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

[Immanuel]

But smokers have more rights than non smokers. Got ya.

You are a hypocrite.

You would not say that if this discussion was about gay marriage. You would be claiming that gay people did not have equal rights.

Immie

I didn't realize how silly and petulant you could get when losing a debate.

I haven't lost this debate.

You have proven nothing at all. You have ignored all evidence presented to you by others.

And you have proven that you are a fascist and you arrogantly believe that you are better than other people.

When you can prove that you have more rights than people who chose to participate in a legal addiction, then you will win.

Until then, one other thing you have proven is that when you ask a poll question, you really don't want to know the opinions of other people.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I understand that liberals refuse to say "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Do they also refuse to sing, "the land of the free" when the National Anthem is sung, as clearly from this thread they do not believe this is the land of the free.

Immie

It might be too much to ask...but try to refrain from lumping Progressives like Anguille in with Liberals.

 

[Immanuel]

I understand that liberals refuse to say "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Do they also refuse to sing, "the land of the free" when the National Anthem is sung, as clearly from this thread they do not believe this is the land of the free.

Immie

It might be too much to ask...but try to refrain from lumping Progressives like Anguille in with Liberals.

Okay, I will try my best, but just know this.

I do not believe all progressives or all liberals are bad/evil.

Even Anguille's pretty cool when she is not trying to take my rights away from me... yes, my rights! I don't smoke but I'm darned glad to know that here in America, if I chose to light up, I could do so.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

if I chose to light up, I could do so.

Immie

Not around me unless you are willing to put up with my "legal addiction' to tossing buckets of water in the faces of people who are so rude as to smoke around me.

 

[Immanuel]

if I chose to light up, I could do so.

Immie

Not around me unless you are willing to put up with my "legal addiction' to tossing buckets of water in the faces of people who are so rude as to smoke around me.

You would do that to me once... then you would be fighting an assault charge.

I truly would press charges.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

I understand that liberals refuse to say "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Do they also refuse to sing, "the land of the free" when the National Anthem is sung, as clearly from this thread they do not believe this is the land of the free.

Immie

It might be too much to ask...but try to refrain from lumping Progressives like Anguille in with Liberals.

As Amanda would say... Quit humping my leg, Ravi!
But humor aside, I notice you love to put that progressive label on me and you are certainly welcome to lablel me with anything you like, but in this case I beg to differ with your choice of label. Concerning allowing smoking in bars and restaurants I am a true Conservative. I'm glad to see us going back to the old fashioned days before nicotine crazed elitists stank up bars and restaurants and nobody ever smoked in them.

 

[Anguille]

if I chose to light up, I could do so.

Immie

Not around me unless you are willing to put up with my "legal addiction' to tossing buckets of water in the faces of people who are so rude as to smoke around me.

You would do that to me once... then you would be fighting an assault charge.

I truly would press charges.

Immie

I scared.

 

[Anguille]

You are a hypocrite.

You would not say that if this discussion was about gay marriage. You would be claiming that gay people did not have equal rights.

Immie

I didn't realize how silly and petulant you could get when losing a debate.

I haven't lost this debate.

You have proven nothing at all. You have ignored all evidence presented to you by others.

And you have proven that you are a fascist and you arrogantly believe that you are better than other people.

When you can prove that you have more rights than people who chose to participate in a legal addiction, then you will win.

Until then, one other thing you have proven is that when you ask a poll question, you really don't want to know the opinions of other people.

Immie

If I didn't want to know the opinions of other people why would I continue posting in this thread?
DON'T ANSWER THAT!!!! I don't want to know your opinion.



I don't have more rights than anyone but I don't have less either, as you seem to think. Your right to smoke ends at my nose, that's just how it is.
If you want to roll over and let smokers walk all over you, no one is stopping you. Let the crack heads too. Their addiction may not be as legal as a nicotine junkie's is, but since your such an accommodating person, who would hate to be called a fascist himself, I'm sure you'll want to suck up to them too.

 

[Ravi]

I understand that liberals refuse to say "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Do they also refuse to sing, "the land of the free" when the National Anthem is sung, as clearly from this thread they do not believe this is the land of the free.

Immie

It might be too much to ask...but try to refrain from lumping Progressives like Anguille in with Liberals.

As Amanda would say... Quit humping my leg, Ravi!
But humor aside, I notice you love to put that progressive label on me and you are certainly welcome to lablel me with anything you like, but in this case I beg to differ with your choice of label. Concerning allowing smoking in bars and restaurants I am a true Conservative. I'm glad to see us going back to the old fashioned days before nicotine crazed elitists stank up bars and restaurants and nobody ever smoked in them.

Not a true conservative but a social conservative...which is no different than a progressive when you get right down to it.

 

[Anguille]

It might be too much to ask...but try to refrain from lumping Progressives like Anguille in with Liberals.

As Amanda would say... Quit humping my leg, Ravi!
But humor aside, I notice you love to put that progressive label on me and you are certainly welcome to lablel me with anything you like, but in this case I beg to differ with your choice of label. Concerning allowing smoking in bars and restaurants I am a true Conservative. I'm glad to see us going back to the old fashioned days before nicotine crazed elitists stank up bars and restaurants and nobody ever smoked in them.

Not a true conservative but a social conservative...which is no different than a progressive when you get right down to it.

First time we've almost agreed on something in a week.

 

[Ravi]

As Amanda would say... Quit humping my leg, Ravi!
But humor aside, I notice you love to put that progressive label on me and you are certainly welcome to lablel me with anything you like, but in this case I beg to differ with your choice of label. Concerning allowing smoking in bars and restaurants I am a true Conservative. I'm glad to see us going back to the old fashioned days before nicotine crazed elitists stank up bars and restaurants and nobody ever smoked in them.

Not a true conservative but a social conservative...which is no different than a progressive when you get right down to it.

First time we've almost agreed on something in a week.

Well, there was the agreement on the fact that mani is a dick.

 

[Anguille]

Not a true conservative but a social conservative...which is no different than a progressive when you get right down to it.

First time we've almost agreed on something in a week.

Well, there was the agreement on the fact that mani is a dick.

 

[Walt]

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of narcotic in their blood?

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

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?"

They do not have to accept it. Simply do not go to establishments that allow it. If a person is allergic to perfume they do not wear it and they certinly would not go to a perfume store. They do not however have the right to demand that perfume is banned. There are many aromas that irritate the nasal passages of others. Should they all be banned? Of course not. They can simply choose to stay away from places they may be exposed.

 

[Anguille]

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

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?"

They do not have to accept it. Simply do not go to establishments that allow it.

And thankfully as there are less and less establishments that allow it or are permitted to allow it, people who don't want to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, while they are eating don't have to get up and leave.

 

[Walt]

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?"

They do not have to accept it. Simply do not go to establishments that allow it.

And thankfully as there are less and less establishments that allow it or are permitted to allow it, people who don't want to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, while they are eating don't have to get up and leave.

I see you cut my post to only address what you wanted to. If they do not want to smell the smoke they do not have to go to the establishments that allow it. Now address the rest of my post. Should perfume and other aromas that irritate peoples nasal passages be banned? Or if they these aromas irritate them should they just stay away from that paticular business?

 

[noose4]

They do not have to accept it. Simply do not go to establishments that allow it.

And thankfully as there are less and less establishments that allow it or are permitted to allow it, people who don't want to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, while they are eating don't have to get up and leave.

I see you cut my post to only address what you wanted to. If they do not want to smell the smoke they do not have to go to the establishments that allow it. Now address the rest of my post. Should perfume and other aromas that irritate peoples nasal passages be banned? Or if they these aromas irritate them should they just stay away from that paticular business?

so non smokers should have their choices minimized due to inconsiderate addicts partaking in their addiction? We have rights too.

 

[Anguille]

They do not have to accept it. Simply do not go to establishments that allow it.

And thankfully as there are less and less establishments that allow it or are permitted to allow it, people who don't want to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, while they are eating don't have to get up and leave.

I see you cut my post to only address what you wanted to. If they do not want to smell the smoke they do not have to go to the establishments that allow it. Now address the rest of my post. Should perfume and other aromas that irritate peoples nasal passages be banned? Or if they these aromas irritate them should they just stay away from that paticular business?

Perfume is not known to cause cancer and heart disease on the scale that tobacco smoke does. Anyone whose perfume is so strong and obnoxious that it's offensive to the people around them should be asked to wash it off. Much the way people who play their music too loud in public places. they are asked to turn it down. If they don't, they can be fined for being a public nuisance. Perfume abusers should be too. Tobacco smokers have been so offensive and belligerent that a whole set of laws had to be enacted to deal with them. But they are, in the same sense of anyone being a public nuisance, exactly that, a public nuisance along with being a major health hazard.

 

[Anguille]

We have rights too.

An inconvenient truth as far as the smoking Nazis are concerned. If they had their way, anyone objecting to their smoke would be put into interment camps for the smoke-free.

That's one reason I'm glad we live in America.

 

[Walt]

And thankfully as there are less and less establishments that allow it or are permitted to allow it, people who don't want to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, while they are eating don't have to get up and leave.

I see you cut my post to only address what you wanted to. If they do not want to smell the smoke they do not have to go to the establishments that allow it. Now address the rest of my post. Should perfume and other aromas that irritate peoples nasal passages be banned? Or if they these aromas irritate them should they just stay away from that paticular business?

Perfume is not known to cause cancer and heart disease on the scale that tobacco smoke does. Anyone whose perfume is so strong and obnoxious that it's offensive to the people around them should be asked to wash it off. Much the way people who play their music too loud in public places. they are asked to turn it down. If they don't, they can be fined for being a public nuisance. Perfume abusers should be too. Tobacco smokers have been so offensive and belligerent that a whole set of laws had to be enacted to deal with them. But they are, in the same sense of anyone being a public nuisance, exactly that, a public nuisance along with being a major health hazard.

That is not a good point to make. Go to a bar, which you consider to be a public place and tell them while you are there to turn their music down. After all they play it very loudly. Deafness can be caused by loud sounds. So again people with sensitive hearing can go to a bar and demand the music be turned down. After all it is affecting them physically. There are people who are irritated by any scent from perfume. It does not have to be an obnixous amount. If you are afraid of hights and can have a panic attack which can kill you. Do you get a job painting water towers? Can you get a job working for that company and then demand they dismantle the water tower and bring it to ground level to accomadate you? There are many substances that can cause serious allergic reactions and death. Should they all be banned?

 

[Anguille]

I see you cut my post to only address what you wanted to. If they do not want to smell the smoke they do not have to go to the establishments that allow it. Now address the rest of my post. Should perfume and other aromas that irritate peoples nasal passages be banned? Or if they these aromas irritate them should they just stay away from that paticular business?

Perfume is not known to cause cancer and heart disease on the scale that tobacco smoke does. Anyone whose perfume is so strong and obnoxious that it's offensive to the people around them should be asked to wash it off. Much the way people who play their music too loud in public places. they are asked to turn it down. If they don't, they can be fined for being a public nuisance. Perfume abusers should be too. Tobacco smokers have been so offensive and belligerent that a whole set of laws had to be enacted to deal with them. But they are, in the same sense of anyone being a public nuisance, exactly that, a public nuisance along with being a major health hazard.

That is not a good point to make. Go to a bar, which you consider to be a public place and tell them while you are there to turn their music down. After all they play it very loudly. Deafness can be caused by loud sounds. So again people with sensitive hearing can go to a bar and demand the music be turned down. After all it is affecting them physically. There are people who are irritated by any scent from perfume. It does not have to be an obnixous amount. If you are afraid of hights and can have a panic attack which can kill you. Do you get a job painting water towers? Can you get a job working for that company and then demand they dismantle the water tower and bring it to ground level to accomadate you? There are many substances that can cause serious allergic reactions and death. Should they all be banned?

Sorry you don't like the points I made. I don't think yours are valid. Now buzz off, your ignorance is giving me an allergic reaction.