoking related diseases. However I completely agree that I don't want to smeall and taste smoke in a restaurant while eating (I am an ex smoker and I felt this way as a smoker and never smoked in a restaurant) The bars and restaurants should not be forced to institute non smoking laws. They should have the choice of catering to smokers vs non smokers. Let it be known that it is a smoking bar and feel free to come in if you want. As far as big brother comments go...the government is the the one who has to physically take care of smokers at the end of their lives when the develop emphysema, bronchi***** COPD and cancer. Why should they not take steps to get the greatest cause of preventable death in the world?? U say let smokers run free and smoke wherever and whenever they want, then why should they get the same treatment as someone who dosen't smoke, has taken care of themselves their whole life and then unfortunately gotten cancer. It is my right to not smoke, that does not infringe on others rights to smoke. Just not in public places. Sorry you guys all have to breathe a little fresh air once in a while!! :lol:

rbedgood
01-03-2008, 01:07 PM
...As far as big brother comments go...the government is the the one who has to physically take care of smokers at the end of their lives when the develop emphysema, bronchi***** COPD and cancer...

Canada remember we don't have a government run socialized medicine program out here. Those on medicaid, etc. get paid for by the government, but most medical is private pay (whether by insurance or personal payment)

I am not making a political statement, one way or the other, just putting your comment into perspective from a US point of view.

Canada
01-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Canada remember we don't have a government run socialized medicine program out here. Those on medicaid, etc. get paid for by the government, but most medical is private pay (whether by insurance or personal payment)

I am not making a political statement, one way or the other, just putting your comment into perspective from a US point of view.

So the government does not contribute financially to healthcare at all?

hermhater
01-03-2008, 03:08 PM
So the government does not contribute financially to healthcare at all?

That is one of the big issues during this election that is coming up.

The government doesn't pay for nearly enough health care in the US.

Some people think this contributes to the wonderful health care that America has currently, while others believe it is what makes the health care so poor in America.

The religious right likes to spout off about how they are so morally superior to everyone else, but then decide what parts of Gods words they want to behave.

They have less of an interest in the poor, than the Bible tells them to.

Canada
01-03-2008, 04:56 PM
Smoking is bad.

So is the air you breath, the food you eat, and the liquids you drink.

Cancer is a gamble for everyone, and smoking just raises the odds a bit.

My GF quit for New Years, and I plan on stopping too.

If it is not illegal to buy cigs, then it shouldn't be illegal to smoke them.

Smoking is the #1 cause of preventable death in the world right now. Just because someone says it is legal or illeaglal to sell them means you should buy them just because you can?? the difference between the food, the air and the liquid is that we NEED those things to stay alive....who has to smoke to stay alive??


Cancer or heart problems kill just about everyone in my family, so it's gonna happen whether I smoke or not it seems.

so by smoking you have decided to make those things happen earlier and in an exponentially more painful way. I don't want to sound preachy man, but don't give me bullsh!t reasons why you smoke. It is a drug addiction that people were trapped into thinking they need it. Anyone who tells me different is WRONG.

hermhater
01-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Smoking is the #1 cause of preventable death in the world right now. Just because someone says it is legal or illeaglal to sell them means you should buy them just because you can?? the difference between the food, the air and the liquid is that we NEED those things to stay alive....who has to smoke to stay alive??



so by smoking you have decided to make those things happen earlier and in an exponentially more painful way. I don't want to sound preachy man, but don't give me bullsh!t reasons why you smoke. It is a drug addiction that people were trapped into thinking they need it. Anyone who tells me different is WRONG.

Agreed!

Don't smoke, it is bad for you! :bananen_smilies046:

prough91
01-04-2008, 02:00 AM
It is a drug addiction that people were trapped into thinking they need it. Anyone who tells me different is WRONG.

Different.

Canada
01-04-2008, 01:42 PM
Different.

Different but true. It is the nicotine that is addictive, not the cigarette.

hermhater
02-07-2008, 08:47 PM
Perfectly fine. Thanks for asking.

as far as smoking goes, bars should not have to ban that. this is the governement hard at work though. Much to HH's chagrin, the dems are creating this problem.:D


The not smoking in bars is ridiculous, I agree!

I just want to point out once again that I am not a Dem, nor do I agree with most of what comes out of their weak *** mouths!

I just feel that at this time in our countries history there is absolutely no Republican that will help America.

By the way Mitt decided he didn't have the cojones to fight it out!

:yahoo:

Chiefster
02-08-2008, 09:07 AM
The not smoking in bars is ridiculous, I agree!

I just want to point out once again that I am not a Dem, nor do I agree with most of what comes out of their weak *** mouths!

I just feel that at this time in our countries history there is absolutely no Republican that will help America.

By the way Mitt decided he didn't have the cojones to fight it out!

:yahoo:

He flip-flopped as bad as Kerry did.

IlovetheChiefs
02-08-2008, 05:01 PM
I still like Mitt. He dropped out because Huckabee and McCain teamed up against him in order for McCain to win and Huck to be a possible running mate. Thu, Mitt saw that catching McCain in the delegate race was becoming highly unlikely. I still wish he'd have stuck in there until the fat lady was actually singing, even though she was clearly spritzing her mouth.

hermhater
02-08-2008, 10:09 PM
I still like Mitt. He dropped out because Huckabee and McCain teamed up against him in order for McCain to win and Huck to be a possible running mate. Thu, Mitt saw that catching McCain in the delegate race was becoming highly unlikely. I still wish he'd have stuck in there until the fat lady was actually singing, even though she was clearly spritzing her mouth.

Hmmmm...

YouTube - Daily Show - Mitt Romney Quits recap

The terrorists have won then?

Canada
02-09-2008, 12:52 PM
I am all for no smoking i restaurants, but not bars. I don't want to smell peoples cigarettes when I am eating (I felt the same way when I was a smoker) however, I expect to smell cigarettes and beer when I go into a bar. If you don't like it then get out. Go outside and breathe fresh air!!

chief31
02-09-2008, 03:23 PM
I am all for no smoking i restaurants, but not bars. I don't want to smell peoples cigarettes when I am eating (I felt the same way when I was a smoker) however, I expect to smell cigarettes and beer when I go into a bar. If you don't like it then get out. Go outside and breathe fresh air!!

So, if I should choose to open a special "Smokers Restaraunt", you think that that should be illegal?

IlovetheChiefs
02-09-2008, 03:26 PM
I am all for no smoking i restaurants, but not bars. I don't want to smell peoples cigarettes when I am eating (I felt the same way when I was a smoker) however, I expect to smell cigarettes and beer when I go into a bar. If you don't like it then get out. Go outside and breathe fresh air!!

And seems like more and more workplaces are prohibiting smoking entirely. At my company, people can't smoke anywhere on the property now. I don't smoke and never have, but that seems a little over the top that employees who do smoke can't go to the designated smoking area outside anymore (where non-smokers never had to breathe in the second hand smoke).

chief31
02-09-2008, 03:30 PM
And seems like more and more workplaces are prohibiting smoking entirely. At my company, people can't smoke anywhere on the property now. I don't smoke and never have, but that seems a little over the top that employees who do smoke can't go to the designated smoking area outside anymore (where non-smokers never had to breathe in the second hand smoke).

I work in a factory where now that there is no second-hand smoke, we gwt to breathe-in fresh airmixed with deisel fuel, motor oil, and tiny shards of iron. Mmmmm. So much more healthy.

hermhater
02-09-2008, 03:34 PM
So, if I should choose to open a special "Smokers Restaraunt", you think that that should be illegal?

How does that relate to what Canada said?

I don't get it.

chief31
02-09-2008, 03:39 PM
Smoking is the #1 cause of preventable death in the world right now. Just because someone says it is legal or illeaglal to sell them means you should buy them just because you can?? the difference between the food, the air and the liquid is that we NEED those things to stay alive....who has to smoke to stay alive??



so by smoking you have decided to make those things happen earlier and in an exponentially more painful way. I don't want to sound preachy man, but don't give me bullsh!t reasons why you smoke. It is a drug addiction that people were trapped into thinking they need it. Anyone who tells me different is WRONG.

I don't need to give you, nor anyone else a reason that I smoke. That is none of your business. You do drink, right? Is alcohol some kind of a requirement to life? ( Seriously?)

It is great that you decided to quit smoking. I have decided not to. But the fact is that America is based on individual freedoms. And that all of these restrictions are infringing upon them.


How does that relate to what Canada said?

I don't get it. Canada said he was cool with a smoking ban in restaraunts. That would mean that noone is allowed to open a special "Smokers Restaraunt", because there is a smoking ban in restaraunts.

hermhater
02-09-2008, 03:44 PM
I don't need to give you, nor anyone else a reason that I smoke. That is none of your business. You do drink, right? Is alcohol some kind of a requirement to life? ( Seriously?)

It is great that you decided to quit smoking. I have decided not to. But the fact is that America is based on individual freedoms. And that all of these restrictions are infringing upon them.

Canada said he was cool with a smoking ban in restaraunts. That would mean that noone is allowed to open a special "Smokers Restaraunt", because there is a smoking ban in restaraunts.

Oh. :D

Canada
02-09-2008, 04:54 PM
I don't need to give you, nor anyone else a reason that I smoke. That is none of your business. You do drink, right? Is alcohol some kind of a requirement to life? ( Seriously?)

It is great that you decided to quit smoking. I have decided not to. But the fact is that America is based on individual freedoms. And that all of these restrictions are infringing upon them.

Canada said he was cool with a smoking ban in restaraunts. That would mean that noone is allowed to open a special "Smokers Restaraunt", because there is a smoking ban in restaraunts.

No I do nor "require" alcohol to live and Yes I drink alcohol, but I don't pour it down other peoples throats when i do. When you smoke in a restaurant you infringe upon the rights on every non smoker in the place. Or does the individual freedom to breathe fresh air not figure into the equation. I am not going to get into the great smoking debate. I agree that it is your right to smoke however it is also my right to not smoke and if the choice is smoking in restaurants or not smoking in restaurants then I say no smoking. Not because I am a non smoker but because people should be able to eat in a smoke free environment. As far as a Smokers Restaurant.....go ahead. :bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
02-09-2008, 05:10 PM
Smoking is bad, don't do it.

Canada
02-09-2008, 05:12 PM
I am all for letting people do as they choose....as long as it does not force me to do the same.

hermhater
02-09-2008, 05:24 PM
I am all for letting people do as they choose....as long as it does not force me to do the same.

I still say smoking is bad!

:11:

(And Rambo IV was oK, not as good as I expected though.)

chief31
02-09-2008, 05:44 PM
No I do nor "require" alcohol to live and Yes I drink alcohol, but I don't pour it down other peoples throats when i do. When you smoke in a restaurant you infringe upon the rights on every non smoker in the place. Or does the individual freedom to breathe fresh air not figure into the equation. I am not going to get into the great smoking debate. I agree that it is your right to smoke however it is also my right to not smoke and if the choice is smoking in restaurants or not smoking in restaurants then I say no smoking. Not because I am a non smoker but because people should be able to eat in a smoke free environment. As far as a Smokers Restaurant.....go ahead. :bananen_smilies046:
It isn't the smokers' rights that are being violated in this subject, it's the restaraunt owners'. And americans are not afforded the right to fresh air, as they are not afforded the right to feel safe, while walking down the street. Some people can feel safe walking anywhere, and others don't feel safe anywhere at all.


So, if I can form my own "Smoking restaeraunt", can I close down my regular restaraunt, and open a smoking restaraunt? How many restaraunts can do that? If they all do it, then what happened to the smoking ban? Before the smoking ban, a store owner was given the right to choose rather or not to allow smoking. But now they all have to reform to the way that non-smokers want his restaraunt to be. All because of their "rights" on his property?

Smoking in a restaraunt was never infringing upon anyones right to clean air, even if there were such a right.

Just like it is not the non-smokers right to walk into my home and breath smoke-free air, if I own a restaraunt that I want to allow smoking in, then it is again not the non-smokers right to walk into my smoking restaraunt and breath smoke-free air.

You stated that people should be able to eat in a smoke-free environment, but who was stopping them before? It wasn't me. I was eating in the establishments that were allowing smoking. The non-smoking restaraunt was across the street.

Maybe I missed it, but I never saw the non-smokers being dragged into the smoking restaraunts. I would have a hard time believing that they were unaware of the fact that cigarettes may exist there.

There were plenty of restaraunts that actually chose not to allow smoking.

What a state-wide smoking ban on public buildings does, is nothing more than to get even more money out of the americans who choose to smoke, than they already do by overtaxing tobacco. (Anyone ever heard of The Boston Tea Party?)The state will start charging for a Smoking license, for the restaraunt owners that want to allow smoking. It is just a way for the state government to make money.

Eventually, more and more private "clubs" will start opening. If it is a private club, then it is not open to the public. Hence, not a public place.

However, this will not be tolerated, as it is a way of bypassing the law. And the legal system will butt their noses into peoples private clubs.

The bottom line is this, If you are willing to allow me the right to open a "Smoking Restaraunt", then what was wrong with the ones that were already running, before this law?

DrunkHillbilly
02-09-2008, 07:22 PM
I saw the word restaraunt about 10 times in your post. I'm not sure how it is in your neck of the woods but in Az., it's "any public building" where smoking is not permitted. Therefore, the whole license theory would not be applicable here. I would guess it's that way everywhere but I'm not sure.

Canada
02-10-2008, 08:50 AM
I agree with you on the infringement of the restaurant owners rights. Absolutely it is unfair that they do not have that choice. However to say that if I want to eat in a restaurant with my family I am going to have to suck it up and breathe second hand smoke, then that is my own problem cause I can't infringe on a smokers rights? Do I then have the right to physically remove any threat to my childrens health? Can I toss that smoker out on his *** cause he is infringing on my right to not smoke (and YES that is my right to not have smoke forced into my face) I believe that smokers have the same rights as everyone else. If you choose to smoke then go ahead. However, if you right to smoke infringes on my right to not smoke then you need to take it somewhere else. Your rights as a smoker do not superceed my rights as a non smoker. Yes, it should be the choice of the restaurant owner, but why force them to choose one half of their customers or the other? As much as you may not like it, there are more non smokers than smokers out there and if restaurants have to make a choice, then the smart ones would make their establishments smoke free.

chief31
02-10-2008, 10:18 AM
I saw the word restaraunt about 10 times in your post. I'm not sure how it is in your neck of the woods but in Az., it's "any public building" where smoking is not permitted. Therefore, the whole license theory would not be applicable here. I would guess it's that way everywhere but I'm not sure.

The law is the same here. But if the state decides that there is money to be made from this, then they can easily start selling a license for businesses that want to permit smoking.


I agree with you on the infringement of the restaurant owners rights. Absolutely it is unfair that they do not have that choice. However to say that if I want to eat in a restaurant with my family I am going to have to suck it up and breathe second hand smoke, then that is my own problem cause I can't infringe on a smokers rights?

Not the smokers right, but the owner of said establishment.

Do I then have the right to physically remove any threat to my childrens health?

In my restaraunt? No. Keep them out of my place if you don't want them around the cigarette smoke.

Can I toss that smoker out on his *** cause he is infringing on my right to not smoke (and YES that is my right to not have smoke forced into my face) I believe that smokers have the same rights as everyone else.

So, then if someone maybe just farts alot, is it also your right to abuse that person?

If you choose to smoke then go ahead. However, if you right to smoke infringes on my right to not smoke then you need to take it somewhere else.

Like away from my own personally owned business? It's great that you can come onto my property and tell me what to do. Soviet Union anyone?

Your rights as a smoker do not superceed my rights as a non smoker. Yes, it should be the choice of the restaurant owner, but why force them to choose one half of their customers or the other?

There ya go. Don't force them to choose, by not allowing them to choose. Now that is pure logic.

As much as you may not like it, there are more non smokers than smokers out there and if restaurants have to make a choice, then the smart ones would make their establishments smoke free.

And yet, for so many years they didn't do that. Amazing how they would have all gone smoke-free had they been allowed to make the choice, (As you are saying) yet so few of them did, when they actually had that choice.

Making the choice for me, (As a store owner) is so wonderful of you. I am so glad that I, as a store owner, no longer have to burden myself with all of kinds of easy decisions.

You keep arguing against the smokers rights, where I keep telling you that it is the store owner whos rights are being stripped.

Again, if I own the place, who is it that gets to tell me how to run the place? What gives you the right to tell me what quality of air to have for you? This is my place, if you don'tlike the way that I run it, then you are in no way obligated to enter, nor stay.

Canada
02-10-2008, 11:12 AM
I agree with you on the infringement of the restaurant owners rights. Absolutely it is unfair that they do not have that choice.


And yet, for so many years they didn't do that. Amazing how they would have all gone smoke-free had they been allowed to make the choice, (As you are saying) yet so few of them did, when they actually had that choice.

They used to sell cigarettes to kids and say that they were not addictive and did not cause cancer. Times have changed.

Making the choice for me, (As a store owner) is so wonderful of you. I am so glad that I, as a store owner, no longer have to burden myself with all of kinds of easy decisions.

You keep arguing against the smokers rights, where I keep telling you that it is the store owner whos rights are being stripped.

And I agreed with you right off the bat

Again, if I own the place, who is it that gets to tell me how to run the place? What gives you the right to tell me what quality of air to have for you? This is my place, if you don'tlike the way that I run it, then you are in no way obligated to enter, nor stay.[/quote]

Yup

First off....I agree with you that it infringes on the business owners right and I do not agree with forcing them to go non smoking. I never argued that with you. However....if someone farts a lot in a restaurant it smells, but it does not cause lung cancer, emphysema and brochitis. You are comparing a bad smell with messing with my health. Would you have a problem with a crack head sitting beside your kids and blowing crack smoke in their face?? You talk of the Soviet Union and you complain that your rights are being violated, yet you have absolutely no problem with forcing me to follow along with what you believe. You believe that anyone should be able to smoke anywhere and if I want to frequent that restaurant or business then I just have to deal with it. Smokers are in the minority my friend....maybe it is time they needed to find their own place to smoke without forcing everyone around them to do it.

chief31
02-10-2008, 12:05 PM
First off....I agree with you that it infringes on the business owners right and I do not agree with forcing them to go non smoking. I never argued that with you.

Well then how do you condone the smoking ban, and still say that it is wrong?

However....if someone farts a lot in a restaurant it smells, but it does not cause lung cancer, emphysema and brochitis. You are comparing a bad smell with messing with my health.

No, I am not. First off, there is no real evidence to support the theory of second-hand smoke causing any of that, and, there is no evidence to support that flatulence does/doesn't cause those, or other health problems.

Would you have a problem with a crack head sitting beside your kids and blowing crack smoke in their face??

Am I on someone elses property? If so, then I probably didn't take my kids somewhere that permits crack-smoking. Common sense.

You talk of the Soviet Union and you complain that your rights are being violated,(NO. The store-owners right.) yet you have absolutely no problem with forcing me to follow along with what you believe.Where was that at? You believe that anyone should be able to smoke anywhere and if I want to frequent that restaurant or business then I just have to deal with it. That business belongs to someone, if it you, then make the rules the way you want them. But if it isn't your business, then try dealing with the rules that the owner sets.Smokers are in the minority my friend....maybe it is time they needed to find their own place to smoke without forcing everyone around them to do it.

We aren't being allowed our own places to smoke. Because non-smokers insist that the law make store-owners cater to their selfish desires.

So, do you support forcing store-owners to adhere to non-smokers' demands or not?

hermhater
02-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Smoking is bad for you, don't do it!

chief31
02-10-2008, 12:13 PM
Smoking is bad for you, don't do it!

Playing football is bad for your health too. Drinking tap water is bad for you. Drinking beer is bad for you. Coffee; soda; everything can be seen as bad for your health, because no matter what you do/don't do, it is all walking you directly toward your ultimate death.

So, living is dangerous to your health. Don't do it.:D

hermhater
02-10-2008, 12:15 PM
Playing football is bad for your health too. Drinking tap water is bad for you. Drinking beer is bad for you. Coffee; soda; everything can be seen as bad for your health, because no matter what you do/don't do, it is all walking you directly toward your ultimate death.

So, living is dangerous to your health. Don't do it.:D

I already tried that argument with Canada, he didn't like it so much!

:lol:

Canada
02-10-2008, 01:32 PM
Playing football is bad for your health too. Drinking tap water is bad for you. Drinking beer is bad for you. Coffee; soda; everything can be seen as bad for your health, because no matter what you do/don't do, it is all walking you directly toward your ultimate death.

So, living is dangerous to your health. Don't do it.:D

Shall we look up some stats??

Tap Water related deaths last year 0
Soda related deaths 0
Coffee related deaths 0

Smoking related deaths in Canada 45 000

I read earlier that there is no direct link between smoking and cancer...I can no longer discuss this topic with you if you truly believe that. My whole point is that you have done nothing but spout off about business owners not being able to have a smoking business and that is a violation of their rights. Its kinda like breathing fresh air and feeling safe. Its NOT your right. You are upset because someone is forcing you to do something yet you have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about making a non smoker breath second hand smoke so I offer you this advice. Quit smoking or smoke outside. that is your right! :bananen_smilies046:

Hayvern
02-10-2008, 01:47 PM
California has had smoking bans in public locations for a very long time now. For those of you who think it is detrimental to business, that is the same thing they were complaining about out here too. The truth is that when the ban went into effect, business boomed for restaurants and bars.

You might see business drop in some areas, especially if it is not a state wide ban, but once non-smokers like myself realize I can go to a restaurant and enjoy my food, or go to a bar and enjoy myself, then business will pick up again.

IlovetheChiefs
02-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Off the subject, but wanted to tell Canada this somewhere without creating a brand new thread about it:

I was watching Family Feud and they asked the question, "Name something you bring on a camping trip that begins with the letter b."

The answers were:

(1)
(2) Backpack
(3) Boat
(4) Blanket
(5) Bacon

Any idea what the number one answer was? Heh!

Canada
02-10-2008, 06:13 PM
beer and boobs?!?!

IlovetheChiefs
02-10-2008, 06:19 PM
beer and boobs?!?!

:lol: correct on the first half! (But i guess it's possible the second half was there too but they edited it out? heh)

Edit: Do people really bring bacon on a camping trip? I do remember years ago seeing someone on tv cooking bacon and eggs in the woods so I guess so.

Canada
02-10-2008, 06:43 PM
:lol: correct on the first half! (But i guess it's possible the second half was there too but they edited it out? heh)

Edit: Do people really bring bacon on a camping trip? I do remember years ago seeing someone on tv cooking bacon and eggs in the woods so I guess so.

Beer bacon and eggs is the best camping breakfast ever!! :bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
02-10-2008, 06:44 PM
Beer bacon and eggs is the best camping breakfast ever!! :bananen_smilies046:

I like Jimmy Dean spicy sausage when camping!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
02-10-2008, 06:51 PM
I like Jimmy Dean spicy sausage when camping!

:bananen_smilies046:

we all know you love the sausage HH :bananen_smilies011:

hermhater
02-10-2008, 06:55 PM
we all know you love the sausage HH :bananen_smilies011:

Hah!

Not funny...

:iamwithstupid:

IlovetheChiefs
02-10-2008, 06:58 PM
Made me laugh, heh! I've yet to read a post by Canada that failed to make me laugh! (The ones where he intends to be funny, I mean).

I'm still laughing from the other day when he replied to Guru with "Uhhhhh...... Canada?" LOL!

Canada
02-10-2008, 06:58 PM
Oh its funny!!!

hermhater
02-10-2008, 07:04 PM
Oh its funny!!!

No it's not!

:mob:

Canada
02-10-2008, 07:13 PM
No it's not!

:mob:

It's hilariousness is lost because intellectually we are not on the same level. You think parrots are funny....I do not. I think gay and short jokes about you are funny...you do not. But they are hilarious!! :iamwithstupid: :beer:

hermhater
02-10-2008, 07:15 PM
It's hilariousness is lost because intellectually we are not on the same level. You think parrots are funny....I do not. I think gay and short jokes about you are funny...you do not. But the are hilarious!! :iamwithstupid: :beer:


You're asking for the bird!

(Do you get to watch the game at work?)

Canada
02-10-2008, 07:16 PM
I have seen bits an pieces. I am trying to not hear lifehouse right now

hermhater
02-10-2008, 07:17 PM
I have muted the TV and am watching the cheerleaders shake their moneymakers!

:yahoo:

rbedgood
02-10-2008, 07:18 PM
So many valid points...

First of all, I agree with the concept of a business owner having the right to own and operate his business within certain freedoms. I do have a problem when a city or county tries to enforce a smoking ban, as it hurts the commercial interests in their boundaries. However when a ban is statewide or most likely it will eventually be nationwide, you'll then see all businesses on a level playing field. Right or wrong, my interest as an owner would be in being allowed to compete equally with businesses in my area.

As for the company policy that many companies are adopting wherein no one can smoke inside or outside the building, there is a reason for that and it is quite logical. Healthcare costs. Many health insurance companies will give a discount to the company for creating such "healthy environments" with the thought being that long-term costs will be lowered. There will be a percentage (albeit small) of smokers who will quit based on the inconvenience, or at least lower the quantity of cigarettes that they smoke. Additionally those that continue to smoke, won't have to just walk outside, but rather also walk across the parking lot, thus burning a couple more calories.

Oh and my final point...Canada, when you say no soda related deaths...you may want to rethink that. Check under diabetes related deaths, and realize the amount of sugar in a regular soda. Just to be the devils advocate...(HH...queue picture of Al Pacino)

Canada
02-10-2008, 07:18 PM
soooo....smoking bans huh??

chief31
02-10-2008, 07:51 PM
Shall we look up some stats??

Tap Water related deaths last year 0
Soda related deaths 0
Coffee related deaths 0

Smoking related deaths in Canada 45 000

I read earlier that there is no direct link between smoking and cancer...

Show me where you read that.

I can no longer discuss this topic with you if you truly believe that. My whole point is that you have done nothing but spout off about business owners not being able to have a smoking business and that is a violation of their rights. Its kinda like breathing fresh air and feeling safe. Its NOT your right.

You are right. It no longer is my right to choose how to run my business. That is where I have the problem. This isn't Canada. We are supposed to be able to choose what to do with our own property.

You are upset because someone is forcing you to do something yet you have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about making a non smoker breath second hand smoke

WHEN DID I SUGGEST THAT??????????????? You keep telling me what I think and what I am saying, but I haven't said that, and I don't think that.

so I offer you this advice. Quit smoking or smoke outside. that is your right!

You are absolutely right. I am free to do what other people decide is cool for me to do. So, come on over to the house, and call the police when you smell smoke, because it is the exact same thing. If I can't smoke in my own privately owned business, then where is that different from smoking in my privately owned home?
:bananen_smilies046:

You started by saying that you are for banning smoking in restaraunts. Then you said that it is wrong to take that choice from the store owner.

I never sadi that it is my right to smoke in restaraunts. You continue to tell me that I am saying that, but I still haven't said that.

Nowhere have I said that smoking doesn't cause cancer. I said there is no proof that second-hand smoke does.

0 deaths caused by tap water. How many were chalked-up to natural causes? Those are the ones. I thought drowning was real, but obviously that is just some fairy-tail stuff then?

Are you telling me that noone has ever died from stress-related diseases? Or that coffee doesn't cause stress? As-in caffine... Soda...

Noone has heart-attacks? I know for a fact that caffine can help bring on a heart attack. Oh, wait. Canada says that ain't so, so it must be wrong.


How many non-smokers don't die?

Where are the alcohol-related death numbers?

You know as well as anybody that everybody dies. And rather you want to admit it or not, not everybody dies from cigarette smoke.

But, just in case, maybe you should start working on taking away everybodys cars, because we all know what a killer those are.

Canada
02-10-2008, 07:53 PM
This isn't Canada. We are supposed to be able to choose what to do with our own property.



What the **** is that supposed to mean. gimme an infraction if you want but that is bull****

hermhater
02-10-2008, 07:57 PM
So many valid points...

First of all, I agree with the concept of a business owner having the right to own and operate his business within certain freedoms. I do have a problem when a city or county tries to enforce a smoking ban, as it hurts the commercial interests in their boundaries. However when a ban is statewide or most likely it will eventually be nationwide, you'll then see all businesses on a level playing field. Right or wrong, my interest as an owner would be in being allowed to compete equally with businesses in my area.

As for the company policy that many companies are adopting wherein no one can smoke inside or outside the building, there is a reason for that and it is quite logical. Healthcare costs. Many health insurance companies will give a discount to the company for creating such "healthy environments" with the thought being that long-term costs will be lowered. There will be a percentage (albeit small) of smokers who will quit based on the inconvenience, or at least lower the quantity of cigarettes that they smoke. Additionally those that continue to smoke, won't have to just walk outside, but rather also walk across the parking lot, thus burning a couple more calories.

Oh and my final point...Canada, when you say no soda related deaths...you may want to rethink that. Check under diabetes related deaths, and realize the amount of sugar in a regular soda. Just to be the devils advocate...(HH...queue picture of Al Pacino)

You know me too well...

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/37.jpg

chief31
02-10-2008, 07:58 PM
This isn't Canada. We are supposed to be able to choose what to do with our own property.



What the **** is that supposed to mean. gimme an infraction if you want but that is bull****


It is supposed to mean that I don't know what Canadian government is all about, but that America was founded on individual freedoms.

If you wanna get bent out of shape about it, then I can't do alot about it, aside from explain it.

DrunkHillbilly
02-10-2008, 08:40 PM
I gotta go with Canada on this one. Chief31 keeps bringing up private property and compared it to his own personal home. The key here is your home isn't considered a "public" building and that is what the law is. Meaning bars, restaurants, hardware stores, Joe's plumbing shop or a highrise downtown. The law caters to non smokers because of the fact that people do in fact die from second hand smoke. The statistics are overwhelming! The law started in the state of California when a group of people in the industry started a petition to outlaw smoking saying it wasn't fair for them to have to be exposed to the dangers of second hand smoke.

spiman
02-10-2008, 08:47 PM
:SmokinBanana: :smoke: Welcome to Calif. on the smoking bans. What took U guys sooo long? Get this/ Calif considering a ban on smoking in your own car! Da Ya think smoking might B bad for you? I guess I should quit that stuff-or legalize it.:pointlaugh:

hermhater
02-10-2008, 08:49 PM
:SmokinBanana: :smoke: Welcome to Calif. on the smoking bans. What took U guys sooo long? Get this/ Calif considering a ban on smoking in your own car! Da Ya think smoking might B bad for you? I guess I should quit that stuff-or legalize it.:pointlaugh:

That is just asinine, banning smoking in your car.

If that goes through I will be shocked!

Canada
02-10-2008, 08:51 PM
They want a law in Canada that you can not smoke in your car if you have children in the car and I totally agree with it!!

spiman
02-10-2008, 08:52 PM
They R thinking of the kiddies.. Food 4 thought-Do not smoke in front of the kids, period!

Canada
02-10-2008, 08:59 PM
Post #98 in this thread

I read earlier that there is no direct link between smoking and cancer...

Show me where you read that.

I can no longer discuss this topic with you if you truly believe that

Post #59

However....if someone farts a lot in a restaurant it smells, but it does not cause lung cancer, emphysema and brochitis. You are comparing a bad smell with messing with my health.

No, I am not. First off, there is no real evidence to support the theory of second-hand smoke causing any of that, and, there is no evidence to support that flatulence does/doesn't cause those, or other health problems.

This was quoted inside a quote but it sounded to me like you are arguing that there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer.

I would like to know however as a business owner, should you be allowed to make people work in an unsafe work environment? (ie asbestos, poison gases etc...) Afterall it is YOUR business and you should be allowed to do whatever you want there no matter how it affects other people?

chief31
02-11-2008, 02:57 AM
I gotta go with Canada on this one. Chief31 keeps bringing up private property and compared it to his own personal home. The key here is your home isn't considered a "public" building and that is what the law is. Meaning bars, restaurants, hardware stores, Joe's plumbing shop or a highrise downtown. The law caters to non smokers because of the fact that people do in fact die from second hand smoke. The statistics are overwhelming! The law started in the state of California when a group of people in the industry started a petition to outlaw smoking saying it wasn't fair for them to have to be exposed to the dangers of second hand smoke.

It isn't a public place, it is open to the public. Public places are owned by the public. But I was waiting for that point to be brought up.


Post #98 in this thread

I read earlier that there is no direct link between smoking and cancer...


This was quoted inside a quote but it sounded to me like you are arguing that there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer.

This is the difference. You thought I said no connection between smoking and health problems, but I was talking about second-hand smoke. And I maintain that stance.


I would like to know however as a business owner, should you be allowed to make people work in an unsafe work environment? (ie asbestos, poison gases etc...) Afterall it is YOUR business and you should be allowed to do whatever you want there no matter how it affects other people?


Many people get to work with hazardous materials. If we are to assume that cigarette smoke is one of them, then fine. The employees can get to work with hazardous materials.

But even if I grant you the hazardous materials title, the comparison to asbestos and poisonous gas are far from accurate. More like smoke from any other fire, or alot of other fumes that get into air. Oil, fuel, metal shavings, cleanser fumes, etc.

Worst case scenario, I grant you the instant killing effects of second-hand smoke, and the employees can wear hazmat suits.

Canada
02-11-2008, 09:21 AM
So first hand smoke causes health problems...but second hand smoke dosen't?

DrunkHillbilly
02-11-2008, 11:03 AM
It isn't a public place, it is open to the public. Public places are owned by the public. But I was waiting for that point to be brought up.



Many people get to work with hazardous materials. If we are to assume that cigarette smoke is one of them, then fine. The employees can get to work with hazardous materials.

But even if I grant you the hazardous materials title, the comparison to asbestos and poisonous gas are far from accurate. More like smoke from any other fire, or alot of other fumes that get into air. Oil, fuel, metal shavings, cleanser fumes, etc.

Worst case scenario, I grant you the instant killing effects of second-hand smoke, and the employees can wear hazmat suits.
Now your just arguing to argue I think. Not public but open to the public????? How about a downtown courthouse? Is that "open to the public" as well? A police station? The "Phoenix PUBLIC Library"?? A PUBLIC pool? The word would not be in the title if it were not meant for the public. If it were not meant for the public, the public would not be allowed. A public place and open to the public are virtually the same. Grasping at straws at this point.

I'm not sure how the law came to affect in your state but here and in California, it was put to a vote by the people. The voters chose to have the law and some of those voters are business owners. I am one!!

Hayvern
02-11-2008, 12:30 PM
They want a law in Canada that you can not smoke in your car if you have children in the car and I totally agree with it!!

A lot of people here are talking about the California laws. One person talked about the banning of smoking in your car, smoking in work places has been banned for a long time as has smoking in bars.

I am not anti-smoking per se, I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do, but your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to not smell your smoke.

So if you are a smoker, you should get ready, things are a changing.

hermhater
02-11-2008, 12:37 PM
A lot of people here are talking about the California laws. One person talked about the banning of smoking in your car, smoking in work places has been banned for a long time as has smoking in bars.

I am not anti-smoking per se, I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do, but your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to not smell your smoke.

So if you are a smoker, you should get ready, things are a changing.

Smoking in the workplace is banned in virtually every state (rbedgood posted a chart somewhere in this thread I think).

Smoking is bad for you, don't do it!

:11:

Canada
02-11-2008, 12:41 PM
A lot of people here are talking about the California laws. One person talked about the banning of smoking in your car, smoking in work places has been banned for a long time as has smoking in bars.

I am not anti-smoking per se, I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do, but your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to not smell your smoke.

So if you are a smoker, you should get ready, things are a changing.

The laws on smoking are pretty similar here. No smoking in bars, restaurants and workplace. I agree with most of them (I was a smoker for 16 years and quit 2 and a half months ago and felt the same way when I smoked) Bars should be allowed to have a good sizes smoking area...restaurants and the workplace I think should have to be smoke free.

DrunkHillbilly
02-11-2008, 01:51 PM
The laws on smoking are pretty similar here. No smoking in bars, restaurants and workplace. I agree with most of them (I was a smoker for 16 years and quit 2 and a half months ago and felt the same way when I smoked) Bars should be allowed to have a good sizes smoking area...restaurants and the workplace I think should have to be smoke free.
Before the state wide law went into affect in Az., it was in a few city's. Those city's were required to have a seperate room that was doored off and had it's own ventalation system. The owners of the businesses were *****ein that they didn't have the money to do what it took to comply with the law. Hence the state wide "no public building" law.

Canada
02-11-2008, 02:23 PM
Before the state wide law went into affect in Az., it was in a few city's. Those city's were required to have a seperate room that was doored off and had it's own ventalation system. The owners of the businesses were *****ein that they didn't have the money to do what it took to comply with the law. Hence the state wide "no public building" law.

There is a strip club where I live that had a seperate smoking area that was about 1/4 the size of the non smoking area and there would be strippers with about 3 guys sitting around and 75 guys packed into the smoking area. It was pretty funny, but they eventually reversed it and have a bigger smoking area and the small room is non smoking! :lol: But like I said, in a bar I expect it. I just don't want it around when I am trying to eat with my family.

hermhater
02-11-2008, 02:36 PM
There is a strip club where I live that had a seperate smoking area that was about 1/4 the size of the non smoking area and there would be strippers with about 3 guys sitting around and 75 guys packed into the smoking area. It was pretty funny, but they eventually reversed it and have a bigger smoking area and the small room is non smoking! :lol: But like I said, in a bar I expect it. I just don't want it around when I am trying to eat with my family.

Canada: not getting it right the first time!

:lol:

Canada
02-11-2008, 02:48 PM
Canada: not getting it right the first time!

:lol:

Not if you are one of the three guys in the non smoking room with he strippers!! :bananen_smilies046: Don't worry HH, you'll figure it out someday!!

hermhater
02-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Not if you are one of the three guys in the non smoking room with he strippers!! :bananen_smilies046: Don't worry HH, you'll figure it out someday!!

I was talking about the business model jerk!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
02-11-2008, 03:44 PM
I was talking about the business model jerk!

:bananen_smilies046:


mmmmmm hmmmmm....:bananen_smilies046: I'm talkin about strippers and you are thinking about business models!!

hermhater
02-11-2008, 03:51 PM
Just about time to go to work.

We can still smoke out in front of the building, but it's gonna be rough!

:lol:

Canada
02-11-2008, 03:53 PM
Just about time to go to work.

We can still smoke out in front of the building, but it's gonna be rough!

:lol:

Quit...it's bad for you. I think :beer:

DrunkHillbilly
02-11-2008, 04:21 PM
Quit...it's bad for you. I think :beer:
Don't tell him what to do!!! It's his right! :yahoo:

Canada
02-11-2008, 04:45 PM
Don't tell him what to do!!! It's his right! :yahoo:

Someone has to tell HH what to do or else he just wanders around bumping into things!! :lol:

DrunkHillbilly
02-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Someone has to tell HH what to do or else he just wanders around bumping into things!! :lol:
You mean like bumping his head on coffee tables?:lol: Sorry HH, he lobbed it in there for me!!:D

Canada
02-11-2008, 06:17 PM
You mean like bumping his head on coffee tables?:lol: Sorry HH, he lobbed it in there for me!!:D

:lol: :bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
02-12-2008, 01:10 AM
Someone has to tell HH what to do or else he just wanders around bumping into things!! :lol:


You mean like bumping his head on coffee tables?:lol: Sorry HH, he lobbed it in there for me!!:D

Yeah.

:lol:

chief31
02-12-2008, 10:54 AM
So first hand smoke causes health problems...but second hand smoke dosen't?

Nor does first-hand cigarette smoke. Unless it is over-used. (For the most part.)

It is virtually impossible to get as much smoke, without smoking, as a regular smoker.


Now your just arguing to argue I think. Not public but open to the public????? How about a downtown courthouse? Is that "open to the public" as well? A police station? The "Phoenix PUBLIC Library"?? A PUBLIC pool? The word would not be in the title if it were not meant for the public. If it were not meant for the public, the public would not be allowed. A public place and open to the public are virtually the same. Grasping at straws at this point.

Who owns the pool, library, police station and courthouse? Now, who owns my restaraunt? I'm not sure how you are missing that one. :scared2: :pointlaugh:

I'm not sure how the law came to affect in your state but here and in California, it was put to a vote by the people. The voters chose to have the law and some of those voters are business owners. I am one!!

The majority was never to be able to make laws that infringe upon citizens rights. But since politicians usually don't smoke, they aren't generally up for overturning those laws. Not like they are ever up for defending the right of americans anymore.


A lot of people here are talking about the California laws. One person talked about the banning of smoking in your car, smoking in work places has been banned for a long time as has smoking in bars.

I am not anti-smoking per se, I think everyone should be able to do what they want to do, but your right to smoke should not infringe on my right to not smell your smoke.

So if you are a smoker, you should get ready, things are a changing.

Noone has the right to not smell smoke. Just like you don't have the right to not smell urine, if you go to New York. :D


You mean like bumping his head on coffee tables?:lol: Sorry HH, he lobbed it in there for me!!:D

I have tears in my eyes, that was so funny!!!

DrunkHillbilly
02-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Nor does first-hand cigarette smoke. Unless it is over-used. (For the most part.)

It is virtually impossible to get as much smoke, without smoking, as a regular smoker.



The majority was never to be able to make laws that infringe upon citizens rights. But since politicians usually don't smoke, they aren't generally up for overturning those laws. Not like they are ever up for defending the right of americans anymore.



Noone has the right to not smell smoke. Just like you don't have the right to not smell urine, if you go to New York. :D



I have tears in my eyes, that was so funny!!!

The "city's" own the pools ect... not the state, which is who made the law.

Are you saying that the law was not put up for a vote where your from?

Open to the public and a public place are the same! Both allow anyone to enter.

Chiefster
02-12-2008, 12:20 PM
This is starting to seriously resemble a political thread, and we all know that there is only one of those allowed on the site. :D

DrunkHillbilly
02-12-2008, 12:37 PM
This is starting to seriously resemble a political thread, and we all know that there is only one of those allowed on the site. :D
I guess everything comes down to politics in the end huh?:D

Chiefster
02-12-2008, 01:00 PM
I guess everything comes down to politics in the end huh?:D


Tell me about it; I'll be so happy when the second Tuesday of November finally comes and goes.
:lol:

hermhater
02-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Tell me about it; I'll be so happy when the second Tuesday of November finally comes and goes.
:lol:

Me too!

:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
02-12-2008, 01:22 PM
Me too!

:bananen_smilies046:

I move that the election be held tomorrow, and get it over with. :D

hermhater
02-12-2008, 01:24 PM
I move that the election be held tomorrow, and get it over with. :D


I say we have it today! It's Tuesday after all!

:11:

Chiefster
02-12-2008, 01:35 PM
I say we have it today! It's Tuesday after all!

:11:

Excellent point! :D

chief31
02-12-2008, 02:21 PM
The "city's" own the pools ect... not the state, which is who made the law.

Are you saying that the law was not put up for a vote where your from?

Open to the public and a public place are the same! Both allow anyone to enter.

The difference is that the places you named are owned by the public, and restaraunts are owned by, in most cases, private citizens.

Maybe you can explain to me how an owner of a restaraunt reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, and can even ban individuals from entering his establishment?

Can the police station do that? How about the courthouse? Maybe the library can do that, I don't know.

:lol:

hermhater
02-12-2008, 02:24 PM
The difference is that the places you named are owned by the public, and restaraunts are owned by, in most cases, private citizens.

Maybe you can explain to me how an owner of a restaraunt reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, and can even ban individuals from entering his establishment?

Can the police station do that? How about the courthouse? Maybe the library can do that, I don't know.

:lol:

chief31, if he doesn't get the difference between a publicly owned building and a privately owned public store you're wasting your time.

chief31
02-12-2008, 02:28 PM
chief31, if he doesn't get the difference between a publicly owned building and a privately owned public store you're wasting your time.

I am sure that he does. I think he just kinda stuck his foot in his mouth, and instead of trying some other tactic, he is just arguing it for all that it is worth.

DH often has a hard time admitting fault. :lol:

hermhater
02-12-2008, 02:31 PM
I am sure that he does. I think he just kinda stuck his foot in his mouth, and instead of trying some other tactic, he is just arguing it for all that it is worth.

DH often has a hard time admitting fault. :lol:

That's because he's never wrong!

:11: :D

chief31
02-12-2008, 02:32 PM
That's because he's never wrong!

:11: :D

Didn't I hear that he owns bars or something like that?

hermhater
02-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Didn't I hear that he owns bars or something like that?


Yeah he is in real estate and has a couple of bars.

chief31
02-12-2008, 02:43 PM
So many valid points...

First of all, I agree with the concept of a business owner having the right to own and operate his business within certain freedoms. I do have a problem when a city or county tries to enforce a smoking ban, as it hurts the commercial interests in their boundaries. However when a ban is statewide or most likely it will eventually be nationwide, you'll then see all businesses on a level playing field. Right or wrong, my interest as an owner would be in being allowed to compete equally with businesses in my area.

There are some businesses near borders that don't have that luxury. Also, some businesses depend more on the smoking croud than others do. And, not everyone who owns a business puts money as the only benefit. Some people actually care about their customers.

IlovetheChiefs
02-12-2008, 04:38 PM
I move that the election be held tomorrow, and get it over with. :D


I say we have it today! It's Tuesday after all!

:11:


Not me! I'd rather get to enjoy 9 more months of a Clinton-free White House!

Canada
02-12-2008, 04:53 PM
Noone has the right to not smell smoke. Just like you don't have the right to not smell urine, if you go to New York. :D

Then noone has the right to smoke.

Canada
02-12-2008, 04:57 PM
And Cigarettes Cause CANCER. You are a fool if you think that is not true.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/47.jpg

DrunkHillbilly
02-12-2008, 05:29 PM
Didn't I hear that he owns bars or something like that?
You two are comical!!!!!!! I've forgotten more about this law than either of you will ever know! Apparently the state you live in is the only state that didn't put it to a vote! So, to side step all the public places and allow the public BS, in most states, the people voted for the law to be this way, that is why it is in affect. It wasn't the government that created the law, it was the public! ( by the way, here's one for ya... if you are a public place, you as a business can not shut the entire place down for a private function legally. Yes, even if you yourself own the business and building! ) point being that there are many laws pertaining to "public" places that people think they know but in all actuality have no idea! Just because you "own" a business doesn't mean you can operate at your own free will. You still have to abide by certain laws. Same with your home. There are certain things you can not do as a home owner just because you "own" it.

DrunkHillbilly
02-12-2008, 05:33 PM
And Cigarettes Cause CANCER. You are a fool if you think that is not true.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/47.jpg
31 doesn't believe all that propaganda BS Canada!! As far as he's concerned, you probably made those yourself just to prove your point!:D

DrunkHillbilly
02-12-2008, 05:36 PM
There are some businesses near borders that don't have that luxury. Also, some businesses depend more on the smoking croud than others do. And, not everyone who owns a business puts money as the only benefit. Some people actually care about their customers.
Those businesses should just give stuff away to their beloved customers if they don't care about the money! If they didn't care about the money wouldn't they just be their friends instead of customers?

Chiefster
02-13-2008, 12:14 AM
Not me! I'd rather get to enjoy 9 more months of a Clinton-free White House!

Hadn't thought of it that way.

hermhater
02-13-2008, 04:49 AM
There are some businesses near borders that don't have that luxury. Also, some businesses depend more on the smoking croud than others do. And, not everyone who owns a business puts money as the only benefit. Some people actually care about their customers.


Those businesses should just give stuff away to their beloved customers if they don't care about the money! If they didn't care about the money wouldn't they just be their friends instead of customers?

There is a difference between using the laws to screw people, and being part of exploitation for profit.

It is a line one decides to cross, but it is very thin.

chief31
02-13-2008, 11:21 AM
You two are comical!!!!!!! I've forgotten more about this law than either of you will ever know! Apparently the state you live in is the only state that didn't put it to a vote! So, to side step all the public places and allow the public BS, in most states, the people voted for the law to be this way, that is why it is in affect. It wasn't the government that created the law, it was the public! ( by the way, here's one for ya... if you are a public place, you as a business can not shut the entire place down for a private function legally. Yes, even if you yourself own the business and building! ) point being that there are many laws pertaining to "public" places that people think they know but in all actuality have no idea! Just because you "own" a business doesn't mean you can operate at your own free will. You still have to abide by certain laws. Same with your home. There are certain things you can not do as a home owner just because you "own" it.

All of which is entirely unamerican. The U.S government has been taking away our privacy. Our rights to our own things. That is certainly not what this country was founded for.

chief31
02-13-2008, 11:27 AM
31 doesn't believe all that propaganda BS Canada!! As far as he's concerned, you probably made those yourself just to prove your point!:D

Which one mentioned the astronimical numbers of second-hand-smoke-related deaths?


Those businesses should just give stuff away to their beloved customers if they don't care about the money! If they didn't care about the money wouldn't they just be their friends instead of customers?

Now you go ahead and move my position for me?

I said that money wasn't the only motivation. And believe it or not, there is actually more to life than money, and some people actually believe that.

But I didn't say that they don't care about money. Money can be made without that being the sole motivation of life.

Canada
02-13-2008, 11:29 AM
Which one mentioned the astronimical numbers of second-hand-smoke-related deaths?

I believe you are referring to my post about 45 000 people. I was not however referring to second had smoke, but 45 000 per day die in smoking related deaths in Canada

chief31
02-13-2008, 11:37 AM
Which one mentioned the astronimical numbers of second-hand-smoke-related deaths?

I believe you are referring to my post about 45 000 people. I was not however referring to second had smoke, but 45 000 per day die in smoking related deaths in Canada

But those numbers don't support your position in the "second-hand-smoke" discussion.


For the discussion about things that are bad for you, where are the alcohol-related death numbers? :D

Canada
02-13-2008, 11:44 AM
But those numbers don't support your position in the "second-hand-smoke" discussion.

Can you explain to me how smoke becomes healthy for the second hand smoker? If it is not bad for you why do they put filters on them?


For the discussion about things that are bad for you, where are the alcohol-related death numbers? :D

Like I said earlier, I am not forcing anyone else do drink that alcohol. Although it is illegal for me to drive after drinking because it affects other peoples health and safety.

chief31
02-13-2008, 11:48 AM
Like I said earlier, I am not forcing anyone else do drink that alcohol. Although it is illegal for me to drive after drinking because it affects other peoples health and safety.

Not their health, only their safety. And I think it was a Ben Franklin quote that said something to the effect of whoever will give up their freedom for the feeling of safety,(And safety is only a feeling.) deserves neither safety, nor freedom.

Canada
02-13-2008, 11:50 AM
Not their health, only their safety. And I think it was a Ben Franklin quote that said something to the effect of whoever will give up their freedom for the feeling of safety,(And safety is only a feeling.) deserves neither safety, nor freedom.

And it was Canada who said If I get drunk and hit you with my truck....that affects your health. Do you think we should be free to drink and drive?

chief31
02-13-2008, 11:57 AM
And it was Canada who said If I get drunk and hit you with my truck....that affects your health. Do you think we should be free to drink and drive?


Unpopular as it may be, I do. Because there is a difference between drinking and driving, and hitting somone with your car.

Obviously, hitting somone with your car should be illegal. But if I don't hit you with my car, then how exactly am I effecting you? Or anyone else?

Canada
02-13-2008, 12:04 PM
Unpopular as it may be, I do. Because there is a difference between drinking and driving, and hitting somone with your car.

Obviously, hitting somone with your car should be illegal. But if I don't hit you with my car, then how exactly am I effecting you? Or anyone else?

You aren't, until you hit someone. Are you also arguing that drinking and driving does not kill? I have plenty of blood stained uniforms to prove you wrong on that one. Why increase the risk of killing someone? Can I drive down the street shooting my gun out the window and as long as I am not "aiming" at anyone then it is their own problem as it is my right to do what I want, no matter what the affect on others is? How come I am not allowed to randomly mail poison gas around? Maybe I will feel like doing that one day. You are using the ame logic that Bart Simpson used in an episode where he says "I am going to swing my arms like this when I walk and if you don't get out of the way then it will be your fault for getting hit" Would you feel the same if a drunk driver killed a friend or family member? I have driven with a few beers in me before, but I will NEVER do it again. I have seen what happens and no one had the right to endanger people like that. If it means that you have to lose a freedom for it then good. I don't really care.

chief31
02-13-2008, 12:11 PM
You aren't, until you hit someone. Are you also arguing that drinking and driving does not kill? I have plenty of blood stained uniforms to prove you wrong on that one. Why increase the risk of killing someone? Can I drive down the street shooting my gun out the window and as long as I am not "aiming" at anyone then it is their own problem as it is my right to do what I want, no matter what the affect on others is?

You are looking at the effects of hitting someone with your car. But drinking and driving is an entirely different issue. I have actually seen peple drink and drive, and nobody was hurt. Noone was effected by that.



How come I am not allowed to randomly mail poison gas around? Maybe I will feel like doing that one day. You are using the ame logic that Bart Simpson used in an episode where he says "I am going to swing my arms like this when I walk and if you don't get out of the way then it will be your fault for getting hit" Would you feel the same if a drunk driver killed a friend or family member?

Yes. Obviously, I don't want my family killed, but if they were, I wouldn't want to force regular people, who didn't hurt anyone, to pay a price for that, by calling them criminals.

I have driven with a few beers in me before, but I will NEVER do it again. I have seen what happens and no one had the right to endanger people like that. If it means that you have to lose a freedom for it then good. I don't really care.

Never has there been an accident that didn't have any connections to alcohol? Driving is taking that same risk. With, or without, alcohol.

Bart was in Lisas room. He was clearly at fault. :D

Canada
02-13-2008, 12:13 PM
Never has there been an accident that didn't have any connections to alcohol? Driving is taking that same risk. With, or without, alcohol.

Bart was in Lisas room. He was clearly at fault. :D

No it is not. I am a much better driver sober than I am with 25 beers in me. That is a fact.

chief31
02-13-2008, 12:15 PM
No it is not. I am a much better driver sober than I am with 25 beers in me. That is a fact.

I know that that people die from alcohol-free accidents. I have read about it.

Canada
02-13-2008, 12:16 PM
I know that that people die from alcohol-free accidents. I have read about it.

I know more of the die in alcohol related accidents. I am usually the guy they call.

chief31
02-13-2008, 12:20 PM
I know more of the die in alcohol related accidents. I am usually the guy they call.

You are taking the risk of killing someone when you are driving sober? Are you sure about that?:D

Canada
02-13-2008, 12:23 PM
You are taking the risk of killing someone when you are driving sober? Are you sure about that?:D

But you are increasing that risk by drinking an driving. Would you have a problem if I spent my day driving up and down your street as fast as I can blindfolded. Just because I felt like it?

chief31
02-13-2008, 12:27 PM
But you are increasing that risk by drinking an driving. Would you have a problem if I spent my day driving up and down your street as fast as I can blindfolded. Just because I felt like it?

Well, it wouldn't last long. And I may not like it, but then I don't like liver. (Yuck!!!) However, if you eat it, that doesn't bother me.

The one thing that leads away from this argument, is that most roads/interstates are owned by the public. But I dislike calling somone a criminal, if they didn't hurt anyone, their property, or steal from someone.

Canada
02-13-2008, 12:36 PM
Well, it wouldn't last long. And I may not like it, but then I don't like liver. (Yuck!!!) However, if you eat it, that doesn't bother me.

The one thing that leads away from this argument, is that most roads/interstates are owned by the public. But I dislike calling somone a criminal, if they didn't hurt anyone, their property, or steal from someone.

Do you think attempted murder shouldn't be a crime cause no one actually got killed? My eating liver does not affect you in anyway. Smoking affects others, drinking and driving affect others. I understand that you think people should be able to do whatever they want with no regard for how it affects others. You seem to think that fresh air, safety and to not fear for mine and my familys life are not rights. I think they are. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree but the fact is, can't smoke in bars and u can't drink and drive. Majority rules! :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
02-13-2008, 12:59 PM
Do you think attempted murder shouldn't be a crime cause no one actually got killed? My eating liver does not affect you in anyway. Smoking affects others, drinking and driving affect others. I understand that you think people should be able to do whatever they want with no regard for how it affects others.

Again, drinking and driving does not effect you. Hitting you with my car does.

Smoking is about rather or not the store-owner should have the right to allow it in his business.

I have said it repeatedly, that as long as I am not hurting, stealing, or damaging anyones property, then who gets to complain?

You seem to think that fresh air, safety and to not fear for mine and my familys life are not rights. I think they are. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree but the fact is, can't smoke in bars and u can't drink and drive. Majority rules! :bananen_smilies046:

If it is your right to not fear for your life, then it is everyones right. I happen to know people that feel that driving cars in unsafe. Some people actually fear a jet crashing into their home.

So, by that thinking, noone should be allowed to do anything. Or should we all bow down to what the majority says is safe enough?

This country was founded with the grounds of no majority being able to make laws that infringe on civil rights.

We can not cater to some peoples' "right" to feel safe, without trampling on anothers' actual rights.

The fact is that you do have the right to feel safe.But not to remove others' freedoms when you choose not to feel the way that you want to.

The way you feel is all obout things in your own head.

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:02 PM
If it is your right to not fear for your life, then it is everyones right. I happen to know people that feel that driving cars in unsafe. Some people actually fear a jet crashing into their home.

So, by that thinking, noone should be allowed to do anything. Or should we all bow down to what the majority says is safe enough?

This country was founded with the grounds of no majority being able to make laws that infringe on civil rights.

We can not cater to some peoples' "right" to feel safe, without trampling on anothers' actual rights.

The fact is that you do have the right to feel safe.But not to remove others' freedoms when you choose not to feel the way that you want to.

The way you feel is all obout things in your own head.

Absolutely we should.

Is a democracy not a majority rules. Leaders are elected and make the laws. The is excactly how it works.

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:07 PM
Absolutely we should.

Is a democracy not a majority rules. Leaders are elected and make the laws. The is excactly how it works.

Well then, as long as we agree to quit using the terms freedom and liberty and such....

But I still have a problem with convicting someone of a crime when they did nothing to nobody.

m0ef0e
02-13-2008, 01:17 PM
Drinking and driving is BAD. Period. You can't sugar-coat that at all. Kids and families get hurt and die because somebody can't realize when they are too drunk to even walk (much less drive) and they can't keep their car on their side of the road.

It's stupid and an unneccesary risk. Some people roll the dice successfully each and every day. However, eventually they will be too confident in their ability to pick the right road of the two in front of them and their squinting eye will lead them astray. When that happens, it's all bad. I know. It's happened to me and, more recently, to one of my good friends.

I learned my lesson after the first time. This is his 3rd. Now, after he will have to spend months recovering, he will have to spend years in jail because there were serious injuries to everybody involved. I like the guy and don't want to see him go to jail but he needs to learn that you just can't do that and if he needs to learn the hard way, then so be it.

hermhater
02-13-2008, 01:22 PM
Sit at home and drink.

Smoking is bad, don't do it.

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:23 PM
Drinking and driving is BAD. Period. You can't sugar-coat that at all. Kids and families get hurt and die because somebody can't realize when they are too drunk to even walk (much less drive) and they can't keep their car on their side of the road.

It's stupid and an unneccesary risk. Some people roll the dice successfully each and every day. However, eventually they will be too confident in their ability to pick the right road of the two in front of them and their squinting eye will lead them astray. When that happens, it's all bad. I know. It's happened to me and, more recently, to one of my good friends.

I learned my lesson after the first time. This is his 3rd. Now, after he will have to spend months recovering, he will have to spend years in jail because there were serious injuries to everybody involved. I like the guy and don't want to see him go to jail but he needs to learn that you just can't do that and if he needs to learn the hard way, then so be it.

Hurting people is bad. Not hurting people isn't.

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:24 PM
Hurting people is bad. Not hurting people isn't.

But the blatant disregard for hurting people is.

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:28 PM
But the blatant disregard for hurting people is.


Now you are alluding to intent. And how many DUIs actually intend to hurt someone while driving? Not to mention that guessing at peoples intent is tricky, and should not be used to judge people.

And again, some people get hurt in accidents that don't involve any alcohol. So everyone is putting your life at risk every time they drive...when you decide to drive too.

Those *******s!!!:D They should be scarred with a criminal record!

m0ef0e
02-13-2008, 01:33 PM
Hurting people is bad. Not hurting people isn't.

I'm not saying that having a beer or two renders people unable to drive. Unfortunately, people don't have the responsibility to realize when they are drunk enough to be a danger on the roads. So, strict laws and restrictions have to be put in place to establish guidelines and general boundaries of what is or isn't an accptable risk. There is nothing wrong with that. Is it perfect? Nothing is. Does everybody need said laws and guidelines in order to make the responsible and right decision? No. However, there are enough sheeple out there that need somebody else to think for them that make it neccessary. Besides, it is better to err on the side of caution anyway.

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not saying that having a beer or two renders people unable to drive. Unfortunately, people don't have the responsibility to realize when they are drunk enough to be a danger on the roads. So, strict laws and restrictions have to be put in place to establish guidelines and general boundaries of what is or isn't an accptable risk. There is nothing wrong with that. Is it perfect? Nothing is. Does everybody need said laws and guidelines in order to make the responsible and right decision? No. However, there are enough sheeple out there that need somebody else to think for them that make it neccessary. Besides, it is better to err on the side of caution anyway.

I can't agree that punishing the innocent is the right way to do anything.

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:43 PM
Now you are alluding to intent. And how many DUIs actually intend to hurt someone while driving? Not to mention that guessing at peoples intent is tricky, and should not be used to judge people.

And again, some people get hurt in accidents that don't involve any alcohol. So everyone is putting your life at risk every time they drive...when you decide to drive too.

Those *******s!!!:D They should be scarred with a criminal record!

That is a risk that every person decided they were willing to take when they went out and got their drivers license. Driving on those same roads where I expect people to be in sober care and control of their vehicle. When you drink and drive you elevate the risk of injuring me or someone else on the road. If you are saying that the punishment is too severe for those who do not hurt anyone, I say that the punishment for those who do is too light. If you want to argue it that way, then those who do kill someone should serve life in prison. If you hit and kill my family, then I should show up at your house and take yours away.

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:44 PM
I can't agree that punishing the innocent is the right way to do anything.

What innoncence are you referring to? Drinking and driving is illegal. If you do it, you are not innocent.

hermhater
02-13-2008, 01:44 PM
Why don't we just rename this thread: "Let's make HH feel as guilty as possible."

Hoow about that?

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:45 PM
Why don't we just rename this thread: "Let's make HH feel as guilty as possible."

Hoow about that?

Its a mistake a lot of people have made. Myself included, I just didn't get caught and have since smartened up.

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:46 PM
That is a risk that every person decided they were willing to take when they went out and got their drivers license. Driving on those same roads where I expect people to be in sober care and control of their vehicle. When you drink and drive you elevate the risk of injuring me or someone else on the road. If you are saying that the punishment is too severe for those who do not hurt anyone, I say that the punishment for those who do is too light. If you want to argue it that way, then those who do kill someone should serve life in prison. If you hit and kill my family, then I should show up at your house and take yours away.

I haven't ever defended killers. I defend the innocent here. Should it be illegal to kill someone with your car, while driving drunk?

Well, duh. But what bothers me is punishing the innocent. Period.

m0ef0e
02-13-2008, 01:47 PM
Now you are alluding to intent. And how many DUIs actually intend to hurt someone while driving? Not to mention that guessing at peoples intent is tricky, and should not be used to judge people.

And again, some people get hurt in accidents that don't involve any alcohol. So everyone is putting your life at risk every time they drive...when you decide to drive too.

Those *******s!!!:D They should be scarred with a criminal record!

Again, it all comes down to acceptable risk. If drivers are alert, they are less likely to cause an accident than if they are nodding off with one eye closed while seeing double and swerving all over the road.

Hurting people is not their intent but neither are they concerned with the safety of themselves or others. This is the disregard that Canada was referring to and it is just as bad as malicious intent.

Some of the greatest mistakes have been made via ignorance or blatant disregard. It is said that the road to hell is paved with the best intentions. Ultimately, the end result is what truly matters and odds and stats have to be measured in order to determine appropriate and acceptable action in order to achieve the best possible end result.

Just because somebody doesn't 'intend' to deliberately hurt somebody by cooking or selling meth doesn't justify it by any means.

You can die by choking when you eat but if you stop eating, you will definately die. The argument that 'everybody takes a chance when they drive sober' is weak at best. JMHO

Canada
02-13-2008, 01:49 PM
On that note I am off to bed kiddies!! Have a good day and post lots so I have something to do at work tonite!! I mean besides actually working. Which I do. Very hard. Anyways...post away!! :)

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:49 PM
Its a mistake a lot of people have made. Myself included, I just didn't get caught and have since smartened up.

One more thing, I don't think that drinking and driving is a good idea. But that it is a worse idea to punish someone for the attrocities of someone else.

If you lost someone from an alcohol-related accident, then I feel terrible for you. But that doesn't give you the right to blame people who did not do that to you.

m0ef0e
02-13-2008, 01:49 PM
On that note I am off to bed kiddies!! Have a good day and post lots so I have something to do at work tonite!! I mean besides actually working. Which I do. Very hard. Anyways...post away!! :)

Later, man.

hermhater
02-13-2008, 01:53 PM
Nite!

:bananen_smilies046:

chief31
02-13-2008, 01:56 PM
Again, it all comes down to acceptable risk. If drivers are alert, they are less likely to cause an accident than if they are nodding off with one eye closed while seeing double and swerving all over the road.

Hurting people is not their intent but neither are they concerned with the safety of themselves or others. This is the disregard that Canada was referring to and it is just as bad as malicious intent.

Of course it isn't. A guy had a 3000 lbs. deisel engine dropped on him at work a couple of years ago, where I work. But it was an accident.

Another guy was murdered by his wife. Maybe it is just me, but I see the two responsible killers a bit differently.

Some of the greatest mistakes have been made via ignorance or blatant disregard.

So have some of the greatest inventions of all time.

It is said that the road to hell is paved with the best intentions. Ultimately, the end result is what truly matters and odds and stats have to be measured in order to determine appropriate and acceptable action in order to achieve the best possible end result.

Just because somebody doesn't 'intend' to deliberately hurt somebody by cooking or selling meth doesn't justify it by any means.

You can die by choking when you eat but if you stop eating, you will definately die. The argument that 'everybody takes a chance when they drive sober' is weak at best. JMHO

You're weak. :lol: J/K.

Life includes risk. We have to accept that. But we are not allowed to convict the innocent. (Although we do it anyway)

DrunkHillbilly
02-13-2008, 02:42 PM
Unpopular as it may be, I do. Because there is a difference between drinking and driving, and hitting somone with your car.

Obviously, hitting somone with your car should be illegal. But if I don't hit you with my car, then how exactly am I effecting you? Or anyone else?
Unpopular???? That is an understatement!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are affecting me because your state of mind in altered which affects your ability to make sound decisions which affects my safety!!! All proven facts!

chief31
02-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Unpopular???? That is an understatement!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are affecting me because your state of mind in altered which affects your ability to make sound decisions which affects my safety!!! All proven facts!

All proven facts? Stop that!

Tell me how you were so adversely effected by my uncle having driven home from the bar three nights ago. Please, even though the trauma might be excruciating, share with us the absorbanent amount of trauma that has befallen your life because of that.

As far as ones ability to make sound decisions? Who's to say that each driver is capable of making sound decisions without alcohol? I know alot of people who are easily worse drivers than the vast majority of DUI cases.

I just think that we are being over protective of ourselves, by sacrificing innocent people to help make us feel safer.

DrunkHillbilly
02-13-2008, 04:38 PM
All proven facts? Stop that!

Tell me how you were so adversely effected by my uncle having driven home from the bar three nights ago. Please, even though the trauma might be excruciating, share with us the absorbanent amount of trauma that has befallen your life because of that.

As far as ones ability to make sound decisions? Who's to say that each driver is capable of making sound decisions without alcohol? I know alot of people who are easily worse drivers than the vast majority of DUI cases.

I just think that we are being over protective of ourselves, by sacrificing innocent people to help make us feel safer.
I'm speaking in general terms. Not about your uncle. However, the facts that HAVE been proven by Dr's and law inforcement prove that people who have an absorbanent amount of alcohol in there system are more apt to make bad decisions than people that don't. This means in or out of a vehicle! Why do some medicines say don't operate machinery? Because of the alcohol in them! I know your going to say for protection of the company right? Partly true but they have done testing obviously that has proven in some instances it affects your ability in some way or another. Right? Nobody is disputing the fact that some people are bad drivers without alcohol but for you to defend it is assinine! Would you go to the bar and get drunk and then go home and pick up your kids to drive to dinner? I hope your answer is no!!! If it is no, then why? I thought it was perfectly ok to drive while drunk because your not affecting anyone. Your view is that it is not ok to HIT someone or something while driving drunk. Again, unpopular????? Understatement!!!!!

Chiefster
02-13-2008, 04:55 PM
Spirited discussion; I love it!

chief31
02-13-2008, 05:46 PM
One more thing, I don't think that drinking and driving is a good idea. But that it is a worse idea to punish someone for the attrocities of someone else.

If you lost someone from an alcohol-related accident, then I feel terrible for you. But that doesn't give you the right to blame people who did not do that to you.




The one thing that leads away from this argument, is that most roads/interstates are owned by the public. But I dislike calling somone a criminal, if they didn't hurt anyone, their property, or steal from someone.


I'm speaking in general terms.

That is where I see a problem. My uncle gets lumped-in with the people who have harmed people, and is punished for their mistakes.

Not about your uncle. However, the facts that HAVE been proven by Dr's and law inforcement prove that people who have an absorbanent amount of alcohol in there system are more apt to make bad decisions than people that don't.

Again, generalizations. My uncle says he is a better driver with a couple of drinks in his system. Without those tests being run on that individual, we are assuming that he is raising risk.

This means in or out of a vehicle! Why do some medicines say don't operate machinery? Because of the alcohol in them!

Not the tiny percentage of alcohol, but often the other halucinagenic (sp?) elements. Although I will grant this argument, as obviously some meds do that strictly for the alcohol.(pointless as it is.)

I know your going to say for protection of the company right? Partly true but they have done testing obviously that has proven in some instances it affects your ability in some way or another. Right? Nobody is disputing the fact that some people are bad drivers without alcohol but for you to defend it is assinine!

This is why people get into name-calling matches with you. It's fine with me. But that is why.

Would you go to the bar and get drunk and then go home and pick up your kids to drive to dinner?

Dinner before drinks. :D

I hope your answer is no!!! If it is no, then why? I thought it was perfectly ok to drive while drunk because your not affecting anyone.

Appearently, you decided to read the parts of my posts that work for your argument, and ignore others. (See above^.)

Your view is that it is not ok to HIT someone or something while driving drunk. Again, unpopular????? Understatement!!!!!

But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people are being called criminals for doing something that hurts noone.

That is the only place that I have a problem here. Some people want to kill their wives, but as long as they don't, then they aren't criminals. Maybe we should start imprisoning everyone who thinks about killing someone, or mentions it, so as to make sure that it never happens.

Chiefster
02-13-2008, 05:49 PM
But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people are being called criminals for doing something that hurts noone.

That is the only place that I have a problem here. Some people want to kill their wives, but as long as they don't, then they aren't criminals. Maybe we should start imprisoning everyone who thinks about killing someone, or mentions it, so as to make sure that it never happens.


We're not for off here, I have an in-law who was institutionalized for just that very thing.

chief31
02-13-2008, 05:54 PM
We're not for off here, I have an in-law who was institutionalized for just that very thing.


You are right. That is exactly the road that we are headed down. DUI, seatbelts, marijuana, mandatory car insurance... (Just off the top of my head) People are being convicted, without any victims.

I have already stated that driving while intoxicated is a poor decision, and that I don't fully support the act, morally, legally, if there is no victim, then there was no real crime.

Chiefster
02-13-2008, 06:04 PM
You are right. That is exactly the road that we are headed down. DUI, seatbelts, marijuana, mandatory car insurance... (Just off the top of my head) People are being convicted, without any victims.

I have already stated that driving while intoxicated is a poor decision, and that I don't fully support the act, morally, legally, if there is no victim, then there was no real crime.

I agree that people are going to do it regardless of the laws that are currently on the books, but I also support the DUI laws that we have. Just like we will always have bad sober drivers, but that doesn't mean that we should do away with traffic laws.

DrunkHillbilly
02-13-2008, 06:52 PM
I cannot believe you are arguing this point 31!!!

#1. You uncle and every other person that drives while intoxicated should be lumped together! IMO.

#2. Tell me again why other people call me names? Is it because I said your view of wanting to allow drinking and driving was assinine? Didn't name call, just expressed absolute disagreeance on your opinion!

#3. I read your entire post which is talking laws that you think aren't worthy of being laws. Wherein, the comment of drinking and driving was touched on. This is what I commented on.

The fact that you don't think drinking and driving should be against the law is absolutley astonishing to me! The fact that you don't think the potential for someone to harm others while drinking and driving is astonishing!

One last question for you. Do you smoke around your children? Pregnant wife, girlfriend, sister ect.?

Canada
02-13-2008, 07:07 PM
But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people are being called criminals for doing something that hurts noone.

That is the only place that I have a problem here. Some people want to kill their wives, but as long as they don't, then they aren't criminals. Maybe we should start imprisoning everyone who thinks about killing someone, or mentions it, so as to make sure that it never happens.

What about attempted murder...attempted rape? No one actually got raped or killed so it shouldn't be a crime?

DrunkHillbilly
02-13-2008, 07:15 PM
What about attempted murder...attempted rape? No one actually got raped or killed so it shouldn't be a crime?
It was only an attempt!!! No crime in trying!!:sign0098:

I can hear it now... I'm sorry officer, I didn't mean to run that guy over. I was only attempting to get home while drunker than hell.

Another point 31, law inforcement also has a duty to prevent YOU from harming YOURSELF as well!!!! Not just other people.

Canada
02-14-2008, 01:58 AM
What about attempted murder...attempted rape? No one actually got raped or killed so it shouldn't be a crime?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x78/gtwins1990/canada.jpg

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 02:28 AM
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/


Yeah but, also, without Chiefs football. :p

chief31
02-14-2008, 03:37 AM
I agree that people are going to do it regardless of the laws that are currently on the books, but I also support the DUI laws that we have. Just like we will always have bad sober drivers, but that doesn't mean that we should do away with traffic laws.

I have stated that I think driving while intoxicated is a bad decision. But I feel that americans should be allowed to make some bad decisions, right up until someone is hurt by it.


I cannot believe you are arguing this point 31!!!

There's been nothing else to argue about lately. :D

#1. You uncle and every other person that drives while intoxicated should be lumped together! IMO.

So killers and non-killers the same? Get 'em all!!! (By the way, I don't think any of my uncles actually drink and drive, just making an example.)

#2. Tell me again why other people call me names? Is it because I said your view of wanting to allow drinking and driving was assinine? Didn't name call, just expressed absolute disagreeance on your opinion!

Use of the word assinine implies , to some, that the subject is an ***. Like I said, I don't have a problem with that, but subtle little words like that tend to irk folks, and they feel that you have started the name-calling game.

Sort of like the use of the word ignorant. While I used it to describe the intended user of a phrase, and not meaning insult with that word, people don't like to have that word aimed anywhere near them.

#3. I read your entire post which is talking laws that you think aren't worthy of being laws. Wherein, the comment of drinking and driving was touched on. This is what I commented on.

But you then act like I am willing to do those things myself, by asking, after I have already stated that I wouldn't and don't.

The fact that you don't think drinking and driving should be against the law is absolutley astonishing to me! The fact that you don't think the potential for someone to harm others while drinking and driving is astonishing!

Potential isn't actuallity. I suppose my problem with the law, since I have stated that because the roads are property of the public, is the ridiculous penalty for drinking and driving, when noone was adversely effected by it.

One last question for you. Do you smoke around your children? Pregnant wife, girlfriend, sister ect.?

Yes. My children have even been exposed to campfires pretty frequently. Imagine the horror, but each of my four healthy children were born to mothers who didn't quit smoking during pregnancy!!!!! OMG!!!!!


What about attempted murder...attempted rape? No one actually got raped or killed so it shouldn't be a crime?

I assume that an attempted rape would include some degree of abuse and/or imprisonment. Also, if a clear intent can be shown, (shooting a gun in someones direction shows a pretty clear intent<unless you are the vice-president>) then obviously, that is a different scenario altogether.


It was only an attempt!!! No crime in trying!!:sign0098:

I can hear it now... I'm sorry officer, I didn't mean to run that guy over. I was only attempting to get home while drunker than hell.



Another point 31, law inforcement also has a duty to prevent YOU from harming YOURSELF as well!!!! Not just other people.

That is the absolute sickest thing that I have ever heard. The last thing that any branch of government should be protecting me from is me.

This country has no right to proclaim itself as free, when they are protecting their citizens from themselves.

hermhater
02-14-2008, 03:48 AM
You're just begging me to argue in this thread aren't you chief31?

I think that we need to put a breathalyzer on every car sold in America, Standard Option.

That would have saved me a headache, and about $1600.

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 03:53 AM
I have stated that I think driving while intoxicated is a bad decision. But I feel that americans should be allowed to make some bad decisions, right up until someone is hurt by it...


Yeah, but ya know where drinking and driving is concerned, if it's my wife, anyone of my two boys or all three that is hurt or killed because of a bad decision that someone else was allowed to make then I fear that it might well be me making the next bad decision.












Nite Crowd!

hermhater
02-14-2008, 04:01 AM
Yeah, but ya know where drinking and driving is concerned, if it's my wife, anyone of my two boys or all three that is hurt or killed because of a bad decision that someone else was allowed to make then I fear that it might well be me making the next bad decision.












Nite Crowd!

You don't get to go to bed!

You are a MOD!

There can be only ONE!

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/01/35.jpg


:lol:

chief31
02-14-2008, 05:10 AM
You're just begging me to argue in this thread aren't you chief31?

I think that we need to put a breathalyzer on every car sold in America, Standard Option.

That would have saved me a headache, and about $1600.

Any more civil rights you'd like to take away from the rest of the nation to save yourself a buck? :D


Yeah, but ya know where drinking and driving is concerned, if it's my wife, anyone of my two boys or all three that is hurt or killed because of a bad decision that someone else was allowed to make then I fear that it might well be me making the next bad decision.


Nite Crowd!

That is still an option. I think that americans have been being coddled by the system. Tragedy happens, and needs to happen, to keep us in the real world. That way, when a "9-11" happens, we aren't all sent into shock and become scared of our own shadows.

Then the government wouldn't be able to scare us into thinking that we need them to monitor our every move.

Then we wouldn't be having one group of politicians telling us that we are voting for terrorism if we don't vote for them. (Yeah right. They'd do that anyway.)

I am one who would not agree to impose the "Patriot Act" before 9-11, even if I knew that it would prevent the catastrophe from ever happening.

I also don't think that America should be using waterboarding to save the lives of americans. Since we put people to death for doing it to our people years ago, then we should be willing to put our own to death for the same actions.

hermhater
02-14-2008, 05:17 AM
Any more civil rights you'd like to take away from the rest of the nation to save yourself a buck? :D

It would cost me much more to have had a breathaltyzer option in those days.



That is still an option. I think that americans have been being coddled by the system. Tragedy happens, and needs to happen, to keep us in the real world. That way, when a "9-11" happens, we aren't all sent into shock and become scared of our own shadows.

Then the government wouldn't be able to scare us into thinking that we need them to monitor our every move.

Then we wouldn't be having one group of politicians telling us that we are voting for terrorism if we don't vote for them. (Yeah right. They'd do that anyway.)

I am one who would not agree to impose the "Patriot Act" before 9-11, even if I knew that it would prevent the catastrophe from ever happening.

I also don't think that America should be using waterboarding to save the lives of americans. Since we put people to death for doing it to our people years ago, then we should be willing to put our own to death for the same actions.

I think what you are trying to say is: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

I agree.

:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 08:25 AM
Any more civil rights you'd like to take away from the rest of the nation to save yourself a buck? :D



That is still an option. I think that americans have been being coddled by the system. Tragedy happens, and needs to happen, to keep us in the real world. That way, when a "9-11" happens, we aren't all sent into shock and become scared of our own shadows.

Then the government wouldn't be able to scare us into thinking that we need them to monitor our every move.

Then we wouldn't be having one group of politicians telling us that we are voting for terrorism if we don't vote for them. (Yeah right. They'd do that anyway.)

I am one who would not agree to impose the "Patriot Act" before 9-11, even if I knew that it would prevent the catastrophe from ever happening.

I also don't think that America should be using waterboarding to save the lives of americans. Since we put people to death for doing it to our people years ago, then we should be willing to put our own to death for the same actions.

On this we are going to have to agree to disagree; not sure how we went from preventative traffic laws to terrorism but I guess to each their own.

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
02-14-2008, 08:36 AM
I have stated that I think driving while intoxicated is a bad decision. But I feel that americans should be allowed to make some bad decisions, right up until someone is hurt by it.

But then once I get hurt by it...tough sh!t?

You said earlier that shooting guns around shows a pretty clear intent to hurt someone. If you ask me driving while intoxicated shows that exact same intent. Maybe my bullet won't hit someone this time. Maybe my truck won't run someone over this time. Personally I put peoples lives before your right to make absolutely idiotic decisions. (not calling you an idiot, but people who drink and drive are)

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 09:09 AM
...Cleaned up your reply a bit. :)

chief31
02-14-2008, 09:51 AM
But then once I get hurt by it...tough sh!t?

You said earlier that shooting guns around shows a pretty clear intent to hurt someone. If you ask me driving while intoxicated shows that exact same intent. Maybe my bullet won't hit someone this time. Maybe my truck won't run someone over this time. Personally I put peoples lives before your right to make absolutely idiotic decisions. (not calling you an idiot, but people who drink and drive are)

Come on. I have said over and over that when someone does something that hurts another, then they should be held accountable.

I also put human life above personal freedom. That is why I believe in punishing those who hurt others.

But I do not put peoples personal feelings of safety, nor their paranoia above the civil liberties of all americans.

Canada
02-14-2008, 10:37 AM
I had something brilliant for this argument that I thought up on my drive home and now I forget what it was!! There was a terrible accident in my garage and I have 56 frozen bottles of Bud!! I'm not happy!! :sign0080::sign0080::sign0080::sign0080::sign0080:

Canada
02-14-2008, 12:40 PM
I remember....

If you are against taking away the freedom to do whatever you want, how can you be a moderator and tell me what I can and can not put on the internet? Isn't that hypocritical? :D

I think we have beaten this dead horse enough!! What would you like to discuss next?

DrunkHillbilly
02-14-2008, 12:43 PM
I remember....

If you are against taking away the freedom to do whatever you want, how can you be a moderator and tell me what I can and can not put on the internet? Isn't that hypocritical? :D

I think we have beaten this dead horse enough!! What would you like to discuss next?
Something that has to do with the freedoms of the country 31 would like to live in since he hates this one so much!!

Canada
02-14-2008, 01:03 PM
Canada isn't too far away!! :)

chief31
02-14-2008, 01:10 PM
I remember....

If you are against taking away the freedom to do whatever you want, how can you be a moderator and tell me what I can and can not put on the internet? Isn't that hypocritical? :D

I think we have beaten this dead horse enough!! What would you like to discuss next?

Lol. This site is someones personal property. The owners have asked me to help enforce the rules that they have set for their own property.




Canada isn't too far away!! :)

But it is damn cold!!!!! :D

chief31
02-14-2008, 01:13 PM
Something that has to do with the freedoms of the country 31 would like to live in since he hates this one so much!!

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/73.jpg

Canada
02-14-2008, 01:23 PM
But it is damn cold!!!!! :D

Maybe you could just get a summer home here!! :) :bananen_smilies046:

Nite crowd...or day....whatever!!

chief31
02-14-2008, 01:27 PM
I think we have beaten this dead horse enough!! What would you like to discuss next?

How about police corruption? :D

hermhater
02-14-2008, 01:43 PM
How about police corruption? :D

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/74.jpg

:sign0098:

Canada
02-14-2008, 01:44 PM
How about police corruption? :D

I am all for it!! you?

Ok now, seriously I am going to bed!! :D

hermhater
02-14-2008, 02:02 PM
I am all for it!! you?

Ok now, seriously I am going to bed!! :D:beer:

Are you a cop?

hermhater
02-14-2008, 02:14 PM
How about police corruption? :D

YouTube - balimore cops V.S. skateboarder

:mob:

chief31
02-14-2008, 02:59 PM
YouTube - balimore cops V.S. skateboarder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc)

:mob:

Alot of people are going to want this guy fired. I couldn't care less about that. Just so long as he gets charged with a felony, Aggrevated assault. He slammed that kids head off of the appearent concrete surface.

chief31
02-14-2008, 03:03 PM
In fact, I think I hear a death threat in there too.

hermhater
02-14-2008, 03:09 PM
Alot of people are going to want this guy fired. I couldn't care less about that. Just so long as he gets charged with a felony, Aggrevated assault. He slammed that kids head off of the appearent concrete surface.


The cop got put on PAID leave.

"Here's a vacation for busting up that 14 year old! Good job!"

:mob:

DrunkHillbilly
02-14-2008, 03:25 PM
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/02/73.jpg
Any of you homo's touch my stuff and I'll kill ya!!!

I'm fine! I just think it's funny to listen to people ***** and moan about things that go on in this country and try to do nothing about it or find and suggest solutions to the proper authorities.

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 03:47 PM
Any of you homo's touch my **** and I'll kill ya!!!

I'm fine! I just think it's funny to listen to people ***** and moan about things that go on in this country and try to do nothing about it or find and suggest solutions to the proper authorities.


Agreed.

Chiefster
02-14-2008, 03:54 PM
I have to, as a security guard at the local hospital, deal with skate boarders all the time, and what those videos don't show are the punks who, regardless of how nice you try to be, are disrespectfully non-compliant with the initial request. What also isn't mentioned in the videos is that should those kids get hurt while riding their skate boards on private property then the owner of said property is then held liable. There are a lot that I personally have experienced that are conveniently omitted from that slanted video.

chief31
02-14-2008, 04:40 PM
I have to, as a security guard at the local hospital, deal with skate boarders all the time, and what those videos don't show are the punks who, regardless of how nice you try to be, are disrespectfully non-compliant with the initial request. What also isn't mentioned in the videos is that should those kids get hurt while riding their skate boards on private property then the owner of said property is then held liable. There are a lot that I personally have experienced that are conveniently omitted from that slanted video.

Unless that kid killed someone, then there is nothing that could possibly warrant that type of abuse of power.

The problem is that we hand over a gun, nightstick, tazer, and badge to some guy, and then trust him so much that we accept his word is better than anyone elses.

The fact that they make arrests attests to the fact that regular people, which police are, tend to lie, cheat, steal, and abuse others, is not only proof that the people need to be policed, but the people that we have given all of that power to need to be policed too.

As for the comments about not doing anything about what one feels is injustice...DH...


Mighty bold of you to make random assumptions about people isn't it?

Just so you will know, I have written to Governor Blagojevich on over twenty occaisions. I will now share with you one of my favorite ideas that have been forwarded to him...

I propose that the state of Illinois, (And all other states) start a television channel with live coverage of local police activities.

The channel can be distributed through existing cable networks, for a fee.

Many citizens will be more than happy to pay for the channel, and will even do half of the job of policing the police for free.

Grant easy access to complaint forms, for the viewing audience to document possible civil rights violations by officers.

Then use the funds that are recieved from the paying customers to finance a legal team that would review and pursue those violations that are deemed worthy of action.

And there may even be some left-over funds to offer to the police officers as a raise in pay.

That's just a rough draft of the actual letter, but I still need a nap, and don't have time for dragging this out. :D

DrunkHillbilly
02-14-2008, 05:24 PM
Ahhh, I see. A channel that would give every law hater in the world a chance to call in frivilous complaints every 5 minutes about something they didn't approve of huh!! I guess I'll have to take your word on your letters! Can't even imagine the BS this would stir up!!! You call this a solution to a problem we have in the US? I guess I could name about 500,000 issues that were more important for the good of the country!! Good for you! Now, how about talking about some of the positive things about our country instead of the negative. Negativity towards an atheletic team is one thing but to degrade the best country in the world and the one you make a living in and raise your family in I might add, is another. All I can say is that if your not happy with the USA, I hear Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, North Africa, Peru and even Mexico are always looking for upstanding citizens to help turn their countries around.

Canada
02-14-2008, 08:51 PM
Ahhh, I see. A channel that would give every law hater in the world a chance to call in frivilous complaints every 5 minutes about something they didn't approve of huh!! I guess I'll have to take your word on your letters! Can't even imagine the BS this would stir up!!! You call this a solution to a problem we have in the US? I guess I could name about 500,000 issues that were more important for the good of the country!! Good for you! Now, how about talking about some of the positive things about our country instead of the negative. Negativity towards an atheletic team is one thing but to degrade the best country in the world and the one you make a living in and raise your family in I might add, is another. All I can say is that if your not happy with the USA, I hear Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, North Africa, Peru and even Mexico are always looking for upstanding citizens to help turn their countries around.

He didn't say anything bad about Canada!! :D

Canada
02-14-2008, 11:52 PM
I think that most of the general public underestimate what police have to endure on a daily basis. You get the joy of dealing with the dregs of society. No one ever calls the police because things are good. They have a level of stress that is unequalled in most jobs. My advice for people is this. If you don't want to get tossed around by a cop. Shut the F**k up and do what they say. When you start mouthing off and acting like an idiot, you get treated accordingly. I have a very similar response to people when I am at work. I am nice until I have a reason not to. If you get knocked around cause you don't know when to be quiet, then so be it.

hermhater
02-15-2008, 02:19 AM
I think that most of the general public underestimate what police have to endure on a daily basis. You get the joy of dealing with the dregs of society. No one ever calls the police because things are good. They have a level of stress that is unequalled in most jobs. My advice for people is this. If you don't want to get tossed around by a cop. Shut the F**k up and do what they say. When you start mouthing off and acting like an idiot, you get treated accordingly. I have a very similar response to people when I am at work. I am nice until I have a reason not to. If you get knocked around cause you don't know when to be quiet, then so be it.


So you choke 14 year old kids, and them throw them to the cement and then take their skateboards too?

:lol:

tammietailgator
02-15-2008, 02:23 AM
I think that most of the general public underestimate what police have to endure on a daily basis. You get the joy of dealing with the dregs of society. No one ever calls the police because things are good. They have a level of stress that is unequalled in most jobs. My advice for people is this. If you don't want to get tossed around by a cop. Shut the F**k up and do what they say. When you start mouthing off and acting like an idiot, you get treated accordingly. I have a very similar response to people when I am at work. I am nice until I have a reason not to. If you get knocked around cause you don't know when to be quiet, then so be it.
I agree that this is true with some cops, but I also believe that there is a good number of them that were bullied as kids and grow up to take it out on others. :)
:lol:

hermhater
02-15-2008, 02:24 AM
I agree that this is true with some cops, but I also believe that there is a good number of them that were bullied as kids and grow up to take it out on others. :)
:lol:

Agreed!

I've met most of them too!

:11:

tammietailgator
02-15-2008, 02:28 AM
You didn't bully them did you?

hermhater
02-15-2008, 02:29 AM
It was the other way around. I was bullied.

Bullies suck.

tammietailgator
02-15-2008, 02:34 AM
I am afraid that post is going to backfire on you!
:lol:

hermhater
02-15-2008, 02:35 AM
Oh great. More bullying.

:biggrin:

chief31
02-15-2008, 02:47 AM
Ahhh, I see. A channel that would give every law hater in the world a chance to call in frivilous complaints every 5 minutes about something they didn't approve of huh!! I guess I'll have to take your word on your letters! Can't even imagine the BS this would stir up!!! You call this a solution to a problem we have in the US? I guess I could name about 500,000 issues that were more important for the good of the country!! Good for you! Now, how about talking about some of the positive things about our country instead of the negative. Negativity towards an atheletic team is one thing but to degrade the best country in the world and the one you make a living in and raise your family in I might add, is another. All I can say is that if your not happy with the USA, I hear Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, North Africa, Peru and even Mexico are always looking for upstanding citizens to help turn their countries around.

DH, you are an amazing individual. Belly-ache about how people don't submit ideas, then try to belittle people for those ideas. What a true class act.

Besides, I think that giving every law-hater in the world a way to complain is better than giving tham a badge and gun. Who do you think that these police are?

As far as degrading this country, all I have done is point out where things are wrong in my opinion. But, as you have no interest in anyones freedoms, I suppose that isn't allowed in your country.

I think that you will find yourself to be in a small group of people that like which direction the U.S. is headed. Must be nice to live in a perfect world.


I think that most of the general public underestimate what police have to endure on a daily basis. You get the joy of dealing with the dregs of society. No one ever calls the police because things are good. They have a level of stress that is unequalled in most jobs. My advice for people is this. If you don't want to get tossed around by a cop. Shut the F**k up and do what they say. When you start mouthing off and acting like an idiot, you get treated accordingly. I have a very similar response to people when I am at work. I am nice until I have a reason not to. If you get knocked around cause you don't know when to be quiet, then so be it.

I do not underestimate the stress of their job. But I don't think that every citizen should consider themselves to be every policemans personal ***** in their presence.

People have certain rights, and police officers should not be allowed to infringe upon them any more than anyone else.

And no. That doesn't mean that policemen should have no authority. It means that when they do things that are wrong, they need to be held accountable.

We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?

Problem is, noone is watching them, to see if they are doing their jobs right.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

hermhater
02-15-2008, 02:53 AM
DH, you are an amazing individual. Belly-ache about how people don't submit ideas, then try to belittle people for those ideas. What a true class act.

Besides, I think that giving every law-hater in the world a way to complain is better than giving tham a badge and gun. Who do you think that these police are?

As far as degrading this country, all I have done is point out where things are wrong in my opinion. But, as you have no interest in anyones freedoms, I suppose that isn't allowed in your country.

I think that you will find yourself to be in a small group of people that like which direction the U.S. is headed. Must be nice to live in a perfect world.



I do not underestimate the stress of their job. But I don't think that every citizen should consider themselves to be every policemans personal ***** in their presence.

People have certain rights, and police officers should not be allowed to infringe upon them any more than anyone else.

And no. That doesn't mean that policemen should have no authority. It means that when they do things that are wrong, they need to be held accountable.

We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?

Problem is, noone is watching them, to see if they are doing their jobs right.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_gFJJXLv28)

DH is rich so why would he want the status quo to change?

It might benefit those beneath him financially, and that would not profit him one bit.

Canada
02-15-2008, 04:53 AM
[quote=chief31;70110]


I do not underestimate the stress of their job. But I don't think that every citizen should consider themselves to be every policemans personal ***** in their presence.

People have certain rights, and police officers should not be allowed to infringe upon them any more than anyone else.

And no. That doesn't mean that policemen should have no authority. It means that when they do things that are wrong, they need to be held accountable.

We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?

Problem is, noone is watching them, to see if they are doing their jobs right.

quote]

I agree that there are a few bad apples, but I work closely with police every day. The good ones don't ever get the credit, but the bad ones make sure that every single one of them takes the crap. There are bad paramedics out there, shouldn't it be more important to watch them to make sure they do their job right? Police corruption is out there, but there is corruption in every single profession out there. Why focus on the police? What about politicians? Store Clerks? Bankers? As much as there are bad cops out there, the majority of them are the ones putting their lives on the line to protect me (and I have had very real experiences where they bailed my *** outta trouble) and I do not agree with saying that cops are bad. Its a few bad apples

Canada
02-15-2008, 04:54 AM
So you choke 14 year old kids, and them throw them to the cement and then take their skateboards too?

:lol:

Sure...why not? Punk *** kids need an *** whoopin every once in a while!!

hermhater
02-15-2008, 05:00 AM
I agree that there are a few bad apples, but I work closely with police every day. The good ones don't ever get the credit, but the bad ones make sure that every single one of them takes the crap. There are bad paramedics out there, shouldn't it be more important to watch them to make sure they do their job right? Police corruption is out there, but there is corruption in every single profession out there. Why focus on the police? What about politicians? Store Clerks? Bankers? As much as there are bad cops out there, the majority of them are the ones putting their lives on the line to protect me (and I have had very real experiences where they bailed my *** outta trouble) and I do not agree with saying that cops are bad. Its a few bad apples

In this situation cops are given so much power that the old saying "One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch."

Also if you had your own gun the cops wouldn't have had to bail you out of trouble! You could have shot your way out, then god bled on by your victims for Valentines day since it is Chiefs red!

Better than vomit blood!

:bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
02-15-2008, 05:02 AM
Sure...why not? Punk *** kids need an *** whoopin every once in a while!!

So you like to spank your victims as well?

Canada
02-15-2008, 05:04 AM
Also if you had your own gun the cops wouldn't have had to bail you out of trouble! You could have shot your way out, then god bled on by your victims for Valentines day since it is Chiefs red!

Better than vomit blood!

:bananen_smilies046:

Or the guy who was attacking me may have grabbed my gun and I wouldn't be having this conversation with you right now! :bananen_smilies046:

Canada
02-15-2008, 05:05 AM
So you like to spank your victims as well?

Depends on what she looks like! :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
02-15-2008, 07:12 AM
I agree that there are a few bad apples, but I work closely with police every day. The good ones don't ever get the credit, but the bad ones make sure that every single one of them takes the crap. There are bad paramedics out there, shouldn't it be more important to watch them to make sure they do their job right? Police corruption is out there, but there is corruption in every single profession out there. Why focus on the police? What about politicians? Store Clerks? Bankers? As much as there are bad cops out there, the majority of them are the ones putting their lives on the line to protect me (and I have had very real experiences where they bailed my *** outta trouble) and I do not agree with saying that cops are bad. Its a few bad apples[/quote]

Aside from politicians, each of those professions has forms of watch over them.

And I do not agree that the majority do not ever abuse their power. I believe that all of them abuse their authority in one way or another, at some point.

Just because there are other things that need to be addressed in this nation doesn't mean that this situation doesn't need adressed.

You deal with police in a professional way, but often, other people have to deal with them when they are in a bad mood.

And I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that everybody just "shut up" when dealing with a cop. He is just as capable of being wrong as the next person.

Canada
02-15-2008, 07:44 AM
And I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that everybody just "shut up" when dealing with a cop. He is just as capable of being wrong as the next person.

Maybe not "shut up" but how about not acting like an ***? Being somewhat respectful?

Guru
02-15-2008, 08:15 AM
Maybe not "shut up" but how about not acting like an ***? Being somewhat respectful?
Definitely.

Being humble can go a long way with a police officer.

Canada
02-15-2008, 08:51 AM
Definitely.

Being humble can go a long way with a police officer.

It certainly has gotten me out of a lot of trouble!! :D
Not that I was doing anything wrong in the first place!:drunkhb:

DrunkHillbilly
02-15-2008, 09:58 AM
DH, you are an amazing individual. Belly-ache about how people don't submit ideas, then try to belittle people for those ideas. What a true class act.

Besides, I think that giving every law-hater in the world a way to complain is better than giving tham a badge and gun. Who do you think that these police are?

As far as degrading this country, all I have done is point out where things are wrong in my opinion. But, as you have no interest in anyones freedoms, I suppose that isn't allowed in your country.

I think that you will find yourself to be in a small group of people that like which direction the U.S. is headed. Must be nice to live in a perfect world.



I do not underestimate the stress of their job. But I don't think that every citizen should consider themselves to be every policemans personal ***** in their presence.

People have certain rights, and police officers should not be allowed to infringe upon them any more than anyone else.

And no. That doesn't mean that policemen should have no authority. It means that when they do things that are wrong, they need to be held accountable.

We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?

Problem is, noone is watching them, to see if they are doing their jobs right.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_gFJJXLv28)
Your right!!! I am an amazing individual!!! I think you as well as all others should think they are amazing also!!

I told you I would take your word that you had written the people needed to make suggestions and said good job! Your idea will NEVER come to fruition because of obvious reasons and you probably know it. My opinion is that it would be a fiasco for the people daeling with these calls!

From reading your posts on this subject, you have intimated on more than one occassion that you believe "most" of law inforcement are just out there to commit brutality on other people for one reason or another. Apparently they do it for no other reason than "because they can"!

You never heard me say I liked the direction the country was going in either. However, I live here and believe that there are faaaaaaaaar more positive reasons to live here than not! Like I said, if your soooo unhappy, there are thousand and thousands of other countries that would welcome you with open arms. You are correct, you have pointed out a few things wrong with the coubtry in your opinion. How about pointing out a few things you like once in a while since you do live here.

Canada
02-15-2008, 10:00 AM
I am pretty sure he really like the CHIEFS!!! :D:bananen_smilies046:

DrunkHillbilly
02-15-2008, 10:04 AM
DH is rich so why would he want the status quo to change?

It might benefit those beneath him financially, and that would not profit him one bit.
Jealousy is a lonely place HH!!!!!

I am rich and my employees benifit greatly!!! I have about 50 full time employees and 30 part timers. 27 of those full time people have worked for me for over 12 years! Boy, they must like the punishment!!!!! The fact is that they are all well taken care of! I treat them well because I realize that without them, I would not be as successful as I am. I am not a stupid individual and honestly care about them. Obviously you think differently. If the computer thing doesn't work out for ya, come on down to Az. and I'll hook ya up with a good job. Even haters are welcome!!:sign0098:

chief31
02-15-2008, 10:06 AM
Maybe not "shut up" but how about not acting like an ***? Being somewhat respectful?


That can be pretty hard to do when someone isn't being respectful of you.

Again, just because your experience with cops has been fair, doesn't mean that they are like that with everyone.

Have you ever met someone that you didn't like, but didn't know why? Well what do you think happens to somone that a cop has decided that he doesn't like, without knowing why? Do you think that maybe he might act like an *** to that person? Is it possible that a policeman might treat someone unfairly?

I have never had any kind of a major personal bad experiences with police, but I have had minor encounters with crabby cops.

I once parked my car on the street, right in front of my mothers home. Not ten minutes after arriving, my sister noticed that there was a cop in my car.

I went out to see what the problem was, and sure enough, here is this cop rummaging through my personal belongings. That is a violation of my right to privacy. There was absolutely no reason for him to be going through my personal property.

There were several other cars parked on the side of the road, yet those cars weren't being disturbed.

I asked him why he was invading my personal property, to which he simply got all "hard" about the situation, stating that the car appeared to have been abandoned.

For a whole fifteen minutes? I would imagine that the first clue as to weather or not a car has been abandoned, might be some mark of time.

Anyway, just as regular people can be killers, rapists, and what have you, cops can too. What's worse, is that cops have the protection of other cops, and the trust of the entire judicial system.

Not only do police not have anyone supervising the enormous amount of power that they are granted, but they have all kinds of protection from being caught.

Who here thinks that it is ok to dismiss violent criminals? Why are we so apt to allowing it when it someone who has been given a badge?

Canada
02-15-2008, 10:07 AM
We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?


You look at their job in terms of right and wrong. There is so much gray area it is unbelievable. These are guys going into high stress situations on a daily basis. Is it wrong for a cop to let someone know in no uncertain terms that if you mouth off things are going to take a turn for the worse. It always starts out as some guy spouting off and getting in peoples face and if that situation is not controlled it gets worse for the cop/ Then when they put a foot in someones ***, they are in the wrong cause a cop can't hit a guy. It is a load of BS.

I do believe that when they break the law they should be punished like everyone else, but keep in mind as well, that what may seem like a light sentence at times, their time in jail is probably infinitely worse than time you or I would do.

chief31
02-15-2008, 10:16 AM
We put alot of trust in those people, they should have to do their job right. And if they are breaking the law, then shouldn't they be punished the same as anyone else?


You look at their job in terms of right and wrong. There is so much gray area it is unbelievable. These are guys going into high stress situations on a daily basis. Is it wrong for a cop to let someone know in no uncertain terms that if you mouth off things are going to take a turn for the worse. It always starts out as some guy spouting off and getting in peoples face and if that situation is not controlled it gets worse for the cop/ Then when they put a foot in someones ***, they are in the wrong cause a cop can't hit a guy. It is a load of BS.

I do believe that when they break the law they should be punished like everyone else, but keep in mind as well, that what may seem like a light sentence at times, their time in jail is probably infinitely worse than time you or I would do.

I fully appreciate that. But if our prisons were to be fit for human beings, then that wouldn't be such a problem. I also have no problem with some kind of special arrangements for officers in prison.

One thing that I would like to add to that sentiment is that many non-police wind-up getting it just as bad as a cop presumably would. So it's not like they are really going to be getting it worse, but more likely as bad as the worst.

The fact is that civilians are being policed, but not when they wear a badge. I just think that we should do something about that. They need to be supervised, as anyone else is.

Regular people can be pretty worthless. So why trust them when we give them a badge?

Canada
02-15-2008, 10:28 AM
Your right!!! I am an individual!!! I think you as well as all others should think Canada is awesome!!

My opinion is that it would be a fiasco for the people dealing with these calls!

From reading your posts on this subject, you have intimated on more than one occassion that you believe "most" of law inforcement are just out there to commit brutality on other people for one reason or another. Apparently they do it for no other reason than "because they can"!



I agree that that project would be a huge project to undertake. Perhaps a smaller group of "watchdogs". But every yahoo in America. Couldn't happen. Every drunken teenager would be callin in crap on Friday nites.

I don't think anyone is saying that "brutality" is OK, but sometimes you gotta knock some heads!! :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
02-15-2008, 10:32 AM
I agree that that project would be a huge project to undertake. Perhaps a smaller group of "watchdogs". But every yahoo in America. Couldn't happen. Every drunken teenager would be callin in crap on Friday nites.

I don't think anyone is saying that "brutality" is OK, but sometimes you gotta knock some heads!! :bananen_smilies046:

I'm not talking about a web-site, nor a phone number. I'm talking about a form on paper. That would limit the knuckleheads goofin' off. But even with the goofing off, it would be something, where there is currently nothing.

Hell, put a small fee on every complaint filed or something. That would help to further eliminate bogus reports, and add yet another sorce of funds.

Canada
02-15-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm not talking about a web-site, nor a phone number. I'm talking about a form on paper. That would limit the knuckleheads goofin' off. But even with the goofing off, it would be something, where there is currently nothing.

Hell, put a small fee on every complaint filed or something. That would help to further eliminate bogus reports, and add yet another sorce of funds.

First off!! NOTHING will stop us knuckleheads goofin' off!! I am a dedicated knucklehead and I will goof off no matter what the cost. In the words of William Wallace...they may take our lives, but knukcleheads will goof off forever!!!

There is no Second thing so I guess I didn't really need to start this post off with First off!! soooo....i guess that's all.

hermhater
02-15-2008, 03:40 PM
Jealousy is a lonely place HH!!!!!

I am rich and my employees benifit greatly!!! I have about 50 full time employees and 30 part timers. 27 of those full time people have worked for me for over 12 years! Boy, they must like the punishment!!!!! The fact is that they are all well taken care of! I treat them well because I realize that without them, I would not be as successful as I am. I am not a stupid individual and honestly care about them. Obviously you think differently. If the computer thing doesn't work out for ya, come on down to Az. and I'll hook ya up with a good job. Even haters are welcome!!:sign0098:

I am not jealous, as I don't see money as happiness.

But I will be coming to AZ in the next few years! I can't get enough of that Grand Canyon!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
02-15-2008, 03:42 PM
Do Crowders get a free bar tab?

hermhater
02-15-2008, 03:52 PM
First off!! NOTHING will stop us knuckleheads goofin' off!! I am a dedicated knucklehead and I will goof off no matter what the cost. In the words of William Wallace...they may take our lives, but knukcleheads will goof off forever!!!

There is no Second thing so I guess I didn't really need to start this post off with First off!! soooo....i guess that's all.

What are you talking about?

There is always room for :bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
02-15-2008, 03:53 PM
Do Crowders get a free bar tab?


Yes!
:yahoo:

Canada
02-15-2008, 03:57 PM
shhhhh....i'm sleeping now :hypocrite:

hermhater
02-15-2008, 05:10 PM
shhhhh....i'm sleeping now :hypocrite:

OK I'll whisper.

I just got home and let me tell you guys, wait until the day after Valentines, and it's all half price!

:yahoo: