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

[Dr Grump]

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.

It's got nothing to do with second hand smoke. It's about a safe and hazard-free working environment...

...Are you saying the majority of people who frequent bars are smokers?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Just because the public goes there does not make them public places. By that rationale your own home is a public place should you allow a group of people to eat there.

Uhh, no.

A public place is a place where the public has access to. The public has access to the local pizza parlor. It has a big sign that says "OPEN" on the front, literally inviting the public in. On the other hand, in my private home, the door is locked, and you have to knock and I have to ascertain your identity before I let you in.

I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

 

[Father Time]

Just because the public goes there does not make them public places. By that rationale your own home is a public place should you allow a group of people to eat there.

Uhh, no.

A public place is a place where the public has access to. The public has access to the local pizza parlor. It has a big sign that says "OPEN" on the front, literally inviting the public in. On the other hand, in my private home, the door is locked, and you have to knock and I have to ascertain your identity before I let you in.

I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Semantics.

The pizza parlor has the right to close up shop, set its own hours, refuse service or change what they use the building for.

A street is public as it's paid for with tax dollars and is open for everyone all the time. That can't change unless they put in some BS curfew.

 

[Immanuel]

Just because the public goes there does not make them public places. By that rationale your own home is a public place should you allow a group of people to eat there.

Uhh, no.

A public place is a place where the public has access to. The public has access to the local pizza parlor. It has a big sign that says "OPEN" on the front, literally inviting the public in. On the other hand, in my private home, the door is locked, and you have to knock and I have to ascertain your identity before I let you in.

I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Semantics.

The pizza parlor has the right to close up shop, set its own hours, refuse service or change what they use the building for.

A street is public as it's paid for with tax dollars and is open for everyone all the time. That can't change unless they put in some BS curfew.

Unless President Obama gets the "brilliant" idea of nationalizing Pizza Parlors next.

Don't rule that out.

Immie

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

It's got nothing to do with second hand smoke. It's about a safe and hazard-free working environment...

...Are you saying the majority of people who frequent bars are smokers?

Then let someone open a pub for smokers. But no you won't do that will you even though there are a hundred other pubs in the area that don't allow smoking?

If 20% of the people smoke then why not license 20 percent of restaurants and bars to allow smoking?

 

[Zona]

I love the fact that I dont have to smell cig. smoke anywhere. I dont smoke, I dont have to smell that crap and I dont have to worry about second hand smoke issues. LIfe is good.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

hmmmm, you imagine yourself to be reasonable on this issue?

I don't see it.

What do you find unreasonable, maybe we can hash this out.

You ignorance?

but really, where do I start?

Talk about unreasonable

 

[Anguille]

I love the fact that I dont have to smell cig. smoke anywhere. I dont smoke, I dont have to smell that crap and I dont have to worry about second hand smoke issues. LIfe is good.

I couldn't agree with you more.
The smoking bans have made life much better for so many people. Even lots of smokers like them.

 

[Walt]

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.

Really? How can you prove that? Has any one actually seen the WHO report on 2nd hand smoke? What were the test conditions? I have heard that it was an 8x8 room with no ventilation and 3 smokers. I have found articles about the report but not the original report. Also how can they determine that a non smoker died of 2nd hand smoke when the arsenic in water also causes lung cancer? How can they possiably pretend to be able to tell the difference?

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

 

[Ravi]

I've never known anyone that died from second hand smoke...or was even taken ill...

 

[noose4]

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

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

 

[Father Time]

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

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

You think skin color or being handicapped define a person.

That's seriously fucked up.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

Smokers are a minority class of people. In fact, now days they are a hated class of people. They are hated almost as much as muslims are today which is kind of sad if you ask me.

I don't smoke. In fact, I find the habit disgusting. I do not, however, hate people who do smoke nor will I discriminate against them.

Immie

 

[noose4]

I must disagree with you.

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

Immie

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

You think skin color or being handicapped define a person.

That's seriously fucked up.

No thinking smoking defines what a person is and that smokers should receive special consideration is fucked up.

 

[noose4]

I must disagree with you.

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

Immie

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

Smokers are a minority class of people. In fact, now days they are a hated class of people. They are hated almost as much as muslims are today which is kind of sad if you ask me.

I don't smoke. In fact, I find the habit disgusting. I do not, however, hate people who do smoke nor will I discriminate against them.

Immie

Asking a person not to smoke in public is akin to asking a person not to shit their pants in public, smoking is an activity nothing more.

 

[Charles Stucker]

This is how all the no smoking signs should read.

Does that include the ones near flamable or explosive material?

Consider the following situation
A person, Joe Healthy goes into a restaraunt which is legally a no smoking area and orders a meal. Several minutes later, but before their meal arrives, Mr Chimney, the ten pack a day smoker, arrives and sitting next to them breaks the "ban on his rights" in an "act of civil disobedience" and lights up.
Joe asks Chimney to stop.
Chimney refuses.
Unless a brawl ensues the police will never get there intime to catch Chimney, so Joe is forced to suffer second hand smoke or leave without his eal. If he pays he is out the cost of the meal, if he does not the owner of teh restaraunt is out the price.
All because Mister Chimney is a niccotine addict who has no concern for eityher the law or other people.
Chimney is scum.

 

[Shogun]

Smoking a cigarette does not put one into a minority classification, it is an activity not a defining point about a person that would need representation such as skin color or being handicapped.

Smokers are a minority class of people. In fact, now days they are a hated class of people. They are hated almost as much as muslims are today which is kind of sad if you ask me.

I don't smoke. In fact, I find the habit disgusting. I do not, however, hate people who do smoke nor will I discriminate against them.

Immie

Asking a person not to smoke in public is akin to asking a person not to shit their pants in public, smoking is an activity nothing more.

ASKING someone to do something doesn't imply a DEMAND. I bet you have two working legs that can walk away frm a smoker just as well as they could choose to abide by your request. The pompous nature of you "we own everything because we say so" pink lungers is farcical. Indeed, this is why your kind can't let business owners make the economic choice that we all know they would make if given the liberty to make such a choice; heaven fucking forbid your kind choose a non-smoking bar instead of being raptly convinced that the world belongs to you personally.

 

[Shogun]

I've never known anyone that died from second hand smoke...or was even taken ill...

BBQ and well cooked meat causes cancer too.. Yet, we don't see them leaping onto a fucking bandwagon to ban charcoal. This is a live and let live situation; which is why they require a ban that prohibits instead of a choice that promotes personal liberty. Indeed, it's one of the reasons I am as cautious of the left as I am the right. I hate that my side of the political spectrum is filled with a bunch of goode family pussies who refuse to make a personal choice about a smoking or non-smoking bar.

 

[noose4]

Smokers are a minority class of people. In fact, now days they are a hated class of people. They are hated almost as much as muslims are today which is kind of sad if you ask me.

I don't smoke. In fact, I find the habit disgusting. I do not, however, hate people who do smoke nor will I discriminate against them.

Immie

Asking a person not to smoke in public is akin to asking a person not to shit their pants in public, smoking is an activity nothing more.

ASKING someone to do something doesn't imply a DEMAND. I bet you have two working legs that can walk away frm a smoker just as well as they could choose to abide by your request. The pompous nature of you "we own everything because we say so" pink lungers is farcical. Indeed, this is why your kind can't let business owners make the economic choice that we all know they would make if given the liberty to make such a choice; heaven fucking forbid your kind choose a non-smoking bar instead of being raptly convinced that the world belongs to you personally.

Why should I have to move because an addict decides to get a fix in my presence? Health codes are a good thing and it's about time the addiction of nicotine and the junkies that smoke it are forced not to share their addiction with the general public.

 

[Immanuel]

Asking a person not to smoke in public is akin to asking a person not to shit their pants in public, smoking is an activity nothing more.

ASKING someone to do something doesn't imply a DEMAND. I bet you have two working legs that can walk away frm a smoker just as well as they could choose to abide by your request. The pompous nature of you "we own everything because we say so" pink lungers is farcical. Indeed, this is why your kind can't let business owners make the economic choice that we all know they would make if given the liberty to make such a choice; heaven fucking forbid your kind choose a non-smoking bar instead of being raptly convinced that the world belongs to you personally.

Why should I have to move because an addict decides to get a fix in my presence? Health codes are a good thing and it's about time the addiction of nicotine and the junkies that smoke it are forced not to share their addiction with the general public.

Why should the smoker have to move simply because you think he smells or is disgusting?

Aren't you pro-choice?

Don't you see a conflict of interests in your stance? On the one hand it is "the government doesn't have a right to tell me what I can do with my body". On the other hand it is, "the government has every right to tell a smoker what he can do with his body".

Immie