Civil Disobedience

[Father Time]

It hasn't been fully banned, and this isn't about the right to smoke wherever they please, this is a right for bar owners to decide what to do with their private property.

Bar owners have never had the right to do what they want with their private property.
They don't have a "right" to deny service to blacks
They don't have a "right" to serve alchohol after closing
They don't have a "right" to serve minors

THEY DO!

They don't have those rights but if they wanted to say change it into a motel or a violin store or whatever that is their right.

It's not absolute but then again nothing is.

It's exactly like saying that because slander and defamation are illegal we don't have free speech and therefore it's ok to censor whatever the majority likes.

 

[Father Time]

Smokers for generations abused their privledge (not right) to smoke.

So now they have lost that privledge.

It sucks being a smoker doesn't it? Everybody picks on you

So now you're talking about smokers as if they as a group decide how to behave and punishing all for the sins of a few. Bigoted much?

Oh and their actions do not excuse your tyrannical and detestable removal of other people's freedoms. No matter how much you want to spin it you are taking away the rights of bar and restaurant owners not the rights of smokers. Smokers never had the right to smoke on someone else's property they had to be granted that privilege by the owner.

Oh and if you don't like being in bars that allow smoking you can, and pay attention now and this is important, FUCKING LEAVE.

That way you won't have to deal with them and they can be in peace, but no you try to pretend that not being able to force people to behave they way you want them to makes you a victim and then bitch to government to get what you want.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers for generations abused their privledge (not right) to smoke.

So now they have lost that privledge.

It sucks being a smoker doesn't it? Everybody picks on you

So now you're talking about smokers as if they as a group decide how to behave and punishing all for the sins of a few. Bigoted much?

Oh and their actions do not excuse your tyrannical and detestable removal of other people's freedoms. No matter how much you want to spin it you are taking away the rights of bar and restaurant owners not the rights of smokers. Smokers never had the right to smoke on someone else's property they had to be granted that privilege by the owner.

Oh and if you don't like being in bars that allow smoking you can, and pay attention now and this is important, FUCKING LEAVE.

That way you won't have to deal with them and they can be in peace, but no you try to pretend that not being able to force people to behave they way you want them to makes you a victim and then bitch to government to get what you want.


QUOTE]

I don't have to leave

The SMOKERS have to leave. Is this a GREAT country or what!

 

[Father Time]

Smokers for generations abused their privledge (not right) to smoke.

So now they have lost that privledge.

It sucks being a smoker doesn't it? Everybody picks on you

So now you're talking about smokers as if they as a group decide how to behave and punishing all for the sins of a few. Bigoted much?

Oh and their actions do not excuse your tyrannical and detestable removal of other people's freedoms. No matter how much you want to spin it you are taking away the rights of bar and restaurant owners not the rights of smokers. Smokers never had the right to smoke on someone else's property they had to be granted that privilege by the owner.

Oh and if you don't like being in bars that allow smoking you can, and pay attention now and this is important, FUCKING LEAVE.

That way you won't have to deal with them and they can be in peace, but no you try to pretend that not being able to force people to behave they way you want them to makes you a victim and then bitch to government to get what you want.


QUOTE]

I don't have to leave

The SMOKERS have to leave. Is this a GREAT country or what!

Answer my question, why can't you leave if you don't like the presence of smokers? No one is forcing you to be in the bar or restaurant.

 

[rightwinger]

So now you're talking about smokers as if they as a group decide how to behave and punishing all for the sins of a few. Bigoted much?

Oh and their actions do not excuse your tyrannical and detestable removal of other people's freedoms. No matter how much you want to spin it you are taking away the rights of bar and restaurant owners not the rights of smokers. Smokers never had the right to smoke on someone else's property they had to be granted that privilege by the owner.

Oh and if you don't like being in bars that allow smoking you can, and pay attention now and this is important, FUCKING LEAVE.

That way you won't have to deal with them and they can be in peace, but no you try to pretend that not being able to force people to behave they way you want them to makes you a victim and then bitch to government to get what you want.


QUOTE]

I don't have to leave

The SMOKERS have to leave. Is this a GREAT country or what!

Answer my question, why can't you leave if you don't like the presence of smokers? No one is forcing you to be in the bar or restaurant.

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

 

[Father Time]

Answer my question, why can't you leave if you don't like the presence of smokers? No one is forcing you to be in the bar or restaurant.

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

We are not talking about public for the 1000th time.

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

Why should they have to leave? Shouldn't you have known that there might have been smokers in there?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

"I can't be bothered to leave, that's too much work, but I'm OK with forcing them to leave."

This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Bern80]

Listen moron..

Both have the same legal premise. The rights of a businessman to set the rules for his establishment. In both serving blacks and allowing smoking the courts ruled the same. Namely, businesses are public places and must be open to all.

You lose moron

No bud you still lose. They are open to all whether smoking is allowed in them or not.

 

[Bern80]

And smokers can chose not set foot in establishments where smoking is not permitted. They are perfectly free to do whatever they like, as long as it is lawful.

Smoking isn't permitted in many places at all nowadays . . . . so fuck those smokers, they can just do without huh?

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

They don't think that. No one has a right to clean air anymore than they have a right to smoke. What you want doesn't trump what they want no matter how disgusting we both may find the habit. On top of that the courts have told an owner of a private business what they can allow on their premises, which is just plane wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Smoking isn't permitted in many places at all nowadays . . . . so fuck those smokers, they can just do without huh?

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

They don't think that. No one has a right to clean air anymore than they have a right to smoke. What you want doesn't trump what they want no matter how disgusting we both may find the habit. On top of that the courts have told an owner of a private business what they can allow on their premises, which is just plane wrong.

Well this is where you really lose. Because we are no longer just talking about pristine air, we are talking about a healthy environment. If you own a bar or restaurant, you are responsible for maintaing a safe workplace. Once second hand smoke became a known hazard, it became a responsibility of owners to protect their employees.
So lets hear it now.....if they don't want to work in smoke, they can quit!

 

[Anguille]

We are not talking about public for the 1000th time.

For the 100th time ... yes, we are. You keep confusing the concept of public space with public property.

You seem you think that the borders of the United States end at private property lines. You seem to think that each bit of private property is a little principality where the owner dictates his own laws and the the laws of the US have no jurisdiction on private property. The fact is, owning property in the US only means you have certain privileges concerning that property which are granted by the state,

If you want to enjoy those privileges and also enjoy the protection that the US military and local and state police forces provide you with, if you was to enjoy access to public water resources, the electrical grid, garbage removal, use of public roads adjoining your property, then you are obliged to conform to the laws of this country concerning operating a business where citizens are employed. OSHA has determined that cigarette smoke is a workplace health hazard that has no redeming value and which will no longer be allowed.
If any bar owner does not wish to respect workplace safety laws concerning secondhand smoke then they are free to relocate to a country that does not have such laws. They can take all the worthless and whining nicotine junkies with them. Good riddance!

 

[Anguille]

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

If it's right to allow smoking in bars, then it must be allowed in all workplaces. Hospitals, schools, airplanes, anywhere were people work.

I suppose some of the fruitcakes in this thread would think that would be an excellent idea. Tell all the non smokers and the smokers who don't want to have to breathe ciggarette smoke at work just quit their jobs.

 

[alan1]

20+ years ago I was working for a company that went non-smoking.
No problem, the owner of the company (and the property) decided he wanted to do that. It was his right what he did with his personal property and business.

The lady that ran the computer that controlled the company was a smoker. She gave her two week notice and left after two weeks.
The next week, the computer system crashed 3 times. It shut the entire company down for about 3 hours each time it crashed.
A week later, the owner of the company hired her back and allowed her to smoke in her office. Funny thing is, nobody else was allowed to smoke in their office. Hey, it was his company and his property, it was his right to do that.
I heard the company finally went totally smoke free when she retired about 7 years ago.

 

[Anguille]

20+ years ago I was working for a company that went non-smoking.
No problem, the owner of the company (and the property) decided he wanted to do that. It was his right what he did with his personal property and business.

The lady that ran the computer that controlled the company was a smoker. She gave her two week notice and left after two weeks.
The next week, the computer system crashed 3 times. It shut the entire company down for about 3 hours each time it crashed.
A week later, the owner of the company hired her back and allowed her to smoke in her office. Funny thing is, nobody else was allowed to smoke in their office. Hey, it was his company and his property, it was his right to do that.
I heard the company finally went totally smoke free when she retired about 7 years ago.

Some smokers will stop at nothing to get their way. Even hacking computers.

 

[alan1]

20+ years ago I was working for a company that went non-smoking.
No problem, the owner of the company (and the property) decided he wanted to do that. It was his right what he did with his personal property and business.

The lady that ran the computer that controlled the company was a smoker. She gave her two week notice and left after two weeks.
The next week, the computer system crashed 3 times. It shut the entire company down for about 3 hours each time it crashed.
A week later, the owner of the company hired her back and allowed her to smoke in her office. Funny thing is, nobody else was allowed to smoke in their office. Hey, it was his company and his property, it was his right to do that.
I heard the company finally went totally smoke free when she retired about 7 years ago.

Some smokers will stop at nothing to get their way. Even hacking computers.

She didn't hack anything.
Go ahead and ignore reality though, it's what you do best.

 

[Anguille]

20+ years ago I was working for a company that went non-smoking.
No problem, the owner of the company (and the property) decided he wanted to do that. It was his right what he did with his personal property and business.

The lady that ran the computer that controlled the company was a smoker. She gave her two week notice and left after two weeks.
The next week, the computer system crashed 3 times. It shut the entire company down for about 3 hours each time it crashed.
A week later, the owner of the company hired her back and allowed her to smoke in her office. Funny thing is, nobody else was allowed to smoke in their office. Hey, it was his company and his property, it was his right to do that.
I heard the company finally went totally smoke free when she retired about 7 years ago.

Some smokers will stop at nothing to get their way. Even hacking computers.

She didn't hack anything.
Go ahead and ignore reality though, it's what you do best.

Like anyone should accept your postings as reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

If it's right to allow smoking in bars, then it must be allowed in all workplaces. Hospitals, schools, airplanes, anywhere were people work.

I suppose some of the fruitcakes in this thread would think that would be an excellent idea. Tell all the non smokers and the smokers who don't want to have to breathe ciggarette smoke at work just quit their jobs.

I believe the point isn't whether anything thinks it's "right or wrong" to allow smoking. The point is that it should be the proprietors of the business - the people who actually own the property - who decide what happens there, not you or a bunch of self-righteous, busybody anti-smoking crusaders. I sincerely doubt that the people who own and run hospitals and schools would choose to allow smoking on the premises, whether the law banned it or not . . . particularly since hospitals routinely utilize flammable materials like oxygen tanks.

I hate to spoil your happy little "all or nothing" extremist rant, but perhaps a more practical solution would be for people who are violently anti-smoking to either not work in one of the few types of businesses which would be likely to allow smoking, or to petition their bosses to limit or ban it, rather than choosing to legislate control of other people's property to themselves. It isn't as though there was any major drive to have widespread smoking in businesses BEFORE these laws were passed.

 

[Father Time]

Some smokers will stop at nothing to get their way. Even hacking computers.

She didn't hack anything.
Go ahead and ignore reality though, it's what you do best.

Like anyone should accept your postings as reality.

I can just imagine the thought process that goes through Anguille's head.

"Oh no MountainMan posted something that contradicts our beliefs, what should we do?"
"We need to remain head in the sand status at all costs. Fire the reality warpers, and put on a smug sense of rightness, that oughta keep them at bay while we search for a different solution."

 

[Father Time]

That is EXACTLY the point. Why should smokers be permitted to engage in an activity in public that forces other people to leave?

If someone smokes heavily at my job and it affects me...Why should I have to leave?
If someone is smoking in a movie theater....Why should I have to leave?

But you want to know the GOOD PART?
I don't have to leave anymore. It is the smokers who have to live in my environment now. if they don't like it...they can leave

If it's right to allow smoking in bars, then it must be allowed in all workplaces. Hospitals, schools, airplanes, anywhere were people work.

I suppose some of the fruitcakes in this thread would think that would be an excellent idea. Tell all the non smokers and the smokers who don't want to have to breathe ciggarette smoke at work just quit their jobs.

I believe the point isn't whether anything thinks it's "right or wrong" to allow smoking. The point is that it should be the proprietors of the business - the people who actually own the property - who decide what happens there, not you or a bunch of self-righteous, busybody anti-smoking crusaders. I sincerely doubt that the people who own and run hospitals and schools would choose to allow smoking on the premises, whether the law banned it or not . . . particularly since hospitals routinely utilize flammable materials like oxygen tanks.

I hate to spoil your happy little "all or nothing" extremist rant, but perhaps a more practical solution would be for people who are violently anti-smoking to either not work in one of the few types of businesses which would be likely to allow smoking, or to petition their bosses to limit or ban it, rather than choosing to legislate control of other people's property to themselves. It isn't as though there was any major drive to have widespread smoking in businesses BEFORE these laws were passed.

Quiet cecillie that doesn't gel with her 'all smokers are big fat meanies and we needed this legislation to stand up to them' line of stupid.

 

[alan1]

She didn't hack anything.
Go ahead and ignore reality though, it's what you do best.

Like anyone should accept your postings as reality.

I can just imagine the thought process that goes through Anguille's head.

"Oh no MountainMan posted something that contradicts our beliefs, what should we do?"
"We need to remain head in the sand status at all costs. Fire the reality warpers, and put on a smug sense of rightness, that oughta keep them at bay while we search for a different solution."

And accuse somebody of criminal behavior.

 

[Father Time]

Like anyone should accept your postings as reality.

I can just imagine the thought process that goes through Anguille's head.

"Oh no MountainMan posted something that contradicts our beliefs, what should we do?"
"We need to remain head in the sand status at all costs. Fire the reality warpers, and put on a smug sense of rightness, that oughta keep them at bay while we search for a different solution."

And accuse somebody of criminal behavior.

All so that she might be able to smoke.

If someone was skilled enough to hack into a restaurant system from the outside methinks they could sell their skills for more than what a restaurant would pay.