Civil Disobedience

[Father Time]

Face it Anguille you have no right to force people to behave the way you want them to behave.

 

[Anguille]

Face it Anguille you have no right to force people to behave the way you want them to behave.

Might makes right.

Of course being right to begin with helps too.

 

[Anguille]

]

There is no problem. Lots of places would ban smoking on their own, there's absolutely no need to get the government involved.

Maybe in Lala Land.

 

[Father Time]

]

There is no problem. Lots of places would ban smoking on their own, there's absolutely no need to get the government involved.

Maybe in Lala Land.

The claim that owners should be able to decide about smoking is moot as most owners don't want it in their establishments anyway and did not object to the legislation.

It can't even it keep it's own shit straight.

 

[Father Time]

Face it Anguille you have no right to force people to behave the way you want them to behave.

Might makes right.

So it was right to slaughter all those Indians because we were more powerful?

 

[Anguille]

Father Time, are you always this desperate?

 

[Father Time]

Father Time, are you always this desperate?

Don't be upset that I proved you can't even keep your excuses straight.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry smokers...

You brought this all on yourselves. Rather than being considerate of others and restricting your activity to where it wouldn't affect others you became militant and insisted on smoking whenever and wherever you wanted. Whenever anyone asked you to refrain from your addiction, you became irate and raged about how you just HAD to smoke.
Well, you lost and everyone is better off for it.
Even smokers are better off. They have to cut down on their unhealthy habit. They are forced to breathe the clean air everyone has been asking for. They may even live a little longer

 

[Father Time]

Sorry smokers...

You brought this all on yourselves. Rather than being considerate of others and restricting your activity to where it wouldn't affect others you

Smokers are not one big group that decides collectively how to act.
And it wouldn't effect nonsmokers if nonsmokers just decided to simply not go there. No instead a bunch of tyrants thought they had a right to demand every single place and person cater to them and took away some liberty.

became militant and insisted on smoking whenever and wherever you wanted.

Name me one group that demanded the right to smoke wherever they please.

Whenever anyone asked you to refrain from your addiction, you became irate and raged about how you just HAD to smoke.

It's like I'm hearing a rant about how every single white guy is a klansman . If you honestly believe in those stereotypes and blanket statements you are a moron.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry smokers...

You brought this all on yourselves. Rather than being considerate of others and restricting your activity to where it wouldn't affect others you

Smokers are not one big group that decides collectively how to act.
And it wouldn't effect nonsmokers if nonsmokers just decided to simply not go there. No instead a bunch of tyrants thought they had a right to demand every single place and person cater to them and took away some liberty.

became militant and insisted on smoking whenever and wherever you wanted.

Name me one group that demanded the right to smoke wherever they please.

Whenever anyone asked you to refrain from your addiction, you became irate and raged about how you just HAD to smoke.

It's like I'm hearing a rant about how every single white guy is a klansman . If you honestly believe in those stereotypes and blanket statements you are a moron.

Cry me a river....

Well pal, the inconsiderate smokers ruined it for all

Too bad...too late

You can't smoke in public anymore and it is long overdue.

Its tough breathing all that clean air isn't it?

 

[Father Time]

Sorry smokers...

You brought this all on yourselves. Rather than being considerate of others and restricting your activity to where it wouldn't affect others you

Smokers are not one big group that decides collectively how to act.
And it wouldn't effect nonsmokers if nonsmokers just decided to simply not go there. No instead a bunch of tyrants thought they had a right to demand every single place and person cater to them and took away some liberty.



Name me one group that demanded the right to smoke wherever they please.

Whenever anyone asked you to refrain from your addiction, you became irate and raged about how you just HAD to smoke.

It's like I'm hearing a rant about how every single white guy is a klansman . If you honestly believe in those stereotypes and blanket statements you are a moron.

Cry me a river....

Well pal, the inconsiderate smokers ruined it for all

Too bad...too late

You can't smoke in public anymore and it is long overdue.

Its tough breathing all that clean air isn't it?

Show me the law that says you can't smoke outside.

Although it's disturbing that instead of debating that your solution isn't unfair you instead just shrug too bad.

So you admit what you're doing is unfair and yet you don't care.

 

[Valerie]

Maybe the solution should be for restaurants and bars to get licensed to have indoor smoking just as establishments seek liquor licenses, so only a certain number would be allowed within each jurisdiction. That way workers have a choice, patrons have a choice, restaurant/bar business owners have a choice. If you don't like being around drunk people then don't go to bars and if you don't like being around smokers then don't go to smoking establishments. (And if you don't like breathing in coal particles you have every right to not work in a coal mine.)

Unless you are going to


force employees in all types of working establishments to choose between working in a smoking or a non smoking establishment, then


you can't single out bar and restaurant employees and say you are just going to deny them workplace safety protection in certain workplaces.

Why? Lots of jobs have hazards that go along with them.

Bar and restaurant workers were the last to get this kind of protection because they are considered by some people, certainly some in this thread. to be second class citizens not deserving of all the same rights as white collar workers.

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

And they still aren't. They are free to enter any place that non-smokers are

 

[Valerie]

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

And they still aren't. They are free to enter any place that non-smokers are

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

And they still aren't. They are free to enter any place that non-smokers are

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

 

[Valerie]

And they still aren't. They are free to enter any place that non-smokers are

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

Not really seeing the comparison there.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

Not really seeing the comparison there.

Namely that business owners played the same "I will lose business if you make me do this" and "Its my business and I can do what I want to" cards

Didn't work then, didn't work with smokers

 

[Valerie]

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

Not really seeing the comparison there.

Namely that business owners played the same "I will lose business if you make me do this" and "Its my business and I can do what I want to" cards

Didn't work then, didn't work with smokers

But there's no real reason citizens shouldn't be allowed to run a business in an otherwise lawful manner with a license to patronize smokers.

 

[Father Time]

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

Not really seeing the comparison there.

Namely that business owners played the same "I will lose business if you make me do this" and "Its my business and I can do what I want to" cards

Didn't work then, didn't work with smokers

Rights are rarely absolute.

Although there's a difference between 'you can't refuse these guys' vs. you must refuse these guys.

You're asinine comparison is akin to saying 'separate but equal is wrong so we'll only allow whites in bars'.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What prevents you (or anyone) from asking the smoker to put the butt out or take it outside or move to a different area? No guarantees but . . . .

I do that all the time. Still have to do it even in areas that are well posted as non smoking areas!! As I said in an above post, if smokers were considerate they'd put their cigarettes out without even having to be asked. But too many are not considerate, too many are bullies that refuse to accommodate requests. That's why laws finally had to be enacted to stop them. You can blame the smokers for this unnecessary intrusion by the government. Thay are the ones who brought it on themselves and are wasting taxpayer money.

maybe people should practice civility towards one another rather than just bash smokers vs. non-smokers.

Do you consider it practicing civility to light up where someone else has to breathe in your smoke? If you want to lecture on civility you need to start with the smokers. They are the ones not being civil.

Bullies? More like addicts. No doubt some are assholes . . . .

I've encountered people who ask first if it's ok and if I said no, they didn't.

Would you be ok if the government just banned cigarettes altogether?

Yes. As long as they are legal I have to side with the idea that an owner should get to chose, BUT since the Government decides what medications we can use and not use based on potential health risk, I have no problem with them banning smoking altogether. It won't happen but it would not bother me.