Post #162,894
7/5/04 1:39:22 PM
|
Et tu, Brute
The unkindliest cut-off of all, in the cradle of Liberty:
[link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-05-mass-smoking-ban_x.htm|http://www.usatoday....smoking-ban_x.htm]
It's creeping fascism. Next it will be alcohol. The state wants tabula rasas on which to imprint their facist credo.
We need to resist these people! DON'T GO DOWN LIKE A MEEK PUPPY!
-drl
|
Post #162,896
7/5/04 2:05:06 PM
|
We've argued this one before
A smoke-free environment is a public good. Which is always hard to provide voluntarily. And those who least care about it are those who have to do the most to make it happen.
I find it telling that attendance at bars goes up after smoking bans are passed.
While I'm concerned about the move towards banning smoking, it is for different reasons. To me the problem is the possibility of igniting a potentially very violent black market for nicotine.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,897
7/5/04 2:08:00 PM
|
Re: We've argued this one before
It's private property. This is nothing but property theft. A city hall is a public building - a bar is not.
The state wants to own everything - your property, your life, your money, your state of mind.
-drl
|
Post #162,910
7/5/04 3:54:46 PM
|
The problem is the employees.
There are lots of environmental and safety regulations that businesses have to accept to stay in business. It's generally accepted that cigarette smoke is hazardous. Why should employees be forced to be exposed to it?
Sorry, I don't see it as a civil-rights or property-rights issue.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #163,188
7/6/04 10:55:37 PM
|
lets use that employee argument in another industry
since employes of a paint and body shop are exposed to thinner and paint fumes which are an nth degree more dangerous than tobacco so lets outlaw painting cars, if you fuck up and wreck it you cannot paint the repairs unless you do it in your own home. Thi makes as much sense.
thanx
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #163,197
7/6/04 11:52:19 PM
|
OSHA on autobody spray painting.
[link|http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/sprayoperations/standards.html|Spray Operations Standards]. [link|http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/autobody/docs/nioshctm/nioshctm.html|Here] is a short summary of studies of spray painting shops. A control strategy for protecting autobody repair workers from polyisocyanate exposure is presented. A combination of a downdraft spray painting booth and an air purifying respirator can be an effective means of controlling worker polyisocyanate exposures. When autobody painting is done in crossdraft or semi-downdraft spray painting booths, the workers should use respirators with an assigned protection factor of 25 or greater. There are various rules for limiting exposure to paint fumes, overspray, etc. in painting operations. It's impractical to have customers in bars and restaurants wear respirators. ;-j Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #163,218
7/7/04 9:56:20 AM
|
I thought you were whining about employees?
put on a mask and get to work.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #163,235
7/7/04 10:47:29 AM
|
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Your right to smoke ends at my lungs.
Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
|
Post #163,237
7/7/04 10:52:13 AM
|
not in my bar it dont.
dont like the smoke go elsewhere. Why do you have the right to modify my habits inside my establishment?
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #163,239
7/7/04 10:54:46 AM
|
That's why 2/3rds of the population stays out of bars.
|
Post #163,243
7/7/04 11:03:41 AM
|
And they're free to do that ... or open their own bars
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #163,244
7/7/04 11:04:42 AM
|
Good catch.
Yes, it was a little re-direction on my part. Unintentional though.
Respiratory hazard abatement at workplaces has 3 steps (see e.g. [link|http://www.jlab.org/ehs/manual/PDF/6630RespProt.pdf|this] .pdf picked at random from Google):
1) Eliminate or minimize hazards by changing the processes or changing the chemicals.
2) Improving ventilation to minimize exposure (e.g. painting booths, glove boxes)
3) Personal protective equipment like respirators.
It's required that things be done in that order. Respirators are a last resort. Thus, in your establishment, to protect your employees the thing to do first is eliminate the hazard - so the workplace should be a non-smoking environment.
For consistency, OSHA should require all workplaces to be non-smoking. However, I don't think that is going to happen soon as the restaurant and bar lobby is quite strong.
HTH. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #163,245
7/7/04 11:08:37 AM
|
the process in a bar
1. ingest chemicals to impair central nervous system and cause brain damage
2. try to spread internal secretions via injection or reception.
now given those processes why does inhaling more chemicals become a health risk?
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #163,246
7/7/04 11:11:14 AM
|
Now you're redirecting. Employees are doing 1 and 2?
|
Post #163,247
7/7/04 11:14:33 AM
|
Never worked at a bar, I see
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #163,248
7/7/04 11:17:53 AM
|
I did, briefly. <hack, cough> Not many tips for 1, 2 though.
|
Post #163,250
7/7/04 11:29:25 AM
|
Dude, that *is* the tip
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #163,249
7/7/04 11:26:21 AM
|
ya wanna get some regular, work at a bar
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #162,913
7/5/04 4:14:35 PM
|
The state giveth, the state taketh away
I find that different people have different attitudes about the connections between property and government.
Mine is that property is a socially accepted construct created by society. As far as I'm concerned, the notion of property is something that needs to justify itself. Of course it handily does - capitalism is a very effective motivator. But since the idea is created and enforced by society (generally by rules codified the government), society also has the right to put limitations on the proper usage of the property, and set up rules under which your property legitimately passes to someone else.
That is my justification for all kinds of intrusions on the notion of private property, ranging from taxation laws to enforcement of basic sanitatary practices. I personally see no difference between a law saying that people preparing food have to wash their hands (a law that has saved many millions of lives) and a law saying that if you do not pay the government a certain amount of money each year, they can take your house.
If you want a better target for wrongful intrusions of government onto private property, look at what is done with [link|http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0509/p01s03-ussc.html|eminent domain] all of the time. The 5'th amendment to the Constitution is supposed to protect people from the abuse of that power, but it doesn't tend to in practice. (I don't consider it "protection" when the government offers you "compensation" that is well below what was the fair market price for your property.) Furthermore, and even more troubling, the power tends to be (ab)used most commonly by local governments to the benefit of private interests.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,915
7/5/04 4:44:26 PM
|
60 Minutes story on eminent domain
This past Sunday. Was rather infuriating to watch. This nice old couple along with numerous other houses which faced some river were having eminent domain used on them to force them to sell their houses so high priced condos could be put up instead. (Supposedly at market prices.) Their homes were deemed "blighted" so this law could be used. "Blight" was finally determined to be not having more than one bathroom, not having more than a one car garage, not having the garage attached to the house etc. The mayor of the town was trying to defend this. When Mike Wallace brought up the fact that her house was deemed "blighted" under those criteria you could see her start to squirm. Heh. In the end the old couple won and the mayor was voted out at the next election (YEAH!)
There was also the case of a brake mechanic owner who was being turfed off his land so that the Ace's Hardware could move to that spot. He was fighting that too and was quite indignant like the old couple.
That's just pathetic that these companies would do that and get the government to go along with it, using a law not the way it's intended (ie: to reclaim slums.) If they want the land bad enough they're just going to have to pony up the $$$ until the owner feels it's worth it to them. If they don't want to sell for any price then it's tough shit.
lister
|
Post #162,931
7/5/04 6:35:02 PM
|
Pah, Mike Wallace.
He likes to expose himself to hotel workers. Nasty old perv.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,935
7/5/04 6:50:20 PM
7/5/04 7:35:25 PM
|
Wasn't that something that came up at the party?
Dang, whose story was that?
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Edited by ben_tilly
July 5, 2004, 07:34:35 PM EDT
Edited by ben_tilly
July 5, 2004, 07:35:25 PM EDT
|
Post #162,944
7/5/04 7:09:02 PM
7/5/04 7:39:18 PM
|
(Nothing to see. (Thanks)).
|
Post #162,947
7/5/04 7:39:54 PM
|
I don't know how that happened
I don't have those boxes normally unchecked. And I don't remember unchecking them.
I've seen a bug like that on a Perl website which was using the POST method. It can happen sporadically when the software does not check whether the amount of data received matches what CONTENT_LENGTH said should be sent. (Perl's CGI.pm only remembered to do that on multi-part posts. I sent in a bug report. I'm not sure that it was acted on though.)
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,967
7/5/04 9:01:01 PM
|
Mine.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,938
7/5/04 6:56:08 PM
|
Explain
|
Post #162,969
7/5/04 9:06:31 PM
|
Re: Explain
My wife used to work at the Bell Tower Hotel in Ann Arbor. Wallace is a big alumni fund raiser type bigwig.
She worked the continental breakfast room, and got a call to take a tray up to his room. She goes up, knocks, gets a "come in", and enters to find him standing in a t-shirt in the middle of the room.
JUST a t-shirt. And not a long one.
He slowly gets into bed and invites her to set the tray next to him on the covers. She put it on the hall table and scooted.
Apparently he has a history of doing this sort of thing. Call for his dry cleaning, the bellhop finds him standing buck-naked in the middle of the room, etc.
Everyone there knew that he did that sort of thing. She was told not to bother pressing harassment charges, given that his connections and alumni activity would prevent her getting any sort of sympathetic ear whatsoever.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,996
7/5/04 10:23:33 PM
|
You have no problem with government ownership of everything?
Property tax is rent. You don't pay you get evicted. Or worse.
Who controls disposition of the land? The owners. The government.
Who controls the use of land (via zoning)? The owners. The government.
At best, we can hold a lifetime lease.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,014
7/6/04 1:10:00 AM
|
You got it
I have problems if that ownership is abused.
I also believe that, for most things, the most efficient systematic use of resources is to make them private property. This true often enough that I think that government has to justify any significant deviations from this baseline.
Of course I recognize that I exist in a society that tends to answer this question differently than I do. That is a common problem for me, see my thoughts on being a [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=104633|moral relativist] in our society. But it is inconvenient. :-(
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,024
7/6/04 6:52:59 AM
|
Excuse me?
The confiscation of all property from the American people was the first abuse. Tell me, when the government took the role of landlord, did it buy the land from the former owners? I also believe that, for most things, the most efficient systematic use of resources is to make them private property. This true often enough that I think that government has to justify any significant deviations from this baseline. This statement makes no sense. There IS no private property when you have to pay a fee to retain so-called 'ownership'. As I said before, the most we can have in this country anymore is a lease. Your baseline does not exist. It is a fantasy.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,050
7/6/04 10:29:30 AM
|
You'd be an example of someone who feels differently
Property in the sense that you take for granted and are outraged that the government infringed on is a creation of the same government that you dislike for so infringing.
Don't believe me? Just consider how much Western notions of property differ from the notions of the people here when we showed up. That anything like our notions now prevail is due to our government enforcing our notions on them.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,065
7/6/04 12:35:56 PM
|
And now
verbs meaning 'to own' actually mean 'to license' I suppose.
Oh well. I guess 'property is theft', right?
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,067
7/6/04 12:43:56 PM
|
Prepare your residence for quartering
|
Post #163,059
7/6/04 11:22:14 AM
|
Why doesn't anyone else notice?
I find it telling that attendance at bars goes up after smoking bans are passed. If this is in fact true, you don't need a ban. Simply point this fact out to bar owners and they'll go smoke-free voluntarily. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #163,061
7/6/04 11:51:56 AM
|
Because that doesn't work
When one bar issues a smoke ban, all of the smokers go elsewhere and non-smokers don't show up because they don't realize that it is going to be smoke free. Besides if someone goes to bars to hang out with friends, the loss of the smokers is likely to make that person move.
When all of the bars around go smoke free, smokers don't have elsewhere to go and non-smokers learn to expect no smoke. Smokers who went to bars before continue doing so. And non-smokers start showing up so attendance rises.
This is one of those counter-intuitive social network effects where one member doing something gives the opposite effect from everyone doing that.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,079
7/6/04 1:54:54 PM
|
So who cares more?
Besides if someone goes to bars to hang out with friends, the loss of the smokers is likely to make that person move. Why don't the smokers miss the company of their non-smoking friends? If non-smokers are more willing to go to smoking bars than smokers are to go to non-smoking bars, it sounds like people have already voted. Turn it around. What if everyplace was non-smoking and one bar started to allow it. Would smokers not go because their non-smoking friends wouldn't go? Who knows. And of course the whole "business goes up" argument assumes that better business is the only consideration. If I want to allow smoking in my home, I am (currently) free to allow that. If I own a bar I should have that same right. I should also have the right to not allow it. Personally I prefer no smoke But even Scott voted for smoke rather than give up a silly little game. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #163,083
7/6/04 2:06:08 PM
|
Re: So who cares more?
The issue here is that, as with drunk driving and for the very same reason, the statistics are cooked and the real motive disguised behind flowery, touchy-feely, crotch-rot language.
-drl
|
Post #163,147
7/6/04 6:55:30 PM
|
Because a critical group is invisible
People who would go to non-smoking bars but would not go to smoking ones. Given that bars are all smoking, they do not go to bars. Smokers who are part of the bar scene won't make friends of these people there because these people aren't there. Bartenders are unaware of these people since they aren't at the bar. They are an unknown audience that nobody knows how to estimate.
However the increase in attendance after smoking bans are put in place suggests that this group of people should not be discounted.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,150
7/6/04 7:24:16 PM
|
Ah, that invisible opportunity cost.
[link|http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=O&CFID=31583154&CFTOKEN=2c33db6-0733b200-1bf0-4951-aa0c-74633fc72a45#OPPORTUNITY%20COST|Opportunity cost].
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #163,156
7/6/04 8:24:31 PM
|
Re: Because a critical group is invisible
This isn't true - there are places that are known for having a "upscale" atmosphere and at these places you won't see excessive smoking - it being out of line with the narcissist ethos. You can smoke here but people do it outside or in the pool room or the like.
-drl
|
Post #163,158
7/6/04 8:27:09 PM
|
Really?
Around here?
Nope. All the bars smell like smoke pits.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #163,160
7/6/04 8:30:52 PM
|
Re: Really?
Like certain cigar bars in Clayton Missouri.
-drl
|
Post #163,161
7/6/04 8:32:11 PM
|
I don't live there.
You're generalizing from specific instances. Without exception every bar I've been to has been a smoky mess.
I'd go much more often if there weren't smoking in bars. And I tip well. ;-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #163,162
7/6/04 8:34:04 PM
7/6/04 8:34:28 PM
|
Re: I don't live there.
I was never outtipped by a Yankee :)
-drl
Edited by deSitter
July 6, 2004, 08:34:28 PM EDT
|
Post #163,170
7/6/04 9:09:37 PM
|
High side of 20%...
If they do a good job.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #163,172
7/6/04 9:12:05 PM
|
$5 for two beers
Sunday.
-drl
|
Post #163,184
7/6/04 10:35:58 PM
|
That won't buy one at ballgame.
|
Post #162,898
7/5/04 2:08:43 PM
|
Horribly overboard
Smoking is a disgusting and stupid and highly addictive habit. But a total ban is just stupid, particularly when applied to bars.
I think resturants should be encouraged to bar smoking or have both smoking and non smoking sections. Encouraged by a small extra tax for those that allow smoking and a higher one for those that allow smoking everywhere. Bars should be free to which way they feel is most profitable.
For work places, I do think banning smoking in all except a small smoking area is for the best. Smoking is not only dangerous but also offensive and smokers have no clue how much. People who smoke in the workplace are like people that play loud music in their cubicals, they have no concept how annoying they are to everybody else. But I think baring companies from having a designated smoking area is also stupid.
Jay
|
Post #162,908
7/5/04 3:45:14 PM
|
Tough luck
We've now got a city wide smoking ban in restaurants, bars, billiard halls, bingo halls, etc. here in Toronto and it's about time! Smokers can kiss my ass! If they want pollute themselves in the privacy of their own homes that's fine with me but not when it comes to public places even if they're private public places but their "right" to smoke ends at my eyes, nose, lungs and clothes. Gah what a disgusting habit!
Actually I should mention that smoking is still allowed on patio's and in designated smoking rooms though the latter will likely disappear in the next few years.
lister
|
Post #162,939
7/5/04 6:57:15 PM
|
A-friggin'-men.
|
Post #162,948
7/5/04 7:47:35 PM
|
"A-friggin'-men." - it's the new MeToo! (tm)
But hey, Me Too!
So far in Sydney smoking is banned in public (ie government) buildings, workplaces, public transport, and restaurants or any 'eating place'. Not yet banned in pubs and clubs, except the areas in which they serve food of course. Full list of places and regulations and so forth in [link|http://www.nswcc.org.au/html/prevention/smoking_tobacco/downloads/fact_smokefreensw.pdf|this PDF].
I recently went to see a band in a smoke-free venue, the difference was amazing. For a start, you could actually see th band. The only downside was that when I got home I felt like I hadn't been out, as my clothes didn't reek of cigarette smoke...
Two out of three people wonder where the other one is.
|
Post #162,997
7/5/04 10:24:12 PM
|
Here in Kingston, Ontario
we've got the strongest anti-smoking law of any city in Canada. No smoking in bars, restaurants, etc, not even on patios. The only place you can still smoke is in bingo halls for some reason.
I've smoked from 18, but I like the bars better too now that they're non-smoking.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #162,998
7/5/04 10:32:04 PM
|
Hasten the old folks to the grave
How many young'uns you see playing bingo? Oh let 'em die *HACK* *HACK* in peace.
I have to find out if or when the patio ban kicks in. Hopefully next summer...
What really floors me is parents who smoke in front of their kids especially in their cars where the kids are a captive audience. That's just plain thoughtless lazy stupidity.
lister
|
Post #163,066
7/6/04 12:42:12 PM
|
Re: parents who smoke in front of their kids
The worst flight in my life was in a smoking section of an Olympic Airlines flight from Athens, Greece to NYC. My wife and I were in the smoking section because that was the only thing available. Parents traveling with kids who had seats in the non-smoking section came to stand and smoke by our seats. And that's not just a couple of people. Talk about adding insult to injury!
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #163,071
7/6/04 12:52:13 PM
|
My wife and SIL had non smoking seats on Aeroflot.
They flew to Ireland and Aeroflot was cheapest.
Their seats were in the No Smoking section. Make that, their seats were the No Smoking section. =(
To hear them tell it, it was quite an unpleasant - there was something under the floor that was very hot (something's wrong with the plane!), the Russian businessmen passengers were drinking and smoking and singing or talking very loud the entire flight, and the only thing passed out by the crew to drink was liquor (they didn't have soft drinks!).
The flight back was worse as the flight was delayed by the crew trying to round up the drunken passengers from the airport bar...
So remember, it can always be worse. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #163,072
7/6/04 12:58:56 PM
|
Re: My wife and SIL had non smoking seats on Aeroflot.
No smoker minds not having smoking on the airplane. Again, this is a matter of blankets bans in privately owned property.
Of course anyone who wants to open a smoking-permitted airline, should be allowed to.
-drl
|
Post #165,145
7/20/04 10:29:53 AM
|
Another recent Aeroflot story.
[link|http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-passenger-assaulted,0,7277369.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines|Newsday] - the URL will change: July 20, 2004, 9:41 AM EDT
MOSCOW -- Drunken passengers often give air crews trouble, but Russia's leading airline on Tuesday reported an "unprecedented" reversal: A passenger was assaulted by intoxicated flight attendants.
Two crew members on a domestic Aeroflot flight beat up a passenger who had complained that the flight attendants were drunk, airline spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg said.
The passenger, identified only as A. Chernopup, was aboard a recent flight from Moscow to the Siberian city of Nizhnevartovsk, Dannenberg said. She said the crew belonged to another airline, Aviaenergo.
Seeing that the crew were intoxicated and were not fulfilling their duties, Chernopup asked to be served by a sober and competent flight attendant, Dannenberg said. He was then beaten up by crew members.
On Russian flights, attendants often have to struggle to keep intoxicated passengers under control. But on this flight, Dannenberg said, flight attendants were so intoxicated that they "behaved improperly" and only began catering to passengers 1 1/2 hours into the four-hour trip.
The daily Izvestia quoted another passenger as saying that half of the food the crew served ended up on the floor, leaving the aisle strewn with debris that passengers had to walk over as they disembarked.
According to the passenger, Chernopup left the plane with a black eye and was promptly sent to a doctor. Izvestia also reported that a criminal case was opened after Chernopup reported the incident to the police.
Dannenberg said that the plane was carrying out an Aeroflot flight, but both the aircraft and the crew belonged to Aviaenergo. Aeroflot has been contracting out from Aviaenergo since August 2003, but the incident prompted it to tighten control over Aviaenergo's staff, she said.
The entire crew of the flight has been temporarily dismissed and a joint commission is investigating the incident, Dannenberg said. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #163,365
7/8/04 3:27:18 AM
|
Smoking & non-smoking sections on airplanes
The worst flight in my life was in a smoking section of an Olympic Airlines flight from Athens, Greece to NYC. \r\n\r\nHow the heck do you have smoking and non-smoking sections on a plane without using separate ventilation systems, and air locks between the sections?\r\n
|
Post #163,371
7/8/04 7:11:57 AM
|
Now don't start getting all logical on us...
|
Post #163,645
7/9/04 7:09:11 PM
|
I see what you posted
and I understand. You want government to do less regulation, much like Conservative Republicans. Perhaps more like Classical Economists, you want more of a hands off type of government? How dare they limit your rights and what you can and can not do? You should be able to smoke as much as you want, any time you want, at any place. People suffering from second-hand smoke and getting sick is not your responsibility. It is their responsibility for breathing the second-hand smoke. Their rights to a smoke-free evironment should not take away your right to smoke. It does not matter to you that it affects their health, nor does it matter to you if it affects your health. Your only concern is your enjoyment of smoking, and how dare the government say that you cannot smoke in public, or at a pub or bar, or any other place. Your rights as a smoker, obviously, outweigh the rights of the non-smokers.
Did I get it right?
"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #165,147
7/20/04 10:37:26 AM
|
Bloomington (MN) Bans Smoking
From the [link|http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4884028.html|Minneapolis StarTribune] The Bloomington City Council early today approved the Twin Cities area's first citywide smoking ban, a move some say could lead the way for other local ordinances.
Public comment on the ordinance went until about 11:30 p.m. Monday; the council's 6-1 vote came 75 minutes later.
The ordinance will take effect Sept. 1 in public places and workplaces. Smoking also would be prohibited within 25 feet of entrances, exits, open windows and ventilation intakes. The smoking ban will take effect March 31, 2005, at restaurants, bars and gambling venues. Outdoor patios can be split evenly between smoking and nonsmoking.
The ban includes the Mall of America. Now only if Minneapolis and St. Paul would do the same. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #165,459
7/21/04 6:33:39 PM
|
I'm sure we can go for !00% Sin-free, next.
|
