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

[tigerbob]

I never take anything you post at face value.
You neglected to answer this question, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?"

It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to any question of yours again on this matter. You have seen fit to dismiss several hours of work (to set up an intellectual proposition that could be debated based on the science) with another one of your pink, fluffy, barbie-esque leading questions.

It's not worth debating this with you Ang because you DON'T DEBATE.

You don't have the slightest clue about the science. You don't understand the epidemiology. You clearly don't even understand the difference between someone saying there is no link and someone saying that the evidence is insufficient to be used in the development of legislation.

BTW, there was nothing that I posted that I was expecting you to take at face value. Did you miss all the links to third party opinion? Did you miss the times where I said you should look this up yourself rather than rely on what I was saying?

Of course you didn't miss it. You just ignored it because you know nothing of any value about the subject. Despite having had numerous opportunities to educate yourself you have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Are you just too lazy to research your subject matter, or is it too complicated?

Why would you even start another thread about smoking when you have nothing additional to say but the "waaah waaah waaah" you've said a hundred times already? It's pathetic.

I guess you just can't answer this question "why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?" so you throw a hissy fit and accuse me of not being informed or looking at your links.

I'm unwilling to answer a 30 second post by you so long as you are unwilling to consider and respond to several hours of work by me. Would you not be upset when you put in that much effort and someone just blows it off?

 

[Anguille]

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

I just answered the question for you again, Valerie. If you don't understand my rsponse, I can't help you any further.

I understand that your response does not answer the question.

Well either I don't understand your question or you don't understand my response.

Workplace protection laws and treating bar and restaurant employees as equal to other types of employees is why you can't allow some establishments to be smoking areas. There is also the issue of public places and healthcodes that protect the general public that must be respected.

You guys are just bringing up all the same old stuff that has been discussed.

Doesn't anyone have anything new to say?

 

[Anguille]

It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to any question of yours again on this matter. You have seen fit to dismiss several hours of work (to set up an intellectual proposition that could be debated based on the science) with another one of your pink, fluffy, barbie-esque leading questions.

It's not worth debating this with you Ang because you DON'T DEBATE.

You don't have the slightest clue about the science. You don't understand the epidemiology. You clearly don't even understand the difference between someone saying there is no link and someone saying that the evidence is insufficient to be used in the development of legislation.

BTW, there was nothing that I posted that I was expecting you to take at face value. Did you miss all the links to third party opinion? Did you miss the times where I said you should look this up yourself rather than rely on what I was saying?

Of course you didn't miss it. You just ignored it because you know nothing of any value about the subject. Despite having had numerous opportunities to educate yourself you have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Are you just too lazy to research your subject matter, or is it too complicated?

Why would you even start another thread about smoking when you have nothing additional to say but the "waaah waaah waaah" you've said a hundred times already? It's pathetic.

I guess you just can't answer this question "why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?" so you throw a hissy fit and accuse me of not being informed or looking at your links.

I'm unwilling to answer a 30 second post by you so long as you are unwilling to consider and respond to several hours of work by me. Would you not be upset when you put in that much effort and someone just blows it off?

I read your stuff. I came to the same conclusion that I came to before reading it. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard and the bans are justified.

Sorry you haven't the guts to answer my question.

Your refusal tells me you agree with me, that no one should have to put up with any amount of an addictive narcotic in their blood caused by the cigarette smoke of another person.

 

[Anguille]

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

Yep.

The only real reason, IMO, that Anguille supports these bans is because in her mind her comfort is more important than anyone else's...heck, if you found people WANTING to work in a bar that allows smoking she'd still be against it.

Health and comfort are both my reasons for not putting up with secondhand smoke. But since you are one of the kooks who believes cigarette smoke is harmless, you interpret my position to suit your need to justify your behavior and what you think is your right to poison people.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

Yep.

The only real reason, IMO, that Anguille supports these bans is because in her mind her comfort is more important than anyone else's...heck, if you found people WANTING to work in a bar that allows smoking she'd still be against it.

Health and comfort are both my reasons for not putting up with secondhand smoke. But since you are one of the kooks who believes cigarette smoke is harmless, you interpret my position to suit your need to justify your behavior and what you think is your right to poison people.

Actually, I see that you wouldn't even allow someone that wishes to work in a bar that allows smoking to do so.

That is very telling, and what it says is that your comfort is more important than anyone's.

 

[tigerbob]

I just answered the question for you again, Valerie. If you don't understand my rsponse, I can't help you any further.

I understand that your response does not answer the question.

Well either I don't understand your question or you don't understand my response.

Workplace protection laws and treating bar and restaurant employees as equal to other types of employees is why you can't allow some establishments to be smoking areas. There is also the issue of public places and healthcodes that protect the general public that must be respected.

You guys are just bringing up all the same old stuff that has been discussed.

Doesn't anyone have anything new to say?

Your poll indicates that only a third of people agree with your position. Usually it is those who are in the minority that have to find "something new to say".

 

[Anguille]

Yep.

The only real reason, IMO, that Anguille supports these bans is because in her mind her comfort is more important than anyone else's...heck, if you found people WANTING to work in a bar that allows smoking she'd still be against it.

Health and comfort are both my reasons for not putting up with secondhand smoke. But since you are one of the kooks who believes cigarette smoke is harmless, you interpret my position to suit your need to justify your behavior and what you think is your right to poison people.

Actually, I see that you wouldn't even allow someone that wishes to work in a bar that allows smoking to do so.

That is very telling, and what it says is that your comfort is more important than anyone's.

They are certainly free to chose to work in one if they can find one. But the laws don't allow for employees to ignore smoking bans any more than they allow owners to do so.

My own comfort and health certainly are more important to me than some nicotine junkies selfish need to get high in my presence.

You want to say the bans exist only to protect me and annoy everyone else.

It's that small minority of inconsiderate smokers like yourself, Ravi, who think your addiction trumps everyone else's desires.

 

[Anguille]

I understand that your response does not answer the question.

Well either I don't understand your question or you don't understand my response.

Workplace protection laws and treating bar and restaurant employees as equal to other types of employees is why you can't allow some establishments to be smoking areas. There is also the issue of public places and healthcodes that protect the general public that must be respected.

You guys are just bringing up all the same old stuff that has been discussed.

Doesn't anyone have anything new to say?

Your poll indicates that only a third of people agree with your position. Usually it is those who are in the minority that have to find "something new to say".

This poll is only representative of the USMB members and sock puppets who chose to vote in it. Don't try to pretend it represents the real world.

 

[tigerbob]

I guess you just can't answer this question "why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?" so you throw a hissy fit and accuse me of not being informed or looking at your links.

I'm unwilling to answer a 30 second post by you so long as you are unwilling to consider and respond to several hours of work by me. Would you not be upset when you put in that much effort and someone just blows it off?

I read your stuff. I came to the same conclusion that I came to before reading it. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard and the bans are justified.

Sorry you haven't the guts to answer my question.

Your refusal tells me you agree with me, that no one should have to put up with any amount of an addictive narcotic in their blood caused by the cigarette smoke of another person.

OK Ang. Brilliantly debated. You win.

 

[Anguille]

I'm unwilling to answer a 30 second post by you so long as you are unwilling to consider and respond to several hours of work by me. Would you not be upset when you put in that much effort and someone just blows it off?

I read your stuff. I came to the same conclusion that I came to before reading it. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard and the bans are justified.

Sorry you haven't the guts to answer my question.

Your refusal tells me you agree with me, that no one should have to put up with any amount of an addictive narcotic in their blood caused by the cigarette smoke of another person.

OK Ang. Brilliantly debated. You win.

I know.

 

[tigerbob]

Well either I don't understand your question or you don't understand my response.

Workplace protection laws and treating bar and restaurant employees as equal to other types of employees is why you can't allow some establishments to be smoking areas. There is also the issue of public places and healthcodes that protect the general public that must be respected.

You guys are just bringing up all the same old stuff that has been discussed.

Doesn't anyone have anything new to say?

Your poll indicates that only a third of people agree with your position. Usually it is those who are in the minority that have to find "something new to say".

This poll is only representative of the USMB members and sock puppets who chose to vote in it. Don't try to pretend it represents the real world.

I never mentioned the "real world".

 

[tigerbob]

I read your stuff. I came to the same conclusion that I came to before reading it. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard and the bans are justified.

Sorry you haven't the guts to answer my question.

Your refusal tells me you agree with me, that no one should have to put up with any amount of an addictive narcotic in their blood caused by the cigarette smoke of another person.

OK Ang. Brilliantly debated. You win.

I know.

And that's the scary thing. You're serious.

 

[Ravi]

Health and comfort are both my reasons for not putting up with secondhand smoke. But since you are one of the kooks who believes cigarette smoke is harmless, you interpret my position to suit your need to justify your behavior and what you think is your right to poison people.

Actually, I see that you wouldn't even allow someone that wishes to work in a bar that allows smoking to do so.

That is very telling, and what it says is that your comfort is more important than anyone's.

They are certainly free to chose to work in one if they can find one. But the laws don't allow for employees to ignore smoking bans any more than they allow owners to do so.

My own comfort and health certainly are more important to me than some nicotine junkies selfish need to get high in my presence.

You want to say the bans exist only to protect me and annoy everyone else.

It's that small minority of inconsiderate smokers like yourself, Ravi, who think your addiction trumps everyone else's desires.

I never said any of that...that is your perception that helps you in your quest to be a selfish prig.

They are certainly free to chose to work in one if they can find one.

You won't let them find one is the point.

 

[Immanuel]

I never take anything you post at face value.
You neglected to answer this question, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?"

It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to any question of yours again on this matter. You have seen fit to dismiss several hours of work (to set up an intellectual proposition that could be debated based on the science) with another one of your pink, fluffy, barbie-esque leading questions.

It's not worth debating this with you Ang because you DON'T DEBATE.

You don't have the slightest clue about the science. You don't understand the epidemiology. You clearly don't even understand the difference between someone saying there is no link and someone saying that the evidence is insufficient to be used in the development of legislation.

BTW, there was nothing that I posted that I was expecting you to take at face value. Did you miss all the links to third party opinion? Did you miss the times where I said you should look this up yourself rather than rely on what I was saying?

Of course you didn't miss it. You just ignored it because you know nothing of any value about the subject. Despite having had numerous opportunities to educate yourself you have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Are you just too lazy to research your subject matter, or is it too complicated?

Why would you even start another thread about smoking when you have nothing additional to say but the "waaah waaah waaah" you've said a hundred times already? It's pathetic.

I guess you just can't answer this question "why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?" so you throw a hissy fit and accuse me of not being informed or looking at your links.

Why should he answer your question when you totally ignored his questions and the work he went through to support his stance?

Immie

 

[Fayebelle]

• 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)

So what is some places lost revenue or went out of business? Are profits more important than people's health?

Should we let tobacco companies go back to selling to children because they make less money if kids can't buy cigarettes?

Your comparison is completely irrelevant - the restaurants were not paying tobacco companies.

If a concern is the health of employees - it makes little sense if the employees don't have work.

Establishments that were voluntarily non smoking lose business as well as the consumers that frequented them to avoid smokers will now have a larger pool to choose from. That spreads the losses.

On a side note - I have read through this thread and it seems to me you may want to place more concern on your blood pressure than second hand smoke at this point. The venom you inject in your posts lead one to imagine an angry lil person hunched over the keyboard - veins bulging - mouth foaming - just WAITING for a place to pounce and rant.

This is a debate sir - nothing personal. Perhaps you should frequent one of these fine non smoking establishments and CHILL OUT.

 

[Anguille]

On a side note - I have read through this thread and it seems to me you may want to place more concern on your blood pressure than second hand smoke at this point. The venom you inject in your posts lead one to imagine an angry lil person hunched over the keyboard - veins bulging - mouth foaming - just WAITING for a place to pounce and rant.

This is a debate sir - nothing personal. Perhaps you should frequent one of these fine non smoking establishments and CHILL OUT.

LOL Mr Fayebelle, may I commend you on your fine perceptive abilities.

 

[Anguille]

Your comment about asking nicely is a little snide and a bit naive. I've been asking people for years to please not smoke near me and I learned a long long time ago that I achieve the best results when I do so in a casual non confrontational manner. Smokers are very volatile and must be handled with kid gloves. Most often people respect my request and move away. Not all do though and I'm glad I am no longer put in the position of having to even say anything to smokers any more in bars and restaurants because the laws take care of that now.

Ang, asking in a 'casual non confrontational manner' is just what Immie said, it's 'asking nicely'.

Smokers aren't volatile they just get cranky when they need a nicotine fix . . . just like most people do when they need food.

His comment was snide because he implied that I do not ask nicely which is anything but the truth.
Zoom, do you think non smokers should even ever be put in a position where they have to ask smokers not to smoke around them? Why don't the smokers ask nicely if anyone would mind if they smoke in the first place?
Some are considerate that way. But many are not.

 

[Anguille]

I have yet to meet someone who bemoaned the fact that they failed to start smoking when they were younger, but many who wished they had never started.

I bet that is one thing that everyone in this thread, even the anti-smoking ban nutters, would agree on.

 

[Anguille]

Why should he answer your question when you totally ignored his questions and the work he went through to support his stance?

Immie

The fact that I disagreed with his stance does not mean I ignored it. I appreciate his little mini lesson on statistics but he failed to prove his case to me. He also conjectured, based on no medical stats at all, that the amount of nicotine, tar and other toxic substances that studies have shown the average person exposed to secondhand smoke inhales, could not cause cancer or anyother medical condition. That's purely his inexpert opinion. I'll place my trust in that of the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors. I'll also go on my own life experiences. I've been made sick by and witnessed people made sick by secondhand smoke.

I've already said that Bob's refusal to give me a reason why anyone should tolerate even the slightest amount of a highly addictive narcotic along with other known carcinogens and irritants in their body as a result inhaling secondhand smoke is an answer in itself. He agrees with me. There is no reason to tolerate it.

 

[Anguille]

Actually, I see that you wouldn't even allow someone that wishes to work in a bar that allows smoking to do so.

That is very telling, and what it says is that your comfort is more important than anyone's.

They are certainly free to chose to work in one if they can find one. But the laws don't allow for employees to ignore smoking bans any more than they allow owners to do so.

My own comfort and health certainly are more important to me than some nicotine junkies selfish need to get high in my presence.

You want to say the bans exist only to protect me and annoy everyone else.

It's that small minority of inconsiderate smokers like yourself, Ravi, who think your addiction trumps everyone else's desires.

I never said any of that...that is your perception that helps you in your quest to be a selfish prig.

They are certainly free to chose to work in one if they can find one.

You won't let them find one is the point.

Now I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who want to work in a smoking environment along with feeling sorry for smokers?