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

[Immanuel]

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.

You said it, not me.

And that is exactly the point. If I own a business I have the right to make decisions about that business that will bring about earnings for that business. If I believe the best decision for my bar is to cater to smokers, then I should have that right. If I believe that it is not in my best interest to allow smoking in my establishment, for whatever reason, then I have the right to ban smoking from my establishment.

I despise smoking. As I have said it is gross, it stinks and ashes and butts all over the place are just plain... well, disgusting. If I owned a restaurant or a bar, I might require smokers to smoke outside. I would not make the personal decision to allow freedom to smoke inside my establishment... but I believe that I should have the right to make that decision, not some jerk in Washington DC who happened to have a paper read to him, he could not read himself, that said smoking is bad for you.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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

More like the smoker has no right to tell me I have to ingest his drug.

Forcing someone who wants an abortion to give birth is like forcing people to put up with having to breath other people's cigarette smoke.
The government is not telling anyone they can't drug themselves with nicotine. What they are saying is that they can't force anyone else to take their drug.

If you don't like it, then leave.

Go someplace that doesn't cater to smokers and believe me there are plenty of places that don't and won't.

Maggie was talking about restaurants that use to have smoking and non-smoking sections. I remember them. When asked if I wanted a table in the smoking or non-smoking section, I always said non-smoking unless there were none available. If so, I would take a smoking table.

I didn't like taking a smoking table, but it was my choice and it allowed people who chose to smoke the ability to eat in pleasure. Why should I deny them that right?

Immie

 

[tigerbob]

... in bars and restaurants?

This is gonna surprise you, but I'm undecided.

They are unfair on the basis that the science (I know epidemiology is not a science, but whatever) is not sound and the main foundation for the bans (the '93 EPA report - the one that says 3000 people a year die from it) is bogus.

That said, I hate people smoking in restaurants. It means you can't fully enjoy the food and it's bad manners. Bars are a slightly different story, but sometimes they can get overly smoky as well - must be very unpleasant for non smokers.

In short, I'd prefer to see smoking allowed if the restaurant or bar wants to keep it that way, but they have to conform to certain standards. If they exceed that standard, then the either have to ban smoking or install a filtration system. There are some very good ones available - expensive, but if the restaurant or bar wants to cater to smokers then that may be the price they have to pay. Then it becomes an issue of pure economics.

Bizarrely, I'm less worried about cigars in restaurants than cigarettes.

 

[Anguille]

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.

You said it, not me.

And that is exactly the point. If I own a business I have the right to make decisions about that business that will bring about earnings for that business. If I believe the best decision for my bar is to cater to smokers, then I should have that right. If I believe that it is not in my best interest to allow smoking in my establishment, for whatever reason, then I have the right to ban smoking from my establishment.

I despise smoking. As I have said it is gross, it stinks and ashes and butts all over the place are just plain... well, disgusting. If I owned a restaurant or a bar, I might require smokers to smoke outside. I would not make the personal decision to allow freedom to smoke inside my establishment... but I believe that I should have the right to make that decision, not some jerk in Washington DC who happened to have a paper read to him, he could not read himself, that said smoking is bad for you.

Immie

"Certain rights". Not the right to do whatever you want regardless of US law.

You don't have the right to prostitute children on your property either.

 

[Immanuel]

Prime example of smoker's rage.

As a non-smoker who would not eat in a restaurant that allows smoking I think Shogun's position (maybe not the language ) is the most reasonable.

Its a private business...if they want to allow smoking and you dont want to eat where people smoke go somewhere else. if enough people dont eat there for smoking they will either go out of business or change policy.

This argument is as old as dirt BTW

You people are like automatons. You just don't get it.

No, you just don't get it.

People, other than you, have rights and that fact may mean that you don't like some of the rights that they have.

That means smokers have rights AND business owners have rights and you have rights too. If you don't like the fact that a restaurant caters to smokers, then by all means go to the one down the street that doesn't. Better yet, let the manager of the restaurant you are leaving know that you are leaving because of the owner's decision to allow smoking. Enough of us do that and the managers will realize that it is costing them money and they will think about their decision.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

last I checked cigarettes were still legal while crack is not.

Just sayin

So then crack smokers are experiencing even more discrimination than cigarette smokers according to that sort of argument.
BTW Smoking cigarettes is just barely legal in some places. It's entirely illegal in others.

If thats how you feel then try and get a law passed making cigarettes illegal or crack legal.

Maybe we should ban drinking alcohol in bars, its legal but I dont like the smell and drunk people are sometimes violent putting me at risk of physical damage...just like cig smoke. ----SARCASM

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

 

[tigerbob]

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.

Prime example of smoker's rage.

And with good reason.

 

[Anguille]

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

More like the smoker has no right to tell me I have to ingest his drug.

Forcing someone who wants an abortion to give birth is like forcing people to put up with having to breath other people's cigarette smoke.
The government is not telling anyone they can't drug themselves with nicotine. What they are saying is that they can't force anyone else to take their drug.

If you don't like it, then leave.

Go someplace that doesn't cater to smokers and believe me there are plenty of places that don't and won't.

Maggie was talking about restaurants that use to have smoking and non-smoking sections. I remember them. When asked if I wanted a table in the smoking or non-smoking section, I always said non-smoking unless there were none available. If so, I would take a smoking table.

I didn't like taking a smoking table, but it was my choice and it allowed people who chose to smoke the ability to eat in pleasure. Why should I deny them that right?

Immie

Why are you rehashing the same old stuff already discussed?

Separate smoking and non smoking sections turned out not to work. The smoke still wafted over to the non smoking section and employees still had to go into the smoking sections.

Why should you deny non smokers the pleasure of a smoke free dining experience.
You are clearly in favor of granting smokers all kinds of freedoms to do whatever they want with the air that must be shared by all. But you seem to be dead set against granting non smokers and smokers who also want a smoke free dining experience any kind of freedom or say in how air is to be shared.

 

[Immanuel]

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

No, unlike you guys, I want to treat smokers like free citizens of the U.S.A. You guys would have them exchange places with terrorists in Gitmo.

Immie

Exaggerate much? Smokers have all the same rights as everyone else in this country.

Really?

And so do homosexuals, yet you liberals scream that they are discriminated against.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

And you seem to think that the government needs to wipe your ass for you.

You have no belief in freedom to choose, yet, I know you claim to be pro-choice. Seems to me the only choice you really believe in is the choice to kill defenseless human beings. Now, that is

You also seem to believe that you are the only human being with any rights what so ever.
Immie

Did anything you just said have any relevance to the discussion?

I do not believe in killing defenseless human beings but keep on claiming that if you think telling lies will make you look good.

You are "pro-choice" are you not?

Immie

 

[Anguille]

So then crack smokers are experiencing even more discrimination than cigarette smokers according to that sort of argument.
BTW Smoking cigarettes is just barely legal in some places. It's entirely illegal in others.

If thats how you feel then try and get a law passed making cigarettes illegal or crack legal.

Maybe we should ban drinking alcohol in bars, its legal but I dont like the smell and drunk people are sometimes violent putting me at risk of physical damage...just like cig smoke. ----SARCASM

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

 

[noose4]

No, unlike you guys, I want to treat smokers like free citizens of the U.S.A. You guys would have them exchange places with terrorists in Gitmo.

Immie

Exaggerate much? Smokers have all the same rights as everyone else in this country.

Really?

And so do homosexuals, yet you liberals scream that they are discriminated against.

Immie

Hetero smokers can get married to each other, gay smokers can not marry each other.

 

[Anguille]

And you seem to think that the government needs to wipe your ass for you.

You have no belief in freedom to choose, yet, I know you claim to be pro-choice. Seems to me the only choice you really believe in is the choice to kill defenseless human beings. Now, that is

You also seem to believe that you are the only human being with any rights what so ever.
Immie

Did anything you just said have any relevance to the discussion?

I do not believe in killing defenseless human beings but keep on claiming that if you think telling lies will make you look good.

You are "pro-choice" are you not?

Immie

Yes, I am pro choice. To claim that I am for murdering children because I am pro choice is a cheap and dirty trick. Something I would think beneath a person like you, Immie.

I thought I was going to have a real discussion will you but it seems you just want to invent lies about me and derail the thread.

 

[Shogun]

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.

in THIS case it's not so much about not getting a fix as it is the pompous "my way or the highway" bullshit your kind exhibit when refusing to exercise your CHOICE to pick a non smoking venue. You are an example of why goode family lefties are just as dangerous as bible thumping righties. congrats!

 

[tigerbob]

If thats how you feel then try and get a law passed making cigarettes illegal or crack legal.

Maybe we should ban drinking alcohol in bars, its legal but I dont like the smell and drunk people are sometimes violent putting me at risk of physical damage...just like cig smoke. ----SARCASM

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it? Have to compared cigarette smokers to crackheads yet? That normally makes an appearance somewhere within your tobacco diatribes.

 

[Shogun]

If thats how you feel then try and get a law passed making cigarettes illegal or crack legal.

Maybe we should ban drinking alcohol in bars, its legal but I dont like the smell and drunk people are sometimes violent putting me at risk of physical damage...just like cig smoke. ----SARCASM

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

...says the pink lunger who acts like a shrill banshee at the thought of smokers congregating together in a forum which she seems to think must abide by her personal standards despite the prerogatives of everyone else.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You said it, not me.

And that is exactly the point. If I own a business I have the right to make decisions about that business that will bring about earnings for that business. If I believe the best decision for my bar is to cater to smokers, then I should have that right. If I believe that it is not in my best interest to allow smoking in my establishment, for whatever reason, then I have the right to ban smoking from my establishment.

I despise smoking. As I have said it is gross, it stinks and ashes and butts all over the place are just plain... well, disgusting. If I owned a restaurant or a bar, I might require smokers to smoke outside. I would not make the personal decision to allow freedom to smoke inside my establishment... but I believe that I should have the right to make that decision, not some jerk in Washington DC who happened to have a paper read to him, he could not read himself, that said smoking is bad for you.

Immie

"Certain rights". Not the right to do whatever you want regardless of US law.

You don't have the right to prostitute children on your property either.

Oh, you mean the rights that you dictate to us?

How about the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure? Will you at least allow me that right?

How about the right to bear arms? Do I still get that right?

How about the right to peacefully assemble? Freedom of Speech? Habeus Corpus? Choose abortion? Choose adoption? Choose to raise my own children? The right to have children at all? Worship in the church I want to worship in or not worship at any church? Marry whomever I want? The right to own a home? The right to own a business?

What right will you so willingly choose to take away from me next?

Immie

 

[Anguille]

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.

in THIS case it's not so much about not getting a fix as it is the pompous "my way or the highway" bullshit your kind exhibit when refusing to exercise your CHOICE to pick a non smoking venue. You are an example of why goode family lefties are just as dangerous as bible thumping righties. congrats!

We no longer have to leave or cease from breathing as we did for decades Now you have to leave or put out the cigarette. Your turn to feel imposed upon, spoiled brat. Quit whining and get used to it.

 

[Anguille]

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it? Have to compared cigarette smokers to crackheads yet? That normally makes an appearance somewhere within your tobacco diatribes.

You're the kook who thinks cigarette smoke cause no harm.

 

[Anguille]

You said it, not me.

And that is exactly the point. If I own a business I have the right to make decisions about that business that will bring about earnings for that business. If I believe the best decision for my bar is to cater to smokers, then I should have that right. If I believe that it is not in my best interest to allow smoking in my establishment, for whatever reason, then I have the right to ban smoking from my establishment.

I despise smoking. As I have said it is gross, it stinks and ashes and butts all over the place are just plain... well, disgusting. If I owned a restaurant or a bar, I might require smokers to smoke outside. I would not make the personal decision to allow freedom to smoke inside my establishment... but I believe that I should have the right to make that decision, not some jerk in Washington DC who happened to have a paper read to him, he could not read himself, that said smoking is bad for you.

Immie

"Certain rights". Not the right to do whatever you want regardless of US law.

You don't have the right to prostitute children on your property either.

Oh, you mean the rights that you dictate to us?

How about the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure? Will you at least allow me that right?

How about the right to bear arms? Do I still get that right?

How about the right to peacefully assemble? Freedom of Speech? Habeus Corpus? Choose abortion? Choose adoption? Choose to raise my own children? The right to have children at all? Worship in the church I want to worship in or not worship at any church? Marry whomever I want? The right to own a home? The right to own a business?

What right will you so willingly choose to take away from me next?

Immie