Smoking Bans

[Ame®icano]

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

Such people are extremely rare, as we all know. Who are you trying to kid?

Such people do exist and they do not fall into your "everyone" category.

 

[Ame®icano]

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

Have I said that? Nope. So cut the crap.

 

[Ame®icano]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

What about the freedom to breathe?



It ain't about the "rights" of the business owner --- it's about the rights of the breather.



Duh?

The people can choose to go to a no smoking restaurant or bar. I don't smoke and that may be my choice. But just because I don't smoke, I don't expect others to go without their cigarettes.

"Can choose to go to a non-smoking (whatever)" is the same as denial of the right to breathe.
Prove it's not.


Whether smokers go with or without their cigarettes, who cares, that's on them. But once they impinge on my ability to breathe, shit's gonna hit the fan. Why should they get breath rights and I don't?

No its not.

To non smoker, any smoker is a problem. Even when it doesn't affect non smoker at all.

Don't be absurd. Why would I give a flying shit what a smoker's doing to his own lungs in East Jipip? Obviously you didn't read my post even though you had a week which for most people is enough time to catch the conditional phrase. You must be one of the super-slower readers. I bolded it for you so you can maybe Where's Waldo it. Get back to me in three more months.

I see you're trying to be smart ass. I joined this thread last night, so excuse me for being slow, asshole.

Now, every car, truck or airplane impacting your ability to breathe far more then smokers. I don't see you bitching about it. But you do bitch about smokers because in your thick head, smokers are the problem even when they don't affect you much or not at all.

 

[dblack]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

 

[Ame®icano]

Unfortunately for them humans are a social species. There's not a damn thing they can do to change that. They're just gonna have to grow up.

True about social species. Only problem is way they see society they live in. Those who do not accept to be part of sick progressive/liberal society are seen as either beneath normal, or amoral, or you name it. Whats wrong in being self sufficient?

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

 

[dblack]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

Whatever. I just appreciate the fact that you don't try to pretend it has anything to do with protecting people's rights, and everything to do with "society" dictating to minorities.

 

[Pogo]

The überyoga stretches that the Randbots here assume is ironic ---- they claim to champion the right of the "individual" over any kind of "control" squashing those rights, yet have no qualms themselves about squashing the simple right to breathe of others around them -- a biological right that really can't be more basic. And faced with an articulation of the consequences they throw a tantrum, try to change the inconvenient subject or just go


I've learned from this forum what this faux-noble bullshit "libertarian" label really means --- it means never having to take responsibility for one's personal actions. It means having the "freedom" to live with the emotional maturity level of a four-year-old where everything in one's sphere is entirely egocentric. All about Numero Uno.

That explains Fingerboy's avatar. It sums up the whole sociopath attitude.

​

Unfortunately for them humans are a social species. There's not a damn thing they can do to change that. They're just gonna have to grow up.

True about social species. Only problem is way they see society they live in. Those who do not accept to be part of sick progressive/liberal society are seen as either beneath normal, or amoral, or you name it. Whats wrong in being self sufficient?

"Self sufficient"??
How does that in any way even begin to relate to my post?

 

[Pogo]

What about the freedom to breathe?



It ain't about the "rights" of the business owner --- it's about the rights of the breather.



Duh?

The people can choose to go to a no smoking restaurant or bar. I don't smoke and that may be my choice. But just because I don't smoke, I don't expect others to go without their cigarettes.

"Can choose to go to a non-smoking (whatever)" is the same as denial of the right to breathe.
Prove it's not.


Whether smokers go with or without their cigarettes, who cares, that's on them. But once they impinge on my ability to breathe, shit's gonna hit the fan. Why should they get breath rights and I don't?

No its not.

To non smoker, any smoker is a problem. Even when it doesn't affect non smoker at all.

Don't be absurd. Why would I give a flying shit what a smoker's doing to his own lungs in East Jipip? Obviously you didn't read my post even though you had a week which for most people is enough time to catch the conditional phrase. You must be one of the super-slower readers. I bolded it for you so you can maybe Where's Waldo it. Get back to me in three more months.

I see you're trying to be smart ass. I joined this thread last night, so excuse me for being slow, asshole.

Now, every car, truck or airplane impacting your ability to breathe far more then smokers. I don't see you bitching about it. But you do bitch about smokers because in your thick head, smokers are the problem even when they don't affect you much or not at all.

Once again the point seems to have sailed over your head while you set up strawmen representing what you wish I had said instead of what I actually posted.

Have you always been this dishonest?

 

[Pogo]

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

Have I said that? Nope. So cut the crap.

Funny -- you don't seem to have an issue putting words in other people's mouths -- now you wanna cry the blues with a persecution complex?

Poster please. It's called satire, dumbass.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

Whatever. I just appreciate the fact that you don't try to pretend it has anything to do with protecting people's rights, and everything to do with "society" dictating to minorities.

No.....it s society dictating to people engaging in offensive behavior

It is obvious they choose not to control themselves on their own

 

[dblack]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

Whatever. I just appreciate the fact that you don't try to pretend it has anything to do with protecting people's rights, and everything to do with "society" dictating to minorities.

No.....it s society dictating to people engaging in offensive behavior

It is obvious they choose not to control themselves on their own

That's what I'm pointing out. You want government to control people.

 

[Pop23]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

You don't give a rip about clean air. You've probably never required a business to test for radon gas before entering it.

 

[Pop23]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

Whatever. I just appreciate the fact that you don't try to pretend it has anything to do with protecting people's rights, and everything to do with "society" dictating to minorities.

No.....it s society dictating to people engaging in offensive behavior

It is obvious they choose not to control themselves on their own

Hmmmmm, where have I heard that before.

I know, you think it's icky, right?

 

[Wildman]

Sure, you can choose where to shop, that's fine; if you don't want carcinogens in your lungs you can patronize somewhere else, nobody forces you in there. All true. BUT...

That business, in order to operate, must have employee staff. And they can't be forced to breathe that stuff against their will -- unless the business wants to hire only smokers, which they can't do. So keep it out of the workplace to protect the employees -- who have no choice -- and the dilemma of what to do about the clientele takes care of itself. Problem solved.

no one is forced to work for an employer that allows smoking. Smoking is permitted in most casinos, no one is forced to work as a dealer or cocktail waitress. If you accept a job in a place that allows smoking, you do so voluntarily.

why does freedom confuse you liberals so much?

Why does "safe workplace" confuse you?

Is it because you get off on bootlicking? Or you just don't have the cojones to stand up for your own rights?

No one is forced to work in a place they consider unsafe. If a restaurant wants to serve only smokers and only hire smokers, that should be its right. Why do libs fear freedom?

Thankfully, we moved past that opinion in the 1920s

Yes, you have to provide a safe workplace and no, you can't force employees to make a choice between risking their lives and feeding their families

OMG, you are so full of left wing bullshit------------you are willing to give up freedom to have safety and in the end will have neither. There is a Franklin quote that says pretty much the same thing. Since you worship the founders, look it up.

>>>>>>>>>
some one with an I.Q. of say, 37.., which is higher than his will have show him how to look things up. ......

smokong of a legal product IS a right.

you lefties found the "right " to an a female getting an abortion, so if you care to look, you will also find the "RIGHT" to smoke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

I stand with what I said.

Do you think an employee should be able to smoke while carrying out their duties? Do you think one employee should be able to endanger the life of another employee while at work?

 

[Pop23]

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

I stand with what I said.

Do you think an employee should be able to smoke while carrying out their duties? Do you think one employee should be able to endanger the life of another employee while at work?

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

 

[dblack]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers are no longer welcome in our society

No need to coddle their filthy habit

Wow. That really gets to the sort of a bigoted, authoritarian mindset of today's statist.

Smokers can control and are responsible for their own actions

If they can't control their filthy habit, move away from those wishing to breathe clean air

Whatever. I just appreciate the fact that you don't try to pretend it has anything to do with protecting people's rights, and everything to do with "society" dictating to minorities.

No.....it s society dictating to people engaging in offensive behavior

It is obvious they choose not to control themselves on their own

That's what I'm pointing out. You want government to control people.

Yes, I do

I don't want people speeding, drunk driving, serving harmful food or exhaling their filth for me to breathe