Smoking banned in private homes.

[Anguille]

#6: If STS is proved to be harmful (i.e. if smokers are harming non smokers around them), then legislation is warranted to protect non smokers from exposure, and the proven affects of such exposure, to STS.

To my satisfaction, SMS has been proven harmful, both medically speaking and as a serious public nuisance,therefore I support legislation which protects non smokers AND smokers from exposure to SMS.

Having lived it, I know what SMS can do to harm people.

I'll take that as a yes again, and it provides a nice segue to #7, which (not that i want to tip you off) is where we'll start to disagree. Then we will probably agree on #8 and disagree hugely on the last one, #9.

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

 

[Ravi]

Angie, you are the one that said you almost threw a drink in a customer's face.

It isn't the whim of the manager to want to provide a service his customers are paying for...and if the employee refuses to help provide it they deserve to be fired.

What I do know is that once smoking was banned from airplanes the airlines reduced ventilation to cut costs. Now more people catch contagious diseases when they travel by plane. But I don't know if second hand smoke has ever killed anyone.

Your entire argument about a public nuisance is just silly. I've no doubt you could be considered a public nuisance.


So you believe your allergic reaction to cigarette smoke trumps someone in a condo's freedom to smoke in their own home. Is that correct?

 

[Anguille]

#7. If STS is not proved to be harmful (i.e. smokers are still harming themselves through Primary Tobacco Smote - PTS, but are merely inconveniencing non smokers by subjecting them to an atmosphere they find unpleasant), then legislation would be as unconstitutional as, say, legislation that tries to ban meat being on the menu in restaurants that may be patronized by vegetarians.

No. It is not unconstitutional nor is it wrong to expect people to conform to certain behaviors in order to keep the peace and to make public places as well as private places safe and enjoyable for all. If a grumpy smoker bitches that he can't light up, too bad for him, he is out numbered. He'll have to use one of the other,another non invasive ways to feed his habit.
Your analogy to meat on menu is ludicrous.

 

[Dis]

I paid $0.00 for my prescription of good old fashioned will power when I quit. I didn't whine to anyone about insurance either, though I do think insurance should pay the difference between what people where paying for cigs and the cost of medication if they are too weak to quit on their own. How much was your habit costing you?

This from the little candy-ass that smoked for a whopping 5 years, and has since spent more time whining about the world not catering to what she views and right/wrong? You didn't smoke long enough TO develop an actual addiction.

Puleeze.

I smoked non filtered French cigarettes. Nothing candy ass about those. What do you smoke? Virginia Slims? Salem Lights? LOL

I didn't know you were an expert on the length of time it takes to become addicted to nicotine or that you are so pathetic as to whine it's much harder for you to quit than it was for me.

Wait. I did know that. Is that why you neg repped me? I know too much about you?

So, are you going to say how much your habit was costing you? Was it more than the $100. something you claim your prescription costs you?

All my aunts and uncles quit cold turkey after an average of 35 years each of smoking. Not one complained. They just did it. Oh, one claims hypnotism worked for her. I also know people who have used the patch and/or gum. They relapsed later but that doesn't mean anything. They say the best indicator for success in quitting smoking is to have failed before. It took me 3 tries before I understood I could not pretend I was going to be able to be a casual, now and then smoker I have one friend whose doctor says her smoking is such a severe compulsion she needs anti-anxiety medication to help her. People should use whatever they need, but they have to truly want to quit. Nothing is a magic pill.

Actually, I neg-repped you for your condescending, holier than thou attiitude.

Oh, and thanks for the pos-rep in return again, for the second time.

 

[tigerbob]

To my satisfaction, SMS has been proven harmful, both medically speaking and as a serious public nuisance,therefore I support legislation which protects non smokers AND smokers from exposure to SMS.

Having lived it, I know what SMS can do to harm people.

I'll take that as a yes again, and it provides a nice segue to #7, which (not that i want to tip you off) is where we'll start to disagree. Then we will probably agree on #8 and disagree hugely on the last one, #9.

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

Hmmm. To be honest, I had expected you to agree with it rather than throw the whole thing out simply because I used the word "if". Or is it because I used the term "is proved" (i.e. implying future tense)?

I'll try rephrasing, as I wasn't trying to catch you out.

"Legislation is warranted to protect anyone from exposure to any substance that is proved to have a serious affect on their health". Hmmm, that won't do, because I could be trying to set up a ban on alcohol.

Ermmmm....

"If use of a product by one person has a serious negative health impact on others who are not intending to use that product, then it is fair and reasonable for legislation to be enacted that protects the non user".

I think that still covers it. Will that do as an alternative #6?

 

[Anguille]

Angie, you are the one that said you almost threw a drink in a customer's face.


But I didn't. I walked off the floor.
It isn't the whim of the manager to want to provide a service his customers are paying for...and if the employee refuses to help provide it they deserve to be fired.
Not if it's not the employee's job to do what whim it is of the manager to have him do . The employee may get fired but the establishment can be sued. Most managers know that and recognize you can't force a person to do a job other than for which you agreed to hire them and which they agreed to perform. You can ask them to do you a favor and do something outside their job description but if you fire them for refusing, they will be automatically eligible for unemployment benefits as well as having recourse to other legal means for seeking compensation. Not a good business practice and that's why it's not done as much in countries where employees have recognized rights.
What I do know is that once smoking was banned from airplanes the airlines reduced ventilation to cut costs. Now more people catch contagious diseases when they travel by plane. But I don't know if second hand smoke has ever killed anyone.

You seem to only know what suits you and enables you not to have a guilty conscience and ignore everything else.

Your entire argument about a public nuisance is just silly. I've no doubt you could be considered a public nuisance.

Actually you're making a tiny nuisance of yourself asking the same dumb questions and pretending tobacco smoke doesn't affect anyone. [/quote]

.

 

[Anguille]

Actually, I neg-repped you for your condescending, holier than thou attiitude.

Oh, and thanks for the pos-rep in return again, for the second time.

LOL! good joke. Only your lie doesn't annoy me. It just confirms for me how dumb you are.

So how much were you paying for cigs every month? Are you afraid to tell us?

 

[Anguille]

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

Hmmm. To be honest, I had expected you to agree with it rather than throw the whole thing out simply because I used the word "if". Or is it because I used the term "is proved" (i.e. implying future tense)?

I'll try rephrasing, as I wasn't trying to catch you out.

"Legislation is warranted to protect anyone from exposure to any substance that is proved to have a serious affect on their health". Hmmm, that won't do, because I could be trying to set up a ban on alcohol.

Ermmmm....

"If use of a product by one person has a serious negative health impact on others who are not intending to use that product, then it is fair and reasonable for legislation to be enacted that protects the non user".

I think that still covers it. Will that do as an alternative #6?[/quote]

Thanks for rewording it. I'll have to think about what you said.

 

[Dis]

Actually, I neg-repped you for your condescending, holier than thou attiitude.

Oh, and thanks for the pos-rep in return again, for the second time.

LOL! good joke. Only your lie doesn't annoy me. It just confirms for me how dumb you are.

So how much were you paying for cigs every month? Are you afraid to tell us?

My lie? LMAO! You don't believe me? Get ANY Mod of your choosing to verify it.

And then go crying to Gunny to have it changed, because in your rage, you were too stupid to pay attention.

 

[KittenKoder]

Still haven't seen any hard medical or even statistical data to support the anti-smoking paranoia.

 

[Ravi]

I see you are too chicken to answer my question, Angie.

Oh, well.

 

[Anguille]

I see you are too chicken to answer my question, Angie.

Oh, well.

What question?

 

[Anguille]

Still haven't seen any hard medical or even statistical data to support the anti-smoking paranoia.

Can you think of any reason not to smoke around another person other than that law prohibits it in certain cases?

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, on a related note:

As many of us smokers and a few real ex-smokers have noticed, the most offensive anti-smokers are always the wannabe ex-smokers with that holier than thou attitude when most often they were never truly addicted to it and have no idea what addiction is like.

 

[Ravi]

I see you are too chicken to answer my question, Angie.

Oh, well.

What question?

 

[KittenKoder]

Still haven't seen any hard medical or even statistical data to support the anti-smoking paranoia.

Can you think of any reason not to smoke around another person other than that law prohibits it in certain cases?

Not one reason.

Hate cars and have to see them and their motorists kill and harm thousands but can't go around blowing up every car and can't make a law to protect us from this danger.

Perfume makes it hard for me to breathe but people still wear gallons of that poison all the time and I can't do a damned thing about it even though my doctor has determined that many of my health problems are because of these and other artificial chemicals (replace perfume with cleaner for the next point),

Have to hear all the drunks high on their drug because some pusher (waitress) serves them that drug all the time, and have to tolerate their dangerous behavior and dead brain cell idiocy but can't get laws to stop them from it.

Have to see a lot of my taxes go to pay for street junkies to get legal versions of the drugs they are addicted to but would be in serious trouble if I told them to fuck off just for that because they are protected by idiotic minority laws (replace junky with drunk to).

 

[tigerbob]

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

Hmmm. To be honest, I had expected you to agree with it rather than throw the whole thing out simply because I used the word "if". Or is it because I used the term "is proved" (i.e. implying future tense)?

I'll try rephrasing, as I wasn't trying to catch you out.

"Legislation is warranted to protect anyone from exposure to any substance that is proved to have a serious affect on their health". Hmmm, that won't do, because I could be trying to set up a ban on alcohol.

Ermmmm....

"If use of a product by one person has a serious negative health impact on others who are not intending to use that product, then it is fair and reasonable for legislation to be enacted that protects the non user".

I think that still covers it. Will that do as an alternative #6?

Thanks for rewording it. I'll have to think about what you said.

No rush. After all, I already have your views on my point 7 (I won't address them since that might send us up a dead end street, and there will be plenty of time for disagreement after number 9) so I'm ready to move on to 8 when you are. We're ahead of the game.

 

[Anguille]

Oh, on a related note:

As many of us smokers and a few real ex-smokers have noticed, the most offensive anti-smokers are always the wannabe ex-smokers with that holier than thou attitude when most often they were never truly addicted to it and have no idea what addiction is like.

LOL!! What is weal adwiction like, crybaby?

My uncle with the 40 year 2 pack a day habit who quit cold turkey oneday with out saying a word to anyone, not even his wife that he was doing it, and who succeded would laugh his head off at you.

You diehard blow smoke in people's faces type smokers haven't figured out by now why some people can't tolerate your antics any more? You yourself said in a previous post you make a point to annoy people with your smoke because your pissed about smoking bans. For years, non smokers were dominated by smokers, or too be fair, by smokers who didn't give a rat's ass about anyone. Not even their own kids and families and smoked everywhere, because they could get away with it. Now the tables have turned. There was a long grace period when non smokers tried to be understanding, we walked on eggshells while smokers assured us they were going to quit smoking around us, we sometimes put up with it knowing how bad you must feel, or so we thought. Now time is up. A lot of tolerant non smokerws feel taken advantage of. They arev pissed. Some even think it's payback time. Is that right? No. But that's the way society is, the pendulum swings back.
A few anti smoking laws are unfair, it's true. But at this point not many non smokers ar even smokers care that they are. People are done with excuses of why they should have to endure other people's abuse and nasty habits.

Too many people in this thread are just interested in whining and finding someone to bitch with and calling others holier than thou.
And too few are interested in real debate and maybe coming to an understanding of what is fair. At least Bob has been willing to try. Otherwise this debate is just a rehash.

 

[Anguille]

I see you are too chicken to answer my question, Angie.

Oh, well.

What question?

Are you refering to smoking bans in my state? Look them up and then tell me what bee is in your bonnet.

 

[Anguille]

Still haven't seen any hard medical or even statistical data to support the anti-smoking paranoia.

Can you think of any reason not to smoke around another person other than that law prohibits it in certain cases?

Not one reason.

Hate cars and have to see them and their motorists kill and harm thousands but can't go around blowing up every car and can't make a law to protect us from this danger.

Perfume makes it hard for me to breathe but people still wear gallons of that poison all the time and I can't do a damned thing about it even though my doctor has determined that many of my health problems are because of these and other artificial chemicals (replace perfume with cleaner for the next point),

Have to hear all the drunks high on their drug because some pusher (waitress) serves them that drug all the time, and have to tolerate their dangerous behavior and dead brain cell idiocy but can't get laws to stop them from it.

Have to see a lot of my taxes go to pay for street junkies to get legal versions of the drugs they are addicted to but would be in serious trouble if I told them to fuck off just for that because they are protected by idiotic minority laws (replace junky with drunk to).

I hate all those same things and actually there are ever increasing laws enacted to protect us from the ill effects.
Sounds like you are just sulking because one of your own behaviors falls under the rubric of things that are harmful and thus restricted.