Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Smoking banned at bars in Itaewon/Yongsan-gu
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Smithington



Joined: 14 Dec 2011

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cj1976 wrote:
Plus it makes you look like a real cunt.


Guy, you need to seriously chill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:

Your right to ruin your health has no precedent over other people's right to protect theirs.


Exactly. And since excessive consumption of alcohol leads to traffic deaths and acts of violence, we should ban alcohol consumption. A move that has been tried before in the past to great results. Same with making other things illegal, such as narcotics.

And since we're going down the path of banning because of health- let's do away with planes, trains, automobiles, and electricity,


I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


But that argument is the most directly applicable. Either that or the War on Drugs, which has gone about as swimmingly as Prohibition.

You're talking about a widely consumed, addictive, substance that has also has a social component to it. That pretty much means you're going to end up talking about either alcohol or narcotics.

Quote:
There you go again with your red herrings again.

Banning smoking in public places is not the same as an all out ban on tobacco, is it?


Well outdoor ban+indoor ban might as well be. Of course that won't do because someone will go to someone else's house, see them smoking around their kid, and then scream bloody murder. It will be banned in apartments and any kind of shared housing.

At some point or another the anti-smoking crowd will overplay its hand.

I still find it baffling that it's banned in bars & pubs, casinos, and nightclubs. Seriously, what is so hard about not patronizing a smoking establishment? And doesn't common sense dictate that "places of the night" should not subject to stringent moral arguments and concerns about long-term consequences?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cj1976



Joined: 26 Oct 2005

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smithington wrote:
cj1976 wrote:
Plus it makes you look like a real cunt.


Guy, you need to seriously chill.


I'm not the one waving my dick around an ESL forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zyzyfer



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still feel like having smoking establishment licenses that (certain) businesses can purchase would work out better for everyone. Business owners pass the costs on to the customers. Smokers are happy they can smoke freely in businesses with the license and pay a bit more for the privilege. Businesses that don't want the license are not required to get it and are thus default no-smoking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


It's obviously not the strongest argument that could be made, but honestly just about anything is better than the arguments people pull out in favor of forcing businesses to stop offering services to willing customers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping bars and restaurants from catering to people who dislike smoke. If a market exists for it, someone should be able to capitalize on it. Likewise, if a market exists for people who actually want to smoke inside, someone should have the ability to try to capitalize on it. There's zero reason to resort to government intervention for something like this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:

Your right to ruin your health has no precedent over other people's right to protect theirs.


Exactly. And since excessive consumption of alcohol leads to traffic deaths and acts of violence, we should ban alcohol consumption. A move that has been tried before in the past to great results. Same with making other things illegal, such as narcotics.

And since we're going down the path of banning because of health- let's do away with planes, trains, automobiles, and electricity,


I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


But that argument is the most directly applicable. Either that or the War on Drugs, which has gone about as swimmingly as Prohibition.

You're talking about a widely consumed, addictive, substance that has also has a social component to it. That pretty much means you're going to end up talking about either alcohol or narcotics.

Quote:
There you go again with your red herrings again.

Banning smoking in public places is not the same as an all out ban on tobacco, is it?


Well outdoor ban+indoor ban might as well be. Of course that won't do because someone will go to someone else's house, see them smoking around their kid, and then scream bloody murder. It will be banned in apartments and any kind of shared housing.

At some point or another the anti-smoking crowd will overplay its hand.

I still find it baffling that it's banned in bars & pubs, casinos, and nightclubs. Seriously, what is so hard about not patronizing a smoking establishment? And doesn't common sense dictate that "places of the night" should not subject to stringent moral arguments and concerns about long-term consequences?


Here you go again with another one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


It's obviously not the strongest argument that could be made, but honestly just about anything is better than the arguments people pull out in favor of forcing businesses to stop offering services to willing customers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping bars and restaurants from catering to people who dislike smoke. If a market exists for it, someone should be able to capitalize on it. Likewise, if a market exists for people who actually want to smoke inside, someone should have the ability to try to capitalize on it. There's zero reason to resort to government intervention for something like this.


A service to willing customers? Do you think I'm a willing customer when some a-hole lights a cigarette in a restaurant next to my kid? Do you think that the restaurant employees are happy about being exposed to second-hand smoke?

Smokers have proven time and time against they have no consideration for others, hence the law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tiger fancini



Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


It's obviously not the strongest argument that could be made, but honestly just about anything is better than the arguments people pull out in favor of forcing businesses to stop offering services to willing customers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping bars and restaurants from catering to people who dislike smoke. If a market exists for it, someone should be able to capitalize on it. Likewise, if a market exists for people who actually want to smoke inside, someone should have the ability to try to capitalize on it. There's zero reason to resort to government intervention for something like this.


A service to willing customers? Do you think I'm a willing customer when some a-hole lights a cigarette in a restaurant next to my kid? Do you think that the restaurant employees are happy about being exposed to second-hand smoke?

Smokers have proven time and time against they have no consideration for others, hence the law.


This kind of response is just as predictable as the alcohol/drugs/cars response from smokers.

I, and plenty of other smokers that I know, have copious amounts of consideration for non-smokers. If a building is designated non-smoking, then we go outside. Even if a building is not designated as non-smoking, if I am with non-smoking friends then I will go outside to smoke. I've seen plenty of others do the same thing.

I can't think of a single smoker that I know that would light up in front of a kid in a restaurant. It's unfortunate that you've had that experience, but I hope you can appreciate that not all smokers are the same and that the vast majority try to practice good etiquette.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
fosterman



Joined: 16 Nov 2011

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

didn't think that law took effect yet? so whats up with the premature ban?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
A service to willing customers? Do you think I'm a willing customer when some a-hole lights a cigarette in a restaurant next to my kid? Do you think that the restaurant employees are happy about being exposed to second-hand smoke?


Can you not read what you've typed there? If you don't want to be around smoke, then no, you're obviously not a willing customer, and you should consider patronizing or working for a different establishment.

I've seen people complain about there beings tons of nearly identical bars and restaurants lining the streets. Well here's an idea: have bar #1 be nonsmoking for the nonsmokers and bar #2 be smoking for the smokers. It's not that complicated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thebearofbundang



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Location: Bundang

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smoking in a public place (restaurant/bar) is the same as pissing in a pool.. It ruins it for everyone in the place, not just the people sitting at their table. I have no problem with people smoking, but I feel like they should go outside to do it. Second hand smoke has a negative impact on people's health not to mention many people find it disgusting. Wanna have a dart, no worries, take it ouside.

Really hope this law sticks.. I also heard it was country wide from someone today?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tiger fancini wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
I always cringe when I hear this argument trotted out. The period of American Prohibition cannot be the only example of how a country bans a substance. There are obvious different examples... even within the US.

Throwing this card on the table... in a thread about smoking, is starting to vibe like a "as bad as Hitler" response.


It's obviously not the strongest argument that could be made, but honestly just about anything is better than the arguments people pull out in favor of forcing businesses to stop offering services to willing customers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping bars and restaurants from catering to people who dislike smoke. If a market exists for it, someone should be able to capitalize on it. Likewise, if a market exists for people who actually want to smoke inside, someone should have the ability to try to capitalize on it. There's zero reason to resort to government intervention for something like this.


A service to willing customers? Do you think I'm a willing customer when some a-hole lights a cigarette in a restaurant next to my kid? Do you think that the restaurant employees are happy about being exposed to second-hand smoke?

Smokers have proven time and time against they have no consideration for others, hence the law.


This kind of response is just as predictable as the alcohol/drugs/cars response from smokers.

I, and plenty of other smokers that I know, have copious amounts of consideration for non-smokers. If a building is designated non-smoking, then we go outside. Even if a building is not designated as non-smoking, if I am with non-smoking friends then I will go outside to smoke. I've seen plenty of others do the same thing.

I can't think of a single smoker that I know that would light up in front of a kid in a restaurant. It's unfortunate that you've had that experience, but I hope you can appreciate that not all smokers are the same and that the vast majority try to practice good etiquette.


If a building a designated non-smoking...Exactly. Restaurants will be designated non-smoking. There.

You can't think of a single smoker you know who would light up in front of kids? Laughing Laughing Laughing You don't go out to restaurants much, then. Just because you're civil doesn't mean that it's the norm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tiger fancini



Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
You can't think of a single smoker you know who would light up in front of kids? Laughing Laughing Laughing You don't go out to restaurants much, then. Just because you're civil doesn't mean that it's the norm.


I can confidently say that the smokers that I know wouldn't do such a thing. The smokers that I don't know may do, but as I don't know them then I don't know about their smoking habits. I go to restaurants pretty often, but they are usually either non-smoking restaurants in which smokers don't smoke, or they are meat and booze places which children usually don't go to.

It's becoming more common in my neighborhood to see guys smoking outside the meat and booze and restaurants. Not the norm, but definitely more prevalent than it was 4 or 5 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tiger fancini wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
You can't think of a single smoker you know who would light up in front of kids? Laughing Laughing Laughing You don't go out to restaurants much, then. Just because you're civil doesn't mean that it's the norm.


I can confidently say that the smokers that I know wouldn't do such a thing. The smokers that I don't know may do, but as I don't know them then I don't know about their smoking habits. I go to restaurants pretty often, but they are usually either non-smoking restaurants in which smokers don't smoke, or they are meat and booze places which children usually don't go to.

It's becoming more common in my neighborhood to see guys smoking outside the meat and booze and restaurants. Not the norm, but definitely more prevalent than it was 4 or 5 years ago.


Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drydell



Joined: 01 Oct 2009

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

smokers will damn well smoke anywhere they can get away with it as long as it's not made illegal.. no matter how enclosed and how much others have to breathe their smoke deeply - children, asthmatics, anyone.- think about when it was legal on planes and in subways or basically anywhere in the past- they don't give a flying damn unless its forced on them to be socially unacceptable.. every smoker claims they are different and more considerate than that - yeah right..

I was one for 10 years of my life and my inconsideration at others is embarrassing to think about now. I also thought i was a "considerate" smoker at the time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 3 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International