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

[noose4]

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.

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

Ummm I have never stated I am pro choice regarding the abortion issue as I am pro life and the abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco addicts inflicting their addiction upon others.

 

[Shogun]

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.

YOU should move because YOU are making the SHS a factor in YOUR decision to be near a smoker. Do smokers chase you down like fucking pacman? NO? Then exercise your fucking ability to choose a different place other than up the ass of a smoker to enjoy your personal time. Do smokers follow YOU around and bitch incessantly about YOUR behaviour despite their choice to stay in proximity? NO? Then you have your answer.

This is no more about health codes than it is about unicorns. Ironically, you'd sit and fill your fucking mouth with fatburgers while crying about the health affects of SHS wafting into your feeding trough.

YOU are not the only vote in what gets defined as the general public. POINT IN CASE: a private bar that wants to cater to smokers is not your personal fucking soapbox begging for your opinion on smoking.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

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

Ummm I have never stated I am pro choice regarding the abortion issue as I am pro life and the abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco addicts inflicting their addiction upon others.

Uh Oh! That is strike two. A couple of weeks ago, I said I thought you were female and then I mess up this way.

And, yes, if you took the pro-choice stance and your stance regarding smoker's rights, you would be hypocritical.

Immie

 

[Shogun]

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.

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

Ummm I have never stated I am pro choice regarding the abortion issue as I am pro life and the abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco addicts inflicting their addiction upon others.

hop on however many feet you need to in order to rationalize your personal bullshit, dude.

 

[Father Time]

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.

How is giving bar owners the right to allow smoking giving smokers special consideration?

Oh and it truly is fucked up to say someone's skin color defines a person. You might as well say a person's height defines a person.

 

[Immanuel]

Of course, Noose, if we are honest with ourselves, all of us are hypocritical. It is simply human nature.

Immie

 

[Father Time]

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.

You wanna see scum try this.

Mr. Pushy enters a bar,
in the bar he finds dozens of mr.chimneys all smoking.
Mr. Pushy does not like smoking.
Mr. Pushy stands on a stool and asks everyone to stop smoking.
They don't
Mr. Pushy then finds the bar owner and asks him to ban smoking in his bar.
He doesn't.
Mr. Pushy then tries to enact a law that would ban smoking in each and every bar.

Mr. Pushy is disgusting scum.

 

[noose4]

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.

YOU should move because YOU are making the SHS a factor in YOUR decision to be near a smoker. Do smokers chase you down like fucking pacman? NO? Then exercise your fucking ability to choose a different place other than up the ass of a smoker to enjoy your personal time. Do smokers follow YOU around and bitch incessantly about YOUR behaviour despite their choice to stay in proximity? NO? Then you have your answer.

This is no more about health codes than it is about unicorns. Ironically, you'd sit and fill your fucking mouth with fatburgers while crying about the health affects of SHS wafting into your feeding trough.

YOU are not the only vote in what gets defined as the general public. POINT IN CASE: a private bar that wants to cater to smokers is not your personal fucking soapbox begging for your opinion on smoking.

The fatburgers argument would hold water if I was shoving part of the burger down your throat, way to expand the goal lines first you told me to move away from the nicotine addicts now you have changed the scenario to me seeking out nicotine addicts to stand next to. Smoking is an activity banned from certain places just like many other activities, plain and simple, you want to smoke do it where you are not affecting anybody else, besides it being a health problem its also a sanitary problem.

 

[noose4]

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

Ummm I have never stated I am pro choice regarding the abortion issue as I am pro life and the abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco addicts inflicting their addiction upon others.

hop on however many feet you need to in order to rationalize your personal bullshit, dude.

Also smoking tends to make the addicts cranky when they can not get a fix.

 

[noose4]

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.

How is giving bar owners the right to allow smoking giving smokers special consideration?

Oh and it truly is fucked up to say someone's skin color defines a person. You might as well say a person's height defines a person.

You seem to have overlooked the word "point" in my post.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You wanna see scum try this.

Mr. Pushy enters a bar,
in the bar he finds dozens of mr.chimneys all smoking.
Mr. Pushy does not like smoking.
Mr. Pushy stands on a stool and asks everyone to stop smoking.
They don't
Mr. Pushy then finds the bar owner and asks him to ban smoking in his bar.
He doesn't.
Mr. Pushy then tries to enact a law that would ban smoking in each and every bar.

Mr. Pushy is disgusting scum.

So you consider someone disgusting scum for attempting to get the law changed yet have no problem with someone who smokes when it is against the law.
Your real name must be Pushy.
And you must smoke as well.

 

[Anguille]

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

So instead you want to turn anyone who doesn't want to have to breathe someone else's cigarette smoke into a secondclass citizen.

 

[Anguille]

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

Not sure what you are drinking.

 

[Anguille]

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

Yes, you have. It's pathetic that you have to keep up this sham about cigarette smoke not being a health hazard.

 

[Anguille]

Ummm I have never stated I am pro choice regarding the abortion issue as I am pro life and the abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco addicts inflicting their addiction upon others.

hop on however many feet you need to in order to rationalize your personal bullshit, dude.

Also smoking tends to make the addicts cranky when they can not get a fix.

And irrational as can be seen in this thread.

 

[Anguille]

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.

So the government can force you to mow your lawn but it can't force you ban smoking in your restaurant?

That makes no sense. You seem to think property values are all that matter when regulating what people can do or not do on their property.

I guess money is all that is important to you.

 

[Father Time]

You wanna see scum try this.

Mr. Pushy enters a bar,
in the bar he finds dozens of mr.chimneys all smoking.
Mr. Pushy does not like smoking.
Mr. Pushy stands on a stool and asks everyone to stop smoking.
They don't
Mr. Pushy then finds the bar owner and asks him to ban smoking in his bar.
He doesn't.
Mr. Pushy then tries to enact a law that would ban smoking in each and every bar.

Mr. Pushy is disgusting scum.

So you consider someone disgusting scum for attempting to get the law changed

It depends on what they want from the law. If a person who wants to force everyone to behave the way they want to simply because they can't be bothered to leave, like in my example, they're scum, just like someone who would want to force every bar to allow smoking.

yet have no problem with someone who smokes when it is against the law.

Show me where I said that.

Your real name must be Pushy.
And you must smoke as well.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Fayebelle]

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

Pepperjacks in Easton, MD. The owner closed down as a "private party" their final night and did more business then they had in their last quarter. Sorry no linky- I was just there.

I do have this for you though -

• Liquor pouring establishments in Talbot County, Maryland experienced an 11 percent decline in sales (approximately $3 million) the last seven months in 2004 after their smoking ban went into effect as compared to the same period in 2003. (Maryland Office of the Comptroller)

• There were 25 percent fewer liquor pouring establishments in Talbot County, Maryland in December 2004 as compared to a year earlier when there was no smoking ban. (Maryland Office of the Comptroller)

Fact Sheeet


Now in re: to working in a smoking establishment - most people are of this opinion in re: to eating out

If the food is ok and the service is outstanding - you'll go back

If the food is amazing but the service lousy - you aren't likely to go back.

If enough good people refused to work in those establishments b/c they were concerned about their health - the owners would prob go no smoke anyway.

Like I said - I'm a fan of choice. I'd rather smoke outside of a no smoke bar than smoke in one that allows smokers. That's just me though. I don't smoke in my house either. Others don't care - they should have the option.

 

[Anguille]

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

You at least consistent in your opinons on owner's rights.It seems the rest of the posters here who claim they are against the bans for reasons of property owner's rights all object when it's suggested that mandatory smoking bans should be removed from offices, schools, hospitals, day care centers for the same reasons.

I think you and I just have very different ideas of what owning property means. I think you forget that all of the territory of the US, privately and publicly owned is still the property of the US government. Owning private property in the US dies not mean you own another country, a feudal principality within the border of the US. That you can secede from the US and set up your own dictatorship and make up your own laws.Owning property only means you have bought the right to do make certain choices about that property that others do not have. You are still obliged to respect the laws of the land while on that property and you will lose any right to that property if you fail to pay your taxes or your mortgage.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have to agree with those who say it should be left up to the establishment whether or not to allow smoking. In some states, before the lawmakers went into overkill on non-smoking, it was banned in restaurants ONLY if the restaurant did not serve alcohol. And then those combo places had to have a separate smoking section. That seemed to work out best for everyone. (Although my own experience was that the smoking section was always crowded and the non-smoking section always had seats available, which I thought was strange if supposedly there are fewer smokers these days.)

I smoked for 40 years and quit only when I got bronchitis so bad one winter that I couldn't get it down my throat and I figured if I could go without for several days, I could go without period. But other people smoking doesn't bother me, probably because I grew up in a house with two smoking parents, all three kids smoked starting in our teens, our aunts, uncles, friends, etc., all smoked and nobody was born deformed or died agonizing deaths the way smokers are portrayed today. I smoked at my desk for years, and when we couldn't smoke in offices anymore, I got less work done because I was always sneaking off for a cig instead of just lighting up as I typed.

But I suppose the downside of smoking is what rules. C'est la vie...