Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Immanuel]

I fail to see why exposure to second hand smoke is an expected workplace hazard or why it should be tolerated. Bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments. They existed before tobacco and are surviving fine now without it.

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

It's not me dictating it's the US government.

A government of the people, for the people, by the people. You/we are the government.

And I'm glad they do.

And I am not, why do you believe you have more rights than I do?

If we did not have health codes we'd all be (more) at risk for all kinds off food poisoning.

I understand you are a liberal and believe in the Nanny State. Do you want the government to tell us when we can take a crap too?

Does your opposition of smoking bans extend to all types of businesses?

Yes. Although, I believe I said it was up to the owner of the business. If he wants to cater to smokers, he should be allowed to. If he wants to cater to people who fear every germ on the face of the Earth that should be his right.

Are you also opposed to zoning laws because they dictate what can be done on private property?

No, because when I allow my lawn to grow waste deep, it then affects my neighbors property value. My neighbor has the right to protect his private property and the value of his property. If I neglect my property, then I am interfering with his rights.

In your case, you are going into the bar owners private property and dictating to him what he will and will not do.

Don't you think saying people should just not patronize businesses that allow smoking to be rather simplistic?

No, you see, I believe in capitalism and if the bar owner decides that he wants to allow smoking in his establishment and opens up the doors to smokers, but then loses 85% of his business because people like you don't like the fact that other people choose to smoke smelly shit, then the bar owner can change his policy and not allow smoking in his establishment.

I do. If you want to operate a business in a community you have an obligation to operate it in a manner which does not harm that community.

And where do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you learn that in Liberalism 101?

Immie

 

[Father Time]

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

This borders on a strawman argument.

A huge number of people who work in bars and restaurants - whether they be band members, maitre'd's, cooks or whatever, are non-smokers. Why should they have to tolerate putting up with other people's disgusting habit in their workplace environs.

Because it's not their building. Their employers are not obligated to give them a job.

Get another job you say? Why should they.

Because it's not their building.

It wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace environment, and if you had that attitude, you'd suddenly have a lot of establishments with no staff.

If that were true then they'd ban smoking on their own to try to get some staff.

Oh and what makes you say it wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace?

 

[Anguille]

Generally I find smokers a selfish lot when it comes to their habit. I smoked for 17 years and I ALWAYS asked if people minded if I lit up and I never smoked in the house - whether living with room mates or at home.

Nicotine is a narcotic addictive drug. I find that some smokers will try any illogical argument to try and convince people they should tolerate their smoke.

If it were crack they'd do the same.

Others are honest and say the bans are fair and necessary even if they find them sometimes hard to live with.

Good for you that you were a considerate smoker!

 

[Immanuel]

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

This borders on a strawman argument.

A huge number of people who work in bars and restaurants - whether they be band members, maitre'd's, cooks or whatever, are non-smokers. Why should they have to tolerate putting up with other people's disgusting habit in their workplace environs.

Get another job you say? Why should they. It wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace environment, and if you had that attitude, you'd suddenly have a lot of establishments with no staff.

Just because you own a business doesn't mean you dismiss your obligations to make sure your staff are working in a hazard-free environment. Smoking in a restaurant or bar where people work is a hazard to those people.

Generally I find smokers a selfish lot when it comes to their habit. I smoked for 17 years and I ALWAYS asked if people minded if I lit up and I never smoked in the house - whether living with room mates or at home.

I've never really smoked see my comments earlier about the 1 week. I find smoking to be disgusting. My parents used to smoke and after dinner at restaurants they would put out their cigarettes in the plates!!! Good lord, I found that literally disgusting. It made me want to up chuck dinner when they did that. I used to have to KP camp after a camping trip and pick up their cigarette butts. Believe me... I found that disgusting too.

However, I still believe that it is the owner of the business who has the right to make that decision. If staff members don't like his decision, they can go elsewhere. If he loses the best staff members because of his decision, then he suffers the consequences and maybe he will have to re-evaluate his decision.

I appreciate your (You and Mrs. Kravitz') points of view, but I just think there is such a thing as too much government intervention.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

A government of the people, for the people, by the people. You/we are the government.



And I am not, why do you believe you have more rights than I do?




I understand you are a liberal and believe in the Nanny State. Do you want the government to tell us when we can take a crap too?



Yes. Although, I believe I said it was up to the owner of the business. If he wants to cater to smokers, he should be allowed to. If he wants to cater to people who fear every germ on the face of the Earth that should be his right.



No, because when I allow my lawn to grow waste deep, it then affects my neighbors property value. My neighbor has the right to protect his private property and the value of his property. If I neglect my property, then I am interfering with his rights.

In your case, you are going into the bar owners private property and dictating to him what he will and will not do.

Don't you think saying people should just not patronize businesses that allow smoking to be rather simplistic?

No, you see, I believe in capitalism and if the bar owner decides that he wants to allow smoking in his establishment and opens up the doors to smokers, but then loses 85% of his business because people like you don't like the fact that other people choose to smoke smelly shit, then the bar owner can change his policy and not allow smoking in his establishment.

I do. If you want to operate a business in a community you have an obligation to operate it in a manner which does not harm that community.

And where do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you learn that in Liberalism 101?

Immie

Most of your comments were preposterous. Clearly we have entirely different ideas of what property ownership means.


Tell me, supposing two people were on neutral ground, is there any reason why one should have to put up with the cigarette smoke of another's?

 

[Anguille]

Yes. Although, I believe I said it was up to the owner of the business. If he wants to cater to smokers, he should be allowed to. If he wants to cater to people who fear every germ on the face of the Earth that should be his right.

So you think all business owners have the right to allow smoking on their property?

 

[Immanuel]

A government of the people, for the people, by the people. You/we are the government.



And I am not, why do you believe you have more rights than I do?




I understand you are a liberal and believe in the Nanny State. Do you want the government to tell us when we can take a crap too?



Yes. Although, I believe I said it was up to the owner of the business. If he wants to cater to smokers, he should be allowed to. If he wants to cater to people who fear every germ on the face of the Earth that should be his right.



No, because when I allow my lawn to grow waste deep, it then affects my neighbors property value. My neighbor has the right to protect his private property and the value of his property. If I neglect my property, then I am interfering with his rights.

In your case, you are going into the bar owners private property and dictating to him what he will and will not do.

No, you see, I believe in capitalism and if the bar owner decides that he wants to allow smoking in his establishment and opens up the doors to smokers, but then loses 85% of his business because people like you don't like the fact that other people choose to smoke smelly shit, then the bar owner can change his policy and not allow smoking in his establishment.

I do. If you want to operate a business in a community you have an obligation to operate it in a manner which does not harm that community.

And where do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you learn that in Liberalism 101?

Immie

Most of your comments were preposterous. Clearly we have entirely different ideas of what property ownership means.


Tell me, supposing two people were on neutral ground, is there any reason why one should have to put up with the cigarette smoke of another's?

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

Because it's not their building. Their employers are not obligated to give them a job.

Get another job you say? Why should they.

Because it's not their building.

It wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace environment, and if you had that attitude, you'd suddenly have a lot of establishments with no staff.

If that were true then they'd ban smoking on their own to try to get some staff.

Oh and what makes you say it wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace?

It wouldn't in enclosed workspace. In NZ and Australia it is illegal to smoke inside any building that is a work place that isn't your home (The only people who smoke in their own home are self-employed)..

That aside, do you think it selfish to smoke inside a place where there are non-smokers? When I smoked I thought it was, and nothing has changed in that regard.

Nice dodge ignoring the part about an employer having to make sure their employees are in a hazard-free environment.

All this aside, there is not a single establishment I know of that has closed since the new laws came into place....

 

[Immanuel]

Yes. Although, I believe I said it was up to the owner of the business. If he wants to cater to smokers, he should be allowed to. If he wants to cater to people who fear every germ on the face of the Earth that should be his right.

So you think all business owners have the right to allow smoking on their property?

Isn't that what I said?

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because their habit is infringing on the rights of others to pursue happiness..;O)

 

[Immanuel]

All this aside, there is not a single establishment I know of that has closed since the new laws came into place....

I know of one here in Tampa, Fl.

I can't remember the name of the establishment. I know it was on U.S. 301 and it was a restaurant.

She closed her doors in rebellion against the law. It was her choice. She fought it as long as she could and then when they told her they were going to begin fining her, she closed her doors rather than kowtow to the government... but I think she made a fortune in the few weeks before she actually closed her doors as every smoker East of the Mississippi supported her.

Immie

PS the "every smoker East of the Mississippi" is most definitely hyperbole and intended to be taken as such.

 

[Immanuel]

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because their habit is infringing on the rights of others to pursue happiness..;O)

Sorry, I don't believe a smoker is a second class citizen. I also believe in equal representation under the law.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Tell me, supposing two people were on neutral ground, is there any reason why one should have to put up with the cigarette smoke of another's?

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because when the smoker smokes he is polluting the air that both must breathe. Smokers can get their fix without causing others near them to ingest their drug. They can smoke away from other people or they can ingest nicotine in ways other than smoking tobacco.
No smoker ever died from not having a smoke but people who have had to breath in their smoke have died.

 

[noose4]

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because their habit is infringing on the rights of others to pursue happiness..;O)

Sorry, I don't believe a smoker is a second class citizen. I also believe in equal representation under the law.

Immie

Smoker is not a racial classification or a staus a person is born with and can not help but to be, it is a voluntary addictive activity, one does not need equal representation because they partake in a certain activity.

 

[Immanuel]

Tell me, supposing two people were on neutral ground, is there any reason why one should have to put up with the cigarette smoke of another's?

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because when the smoker smokes he is polluting the air that both must breathe. Smokers can get their fix without causing others near them to ingest their drug. They can smoke away from other people or they can ingest nicotine in ways other than smoking tobacco.
No smoker ever died from not having a smoke but people who have had to breath in their smoke have died.

I lived with smokers all my growing up years. I'm not worried about dying from second hand smoke although there is always a possibility that it will get me in the long run. None of us live forever.

In the meantime there are other, much more real, health hazards that I need to be concerned about... like freezing to death in Florida doggone it!!

I believe smokers are people too and have rights as well. I find it bothersome when good-hearted people try to make them into second class citizens.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Because their habit is infringing on the rights of others to pursue happiness..;O)

Sorry, I don't believe a smoker is a second class citizen. I also believe in equal representation under the law.

Immie

Smoker is not a racial classification or a staus a person is born with and can not help but to be, it is a voluntary addictive activity, one does not need equal representation because they partake in a certain activity.

I must disagree with you.

Anytime a minority class is oppressed by the majority, the minority class needs and deserves equal representation.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

So you think all business owners have the right to allow smoking on their property?

Isn't that what I said?

Immie

Okay, then you believe supermarkets, hospitals, schools, day care centers, planes, buses, any privately owned business has the right to allow smoking.
That's pretty bizarre.

 

[Dr Grump]

So, I am assuming in your question, that it is the smoker that is the second class citizen and must move or abstain from his/her pleasure?

Can you explain why that is?

Immie

Because their habit is infringing on the rights of others to pursue happiness..;O)

Sorry, I don't believe a smoker is a second class citizen. I also believe in equal representation under the law.

Immie

But the recipient of the second-hand smoke is not a second-class citizen?

If you want to pollute your lungs, go to a place you own (your home), or some open field.

Can you give me one reason why somebody should have to inhale second-hand smoke? And if so, would you feel aggrieved if I pissed on your leg after drinking beer (after all, that is the by-product of my of my past times)

 

[Immanuel]

Isn't that what I said?

Immie

Okay, then you believe supermarkets, hospitals, schools, day care centers, planes, buses, any privately owned business has the right to allow smoking.
That's pretty bizarre.

They also have the right to ban smoking in their establishments.

Why shouldn't a airline be allowed to cater to smokers and/or non-smokers who are not afraid of the evil second hand smoke monster? If they want to cater to smokers then they should have that right and if they want to charge an extra 10% per ticket because they allow it and they can get away with it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? If they can't support their airline in this manner then they should re-evaluate their business plan.

The same goes for supermarkets, hospitals, schools, day care centers, buses, or what have you. If enough people are afraid of the demonized second hand smoke and won't patronize establishments that welcome smokers then those business will go out of business. If there is enough of a market niche for any type of business to allow smoking on their private property then they should be allowed to cater to that niche.

Now, if you are going to ask me, would I frequent such an establishment, I'd have to say probably not. I would not enroll my preschooler in a daycare that had rooms filled with smoke. I'd take my children elsewhere and if enough people agreed with me they would as well and the day school might just have to go out of business or change its policy, but the decision is the owners and no one else but the owners.

Immie

 

[Father Time]

Because it's not their building. Their employers are not obligated to give them a job.

Get another job you say? Why should they.

Because it's not their building.

It wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace environment, and if you had that attitude, you'd suddenly have a lot of establishments with no staff.

If that were true then they'd ban smoking on their own to try to get some staff.

Oh and what makes you say it wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace?

It wouldn't in enclosed workspace. In NZ and Australia it is illegal to smoke inside any building that is a work place that isn't your home (The only people who smoke in their own home are self-employed)..

That aside, do you think it selfish to smoke inside a place where there are non-smokers? When I smoked I thought it was, and nothing has changed in that regard.

Nice dodge ignoring the part about an employer having to make sure their employees are in a hazard-free environment.

All this aside, there is not a single establishment I know of that has closed since the new laws came into place....

There's no dodge, the employees are free to leave if they don't like dealing with the second hand smoke.

Also don't you think it's selfish to walk into a room full of smokers and demand that all of them put out their smokes? That's essentially what you're doing with the ban.