Smoking banned in private homes.

[Anguille]

I've had this discussion with you before, and I recall your previous arguments, which appear to be unchanged. Everything you say revolves around an unshakeable belief that passive smoking is as dangerous or more dangerous than direct smoking.

Link? I've never said that.

Like most antis, you will not listen to anyone who is not as convinced as you are, and have an alarming tendency to become more hysterical in your condemnation the longer the debate goes on.

The omnly hysteria I see in this thread is coming from the nicotine junkies worried they won't get their next fix.

You also have a tendency to muddy the waters of the debate....

I am constantly amused by all the loopy logic some smokers will come up with to try and justify imposing their drug on everyone around them. All this nonsense about how cigarette smoke never hurt anyone...

....such as there where you are (deliberately I would say) confusing some peoples' disagreement with the dangers of passive smoking with the dangers of smoking in general.

Or here...

Why should some get a pass? is it because bar employees are undeserving of the same protections as all other types of employees?

...where you ask an absurd question to try and put others on the back foot.

I think you said in an earlier post in this threads that you did not want smoking in your workplace and would consider it unfair to your non smoking colleagues if it was. So why do you think its fair to impose a smoking environment on bar staff? Are they less deserving of fairnes than your coworkers? Is it because they wait on people that they are undeserving of the same considerations made for all other employed people?

This seems to be your modus operandi. If there is a danger of "the other side's" objections sounding reasonable, try to undermine their position by putting words in their mouths or resorting to other such nonsense.

 

[Father Time]

for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

Hooray for Godwin's law.

 

[Anguille]

At this point your are arguing a different issue. I do thank you for publicly admitting that you don't respect private property rights.

Property rights are determined by the nation within which the property is located. You can't set up a nuclear power plant in your condo either.

 

[Gunny]

I've had this discussion with you before, and I recall your previous arguments, which appear to be unchanged. Everything you say revolves around an unshakeable belief that passive smoking is as dangerous or more dangerous than direct smoking.

Link? I've never said that.

Like most antis, you will not listen to anyone who is not as convinced as you are, and have an alarming tendency to become more hysterical in your condemnation the longer the debate goes on.

The omnly hysteria I see in this thread is coming from the nicotine junkies worried they won't get their next fix.

You also have a tendency to muddy the waters of the debate....

....such as there where you are (deliberately I would say) confusing some peoples' disagreement with the dangers of passive smoking with the dangers of smoking in general.

Or here...

...where you ask an absurd question to try and put others on the back foot.

I think you said in an earlier post in this threads that you did not want smoking in your workplace and would consider it unfair to your non smoking colleagues if it was. So why do you think its fair to impose a smoking environment on bar staff? Are they less deserving of fairnes than your coworkers? Is it because they wait on people that they are undeserving of the same considerations made for all other employed people?

This seems to be your modus operandi. If there is a danger of "the other side's" objections sounding reasonable, try to undermine their position by putting words in their mouths or resorting to other such nonsense.

Incorrect. You are quite the anti-smoking hysteric. Just the kind of person with their nose in my business that gets smoke blown in their face.

 

[tigerbob]

Anguille, should I be able to smoke in my condo? It's funny how the topic continues to be shifted toward smoking in public places. I'm a smoker, and even I don't think that I should be able to force others to breathe smoke. But, the law in the OP, if in effect in my town, would make it illegal for me to smoke in my own home. At that point it's not a public health issue.

I already answered your question way back in the thread. Smokers should be able to smoke in their own homes so long as the other people in the home who don't want to breathe the smoke or any children present are not exposed to it. If you rent, it depends on the agreement you have with your landlord. If it's forbidden in the lease you have to honor the aggreement you made.

I don't recall the specifics of the law but basically if you are able to smoke without any of your smoke getting into the other condos, the law should not stop you from smoking.

At this point your are arguing a different issue. I do thank you for publicly admitting that you don't respect private property rights.

Ang ALWAYS argues a different issue.

 

[dilloduck]

At this point your are arguing a different issue. I do thank you for publicly admitting that you don't respect private property rights.

Property rights are determined by the nation within which the property is located. You can't set up a nuclear power plant in your condo either.

shit----and I thought I finally had a good thing going.
nuclear power plants now equal a cigarette ?

 

[tigerbob]

I think you said in an earlier post in this threads that you did not want smoking in your workplace and would consider it unfair to your non smoking colleagues if it was. So why do you think its fair to impose a smoking environment on bar staff? Are they less deserving of fairnes than your coworkers? Is it because they wait on people that they are undeserving of the same considerations made for all other employed people?
]

If you are familiar with what I said earlier, them you will be familiar with the distinction I drew earlier.

 

[Anguille]

Agree, but whether it causes long term harm or is just short term unpleasant is the question, for me anyway.

Would death from an asthma attack qualify as long term harm?

Cigarette smoke is linked to cancer, emphysema, heart disease, allergies, etc. The fact that most people are so offended by it to the point of wanting laws passed so they won't have to put up with it anymore ought to show that it's a serious problem.

I beginning to think you people who keep dancing around the fact that just about every medical association in the world has condemned cigarette smoke as a major health hazard must have been taking lessons from Holocaust deniers on how to twist things around so you can deny second hand smoke causes harm.

You all whine and cry about your "right" to poison the air everyone breathes. You complain that non smokers are being mean to you. Whhaaaaa! You all sound like some people on this board that whine that white men are being persecuted in this country.

There you go again with your facetious red herrings.

That wasn't the point I was discussing with someone other than you. If you want to jump into a conversation, try and stick to the point, which was...

Is a non smoking bartender affected in any long term way by exposure to second hand smoke?

I was saying that I do not find the evidence convincing. I wasn't saying that it was not true, just that in my mind there was room for doubt. Instantly, that is cause for you to become rabid. You don't provide anything to convince me that your view is correct. You just start screaming.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "holocaust deniers" than maybe it would be appropriate for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

What red herring? You don't believe people die of asthma? You don't believe cigarette smoke causes asthma attacks? I can assure you it does, having had to go on medication for it due to second hand smoke in the restaurant I worked in.

Does it even matter if a bartender isn't affected long term by smoke? It's offensive to most people. It stinks, it gives people headaches and sinus problems and itchy eyes. Why subject anyone, bartender or not, to all that?

For years, people had to put up with cigarette smoke everywhere. I think smokers who want to keep abusing people with their smoke are the Nazis.

And BTW, you are the one screaming.

 

[michiganFats]

for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

Hooray for Godwin's law.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Bringing up the Holocaust deniers was IMHO intended to invoke images of the Third Reich. Just because Anguille didn't use the actual acronym nazi doesn't mean that tigerbob should be accused of proving Godwin's Law.

 

[Father Time]

At this point your are arguing a different issue. I do thank you for publicly admitting that you don't respect private property rights.

Property rights are determined by the nation within which the property is located. You can't set up a nuclear power plant in your condo either.

As are human rights. This is a debate over the property rights we should have.

Oh and I don't think there's a condo anywhere that is big enough to house a nuclear power plant.

Although it's a bad comparison anyway as if a nuclear power plant isn't properly handled it could easily be a danger to the public.

 

[Anguille]

You all whine and cry about your "right" to poison the air everyone breathes. You complain that non smokers are being mean to you. Whhaaaaa! You all sound like some people on this board that whine that white men are being persecuted in this country.

BZZT. It's not public air it's the air inside a private building, if you don't want to breathe the air don't go into the building.

If I opened a business and lit incense inside would you argue that I'm forcing everyone (even those who don't enter it) to smell whatever flavor the incense is? Probably not.

You have a right not to enter or work at any bar there is. Imagine that.

Can you argue that point or do you prefer to keep going on and on about health effects?

Private building are often public places. Laws concerning smoking in public place apply to all public places not just those owned by the government.

Places of employment must respect the laws concerning employees safety. There is no exception just because the employees are considered second class citizens by some.

 

[Father Time]

for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

Hooray for Godwin's law.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Bringing up the Holocaust deniers was IMHO intended to invoke images of the Third Reich. Just because Anguille didn't use the actual acronym nazi doesn't mean that tigerbob should be accused of proving Godwin's Law.

Yeah you're right, although I'm not sure if Holocaust denial is covered under Godwin's law, but it's close enough.

 

[Father Time]

You all whine and cry about your "right" to poison the air everyone breathes. You complain that non smokers are being mean to you. Whhaaaaa! You all sound like some people on this board that whine that white men are being persecuted in this country.

BZZT. It's not public air it's the air inside a private building, if you don't want to breathe the air don't go into the building.

If I opened a business and lit incense inside would you argue that I'm forcing everyone (even those who don't enter it) to smell whatever flavor the incense is? Probably not.

You have a right not to enter or work at any bar there is. Imagine that.

Can you argue that point or do you prefer to keep going on and on about health effects?

Private building are often public places. Laws concerning smoking in public place apply to all public places not just those owned by the government.

Places of employment must respect the laws concerning employees safety. There is no exception just because the employees are considered second class citizens by some.

No it's still a private building even if they let the general public in and out. They can restrict what goes on in their building in more ways than the government can. Although I'd call a smokey environment an inherent risk in the job (unless bar owner doesn't want it to be).

 

[Anguille]

I do not and will not support a ban in all bars. Smoking while you have a drink in a bar has been a social activity for centuries and there is absolutely no reason why bar owners should not be allowed to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their own establishments.

Employees have been used to working in smoky bars for decades.

This rates as one of the most moronic arguments in favor of exempting bars from employee protections.

If we are going to allow the "It was like that before and it was fine back then" argument then we really do have to ban smoking in bars. Taverns have been around a hell of a lot longer than tobacco has. Throughout most of history bars were non smoking because tobacco had not even been brought to Europe. And even then it took a few centuries before the American tobacco industry really got to work putting additives into tobacco, growing the most addictive kinds and blatantly deceiving the American public so as to get it totally hooked on their product.

 

[Anguille]

Incorrect. You are quite the anti-smoking hysteric. Just the kind of person with their nose in my business that gets smoke blown in their face.

Are you a smoker, Gunny? I pictured you as not.

 

[tigerbob]

Would death from an asthma attack qualify as long term harm?

Cigarette smoke is linked to cancer, emphysema, heart disease, allergies, etc. The fact that most people are so offended by it to the point of wanting laws passed so they won't have to put up with it anymore ought to show that it's a serious problem.

I beginning to think you people who keep dancing around the fact that just about every medical association in the world has condemned cigarette smoke as a major health hazard must have been taking lessons from Holocaust deniers on how to twist things around so you can deny second hand smoke causes harm.

You all whine and cry about your "right" to poison the air everyone breathes. You complain that non smokers are being mean to you. Whhaaaaa! You all sound like some people on this board that whine that white men are being persecuted in this country.

There you go again with your facetious red herrings.

That wasn't the point I was discussing with someone other than you. If you want to jump into a conversation, try and stick to the point, which was...

Is a non smoking bartender affected in any long term way by exposure to second hand smoke?

I was saying that I do not find the evidence convincing. I wasn't saying that it was not true, just that in my mind there was room for doubt. Instantly, that is cause for you to become rabid. You don't provide anything to convince me that your view is correct. You just start screaming.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "holocaust deniers" than maybe it would be appropriate for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

What red herring? You don't believe people die of asthma? You don't believe cigarette smoke causes asthma attacks? I can assure you it does, having had to go on medication for it due to second hand smoke in the restaurant I worked in.

Does it even matter if a bartender isn't affected long term by smoke? It's offensive to most people. It stinks, it gives people headaches and sinus problems and itchy eyes. Why subject anyone, bartender or not, to all that?

For years, people had to put up with cigarette smoke everywhere. I think smokers who want to keep abusing people with their smoke are the Nazis.

And BTW, you are the one screaming.

OK, tell you what, if you think I'm screaming (I'm really not, but of course you'd have to take my word for that and you don't appear to be willing to). Rather than go back and forth in a game of tennis, let's put our cards on the table.

I'll tell you in short, unambiguous sentences what I know / believe about the health affects of smoking, then you can tell me whether you agree, disagree, or whether you have anything to add. It you can keep your responses as short as my points (i.e. a couple of sentences or so) then we will get through this quickly and be able to pin down what our differences are. How does that sound? If OK, here's my first belief (don't worry, I'll get to the more contentious ones as we move along).

1. Primary smoking (i.e. someone lighting a cigarette, drawing on it, inhaling it and exhaling), if done repeatedly over a number of years, is highly likely to cause the smoker serious health defects including but not limited to several kinds of cancer, bronchitis, heart disease, stroke and emphysema.

 

[tigerbob]

for you to stop behaving like a nazi.

Hooray for Godwin's law.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Bringing up the Holocaust deniers was IMHO intended to invoke images of the Third Reich. Just because Anguille didn't use the actual acronym nazi doesn't mean that tigerbob should be accused of proving Godwin's Law.

Very good of you to jump in. I was going to let it side, but thanks.

 

[tigerbob]

Hooray for Godwin's law.

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Bringing up the Holocaust deniers was IMHO intended to invoke images of the Third Reich. Just because Anguille didn't use the actual acronym nazi doesn't mean that tigerbob should be accused of proving Godwin's Law.

Yeah you're right, although I'm not sure if Holocaust denial is covered under Godwin's law, but it's close enough.

Hooray!

 

[Anguille]

It you can keep your responses as short as my points (i.e. a couple of sentences or so) then we will get through this quickly and be able to pin down what our differences are. How does that sound? If OK, here's my first belief (don't worry, I'll get to the more contentious ones as we move along).

I can't stay online much longer but wil get back to you tomorrow if this goes on for longer than I can tonight.

 

[tigerbob]

I do not and will not support a ban in all bars. Smoking while you have a drink in a bar has been a social activity for centuries and there is absolutely no reason why bar owners should not be allowed to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their own establishments.

Employees have been used to working in smoky bars for decades.

This rates as one of the most moronic arguments in favor of exempting bars from employee protections.

If we are going to allow the "It was like that before and it was fine back then" argument then we really do have to ban smoking in bars. Taverns have been around a hell of a lot longer than tobacco has. Throughout most of history bars were non smoking because tobacco had not even been brought to Europe. And even then it took a few centuries before the American tobacco industry really got to work putting additives into tobacco, growing the most addictive kinds and blatantly deceiving the American public so as to get it totally hooked on their product.

I could respond, but again I'll let it slide in the interests of having an intelligent exchange on my earlier point.