New smoking ban

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

Refresher TROLL ALERT - The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Debate the issue , not the person.

[damontucker]

Re: New smoking ban

I bet those guys in the parking lot really had a good view of the game. Think they'll want to go there more games in the future? As you can see our government HATES smokers and loves it when they are miserable - so sick. Maybe Linda Lingle can invite Westboro Baptist Church to the next game with signs that say " GOD HATES SMOKERS ". I know she'd do it just to make our smoking population feel even worse.

HUH?

I didn't say people were smoking in the parking lots! Where did you get that from?

Aloha Stadium made special accomodations for those that did...(inside the ticketed area...yet still outside the actual stadium...)

AND YOU COULD NEVER get a view of the game even before the law was enacted as you still had to smoke outside of the actual stands inside of the ticketed area.

I guess you didn't care to respond to this?

God Hates trolls too

[Palolo Joe]

Re: New smoking ban

God Hates trolls too

God Hates idiots, too.

[admin]

Re: New smoking ban

Cool it, folks.

If you think AlohaKine is a troll, use common sense and just ignore this thread. Responding with nothing but stupid graphics or more "troll" accusations is pointless, and disappointing.

Even I'm skeptical as to whether AlohaKine is serious, but at least he's trying to argue a position, not make stupid attacks or respond with the equivalent of going 'nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you.' Devil's advocacy is a well-worn tradition here at HawaiiThreads, so if it annoys you, no one's forcing you to participate.

I'd like for this thread to remain open, but not if the ridiculous continues. And at this point it'd be closed in spite of, not because of, AlohaKine's contributions.

[AlohaKine]

I guess you didn't care to respond to this?

not a sports fan. smokers have a right to enjoy the game too, however.

Even I'm skeptical as to whether AlohaKine is serious, but at least he's trying to argue a position, not make stupid attacks or respond with the equivalent of going 'nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you.' Devil's advocacy is a well-worn tradition here at HawaiiThreads, so if it annoys you, no one's forcing you to participate.

Yes, I am serious. There are a lot of people that hate this ban. Talk to the guys standing outside the clubs and you'll know I'am right. We're not happy. Open your mind and step inside other people's shoes - then the truth will show itself clear and we can all be friends because of understanding.

[Miulang]

Re: New smoking ban

AK: Perhaps you and your cohorts need to tie into some of the associations mentioned in this URL. They are all pro-smoking groups. Might give you some other persuasive reasons for not banning smoking besides the only one that I've heard smokers utter thus far, i.e., "freedom of choice".

Miulang

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

I am serious -yes. Respect smokers space and I'll respect yours. Just not the street or parking lot.

[scrivener]

Re: New smoking ban

I'm not reading this thread, and therefore am not participating in this conversation, but I would like to say that I am opposed to this law. While it is well-intentioned, it is poorly conceived and it will be poorly executed. It doesn't surprise me that in such a liberal state as Hawaii such a restrictive law would exist. It does surprise me that so very many people of so many political persuasions accept it without really questioning it.

I detest cigarettes, but this law sucks worse than a chain-smoker on a bad day.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

The anits lied to you. Your smoking will not get the bar fined as long as signs are posted and they tell people about the law. SB3262 section 9 and 11d. What will the public say when they find out that Julian Lipscher and his goons are lying to you? Read the law, there is something there that is more then meets the eye. I plan to blow their lies wide open.

I verified this with the dept. of health. They admitted it. The law says that they are responsible for the conduct of ths law, and even the "enemy" admits the truth. I spoke with them.

[Miulang]

Re: New smoking ban

You're going to win more of those "anits" over to your side if you make your arguments less heated by presenting more reasons than what the "pro-smokers" have already given instead of engaging in name calling. For every reason an "anit" gives for the ban, is there a reason to counter their point?

Miulang

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

Is what I am saying true or Not? Call them push the issue and find out the reality. The truth is out there, not if Julian has anything to say about it.

[scrivener]

Re: New smoking ban

People think that the PNW is such a liberal place, but muse over this: the number of strip joints is tightly controlled in King County (like I think there are only 4 of them within the county limits). Worse, they can't serve alcohol, and with the no smoking ban in all public places, people can't even light up as they watch Katrina bump and grind!

Miulang, this is a liberal thing. As you know, the liberal mindset says that government protects freedom. The conservative mindset says that the government that governs best governs least. While it's true that the brand of conservatism currently being sold by the Republican Party adds something of a moral/religious spin, it's usually the liberals who want to create more layers of regulation and the conservatives who want to create fewer, for better or worse on both sides. A truly conservative view would be to let grownups do what they want: cut out some of the laws and layers of bureaucracy neccessary for maintaining and regulating them and then cut taxes with the savings. The liberal position is not to let businesses go, but to restrict them to try and keep things fair for everyone.

Both positions are well-intentioned; I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However, as AlohaKine has pointed out, a truly conservative position would be to let businesses live or die by the clientele (or lack thereof) drawn by their own policies. A non-smoking pool hall might draw more customers or it might draw fewer; either way, let the customers vote with their wallets and let the businesses either respond accordingly or file for bankruptcy.

Smokers have every right in the world to smoke, just don't do it where other nonsmoking people like me have to smell it or be exposed to it (and I say this as a former smoker).

But why, Miulang, would you HAVE to be in a pool hall or a bar or a restaurant where smoking is allowed? I know, I know: You might have to if a job in one of those places were the only job you could get, and THAT is the ONE GOOD ARGUMENT for the existence of this law. I'm just snobby enough to say that nobody has to take a job that he or she is morally or practically opposed to, but I'm just sympathetic enough to know that it still happens. There's just got to be a better solution than this law; however, I confess I can't think of one that addresses this one issue.

Nothing is preventing a bar or restaurant from setting up an enclosed smoking area 20 ft. outside their establishments.

For many people, smoking is part of the pool-shooting experience, and it has been for ages. I've been to non-smoking pool halls and loved them; I've also been to smoking-like-crazy pool halls and loved them too, especially with a nice mellow cigar on my birthday. In the same way that I expect to be around smokers in a tobacco shop (still legal in this state), isn't it reasonable too to expect it in certain bars and pool halls? If it's okay to subject some cashier in a tobacco shop to cigarette smoke, why not the girl who hands me my balls and triangle at the pool hall?

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

I agree, Let the OWNER deside. If they want to go somewhere non-smoking that's cool. I will not fight them - I'll just go to a place for smokers. The law will not give us that freedom.

The law here shocks me as an American.

[Miulang]

Re: New smoking ban

Miulang, this is a liberal thing. As you know, the liberal mindset says that government protects freedom. The conservative mindset says that the government that governs best governs least. While it's true that the brand of conservatism currently being sold by the Republican Party adds something of a moral/religious spin, it's usually the liberals who want to create more layers of regulation and the conservatives who want to create fewer, for better or worse on both sides. A truly conservative view would be to let grownups do what they want: cut out some of the laws and layers of bureaucracy neccessary for maintaining and regulating them and then cut taxes with the savings. The liberal position is not to let businesses go, but to restrict them to try and keep things fair for everyone.

Both positions are well-intentioned; I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However, as AlohaKine has pointed out, a truly conservative position would be to let businesses live or die by the clientele (or lack thereof) drawn by their own policies. A non-smoking pool hall might draw more customers or it might draw fewer; either way, let the customers vote with their wallets and let the businesses either respond accordingly or file for bankruptcy.


But why, Miulang, would you HAVE to be in a pool hall or a bar or a restaurant where smoking is allowed? I know, I know: You might have to if a job in one of those places were the only job you could get, and THAT is the ONE GOOD ARGUMENT for the existence of this law. I'm just snobby enough to say that nobody has to take a job that he or she is morally or practically opposed to, but I'm just sympathetic enough to know that it still happens. There's just got to be a better solution than this law; however, I confess I can't think of one that addresses this one issue.


For many people, smoking is part of the pool-shooting experience, and it has been for ages. I've been to non-smoking pool halls and loved them; I've also been to smoking-like-crazy pool halls and loved them too, especially with a nice mellow cigar on my birthday. In the same way that I expect to be around smokers in a tobacco shop (still legal in this state), isn't it reasonable too to expect it in certain bars and pool halls? If it's okay to subject some cashier in a tobacco shop to cigarette smoke, why not the girl who hands me my balls and triangle at the pool hall?

OK, Scriv, for the sake of argument. Why do some smokers insist on expressing their freedom in places that I, as a nonsmoker, choose to frequent when they might have other choices? As for those nonsmoking servers who work in smoke filled establishments because they CHOOSE to be employed there (the tips are good, the management is nice, etc.), why should they have to go work elsewhere?

Restaurants that have nonsmoking/smoking sections (as we did back in the Pleistocene Age) never did work very well because the A/C in those buildings would invariably recycle the smoke back into the nonsmoking side anyway. Have you ever requested a nonsmoking hotel room, gotten into the room and the curtains, carpets, sheets, etc. reeked of smoke? Smokers are not always so law abiding either...they intentionally break the law because their rights have been infringed upon.

State laws are put into place by legislatures. If they are stupid laws, then absolutely they should be repealed. But it takes more than it being a personal freedom issue to reverse most laws. Somebody should send this up to the State Supreme Court and see what the Justices say. This is a more far-reaching decision with many implications than some of the petty cases they end up hearing.

Miulang

P.S. We have pool halls and more yupscale "billiard rooms" up here, too, and they are all nonsmoking. I don't hear the smokers complaining about having to go outside to smoke their cigarettes and having it interfere with their enjoyment of the evening (unless it happens to be rainy and windy and they have no cover under which to smoke, and the weather up here is waaaay more inclement than what you guys experience most of the year). We do have an "out" that Hawai'i will never have, even if the Akaka Bill passed: people can smoke with inpugnity in the Indian casinos which are all over the place, and they can buy their tax free tobacco on the rez.

[scrivener]

Re: New smoking ban

OK, Scriv, for the sake of argument. Why do some smokers insist on expressing their freedom in places that I, as a nonsmoker, choose to frequent when they might have other choices?

There's no question that lots of smokers are obnoxious about their choices. They are wrong to smoke in places where others might be bothered by the smoke. The burden should be on smokers to find less-obnoxious places to smoke most of the time. However, if the owner of a restaurant says, "We allow smokers here," the burden should be on the non-smoker to find somewhere less offensive. The proprieter knows it will turn some people off; he or she is taking that risk and should have that right.

As for those nonsmoking servers who work in smoke filled establishments because they CHOOSE to be employed there (the tips are good, the management is nice, etc.), why should they have to go work elsewhere?

I have an allergy to cats. The salary at the local pet-groomer is really, really good. I choose to work there because I like the pay. Should I expect my boss to ban cats?

Restaurants that have nonsmoking/smoking sections (as we did back in the Pleistocene Age) never did work very well because the A/C in those buildings would invariably recycle the smoke back into the nonsmoking side anyway. Have you ever requested a nonsmoking hotel room, gotten into the room and the curtains, carpets, sheets, etc. reeked of smoke?

Yes! Yes, I have! And I've complained, and I've taken my business elsewhere. That's the power of the spending dollar. The proprietor has the right to say, "You don't like what I'm doing? Leave!" and I have the right to say, "I don't like what you're doing! I'm leaving!" I've been in public restrooms where the occupants in the stalls adjacent to mine quite obviously ate something aromatic and spicy. I didn't like it. I got up and left. I didn't make it illegal for them to foul the restroom.

P.S. We have pool halls and more yupscale "billiard rooms" up here, too, and they are all nonsmoking. I don't hear the smokers complaining about having to go outside to smoke their cigarettes and having it interfere with their enjoyment of the evening (unless it happens to be rainy and windy and they have no cover under which to smoke)

That's right. I have too. I prefer them, especially since some of my more attractive female friends REFUSE to hang out anywhere that allows smoking. See? That's a choice. We prefer the non-smoking establishments, so we frequent the non-smoking establishments. However, on my birthday, I like to enjoy a good cigar with like-minded friends (who, since it is my birthday, will purchase my cigar for me) while we're shooting pool. A cigar is something you take your time with; you don't rush outside to suck it down and then hurry back in to take your turn. Nobody complains about my cigar, 'though I have been places that allow smoking but not cigar-smoking or pipe-smoking, and that's cool, too. Whatever works for that particular business.

Miulang, should people who hang out in smoke shops have to run outside to have a cigarette? The law in Hawaii says no. Why?