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

[Walt]

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.

Obviously you have alergic reactions to anything you do not like. So you just dismiss any one elses opinion that disagrees with you. The only ignorance here is found within you. I did not say I did not like the points you make. Just that they were not good ones.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Obviously you have alergic reactions to anything you do not like. So you just dismiss any one elses opinion that disagrees with you. The only ignorance here is found within you. I did not say I did not like the points you make. Just that they were not good ones.

You outta see her covered with hives.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Oh, probably just to attempt to prove to yourself that you are better than everyone else.

You seem to believe that you can tell others what they can and cannot do. That to me says very clearly that you believe your rights supersede the rights of others.


Immie

 

[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?

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

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

 

[noose4]

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.

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

Why not expand on that? Lets have heroin shooting up areas and cocaine sniffing areas? why should tobacco addicts be the only ones with special privileges?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

For some, the right to choose is issue specific and one issue only.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

For some, the right to choose is issue specific and one issue only.

Immie

and for others it is the american way .

Right to choose on abortion
Right to choose on health care
Right to choose where I eat
Right to choose what I wear
Right to choose what I drive
Right to choose what job I take.

I'm a big choice guy hence my opposition to banning smoking on PRIVATE property.

 

[Zoom-boing]

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

For some, the right to choose is issue specific and one issue only.

Immie

and for others it is the american way .

Right to choose on abortion
Right to choose on health care
Right to choose where I eat
Right to choose what I wear
Right to choose what I drive
Right to choose what job I take.

I'm a big choice guy hence my opposition to banning smoking on PRIVATE property.

Will you please stop using common sense arguments? Someone's head is likely to explode trying to tap dance around it.

 

[Immanuel]

We all have rights. People do not want to minimize smokers rights. They want them eliminated. It should be up to the business owner. If they do not allow smoking the non smokers can go there and they do not have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. If the business does allow smoking the smokers can go there and the non smokers do not have to. If a business decides to have smoking/non smoking sections. Then the people can decide for themselves. It is called the freedom to choose.

For some, the right to choose is issue specific and one issue only.

Immie

and for others it is the american way .

Right to choose on abortion
Right to choose on health care
Right to choose where I eat
Right to choose what I wear
Right to choose what I drive
Right to choose what job I take.

I'm a big choice guy hence my opposition to banning smoking on PRIVATE property.

Exactly... I think the point that is not being understood here is that it is private property.

I can understand the issue when we are talking about public property as it is the choice of most Americans to remain smoke free, but when you go to private property, even such property that is open to the public, there is a difference. No one is forcing anyone to enter a privately owned bar.

I suppose it could be stated this way... if I, being straight, wanted to enter a bar and not be offended by guys playing tonsil hockey with other guys, I would have to chose something other than a gay bar. I could not, nor would I, go in there and demand they stop groping each other because I find it offensive.

I'd have to chose to go to a different bar as it is the owner of the gay bar's right to chose to cater to whomever he/she cares to cater to.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For some, the right to choose is issue specific and one issue only.

Immie

and for others it is the american way .

Right to choose on abortion
Right to choose on health care
Right to choose where I eat
Right to choose what I wear
Right to choose what I drive
Right to choose what job I take.

I'm a big choice guy hence my opposition to banning smoking on PRIVATE property.

Exactly... I think the point that is not being understood here is that it is private property.

I can understand the issue when we are talking about public property as it is the choice of most Americans to remain smoke free, but when you go to private property, even such property that is open to the public, there is a difference. No one is forcing anyone to enter a privately owned bar.

I suppose it could be stated this way... if I, being straight, wanted to enter a bar and not be offended by guys playing tonsil hockey with other guys, I would have to chose something other than a gay bar. I could not, nor would I, go in there and demand they stop groping each other because I find it offensive.

I'd have to chose to go to a different bar as it is the owner of the gay bar's right to chose to cater to whomever he/she cares to cater to.

Immie

Great analogy.

 

[Immanuel]

and for others it is the american way .

Right to choose on abortion
Right to choose on health care
Right to choose where I eat
Right to choose what I wear
Right to choose what I drive
Right to choose what job I take.

I'm a big choice guy hence my opposition to banning smoking on PRIVATE property.

Exactly... I think the point that is not being understood here is that it is private property.

I can understand the issue when we are talking about public property as it is the choice of most Americans to remain smoke free, but when you go to private property, even such property that is open to the public, there is a difference. No one is forcing anyone to enter a privately owned bar.

I suppose it could be stated this way... if I, being straight, wanted to enter a bar and not be offended by guys playing tonsil hockey with other guys, I would have to chose something other than a gay bar. I could not, nor would I, go in there and demand they stop groping each other because I find it offensive.

I'd have to chose to go to a different bar as it is the owner of the gay bar's right to chose to cater to whomever he/she cares to cater to.

Immie

Great analogy.

Thanks, but it has its faults.

I can't claim that anything tonsil hockey players are doing physically threaten my well being, but still the ideas are similar as to someone attempting to force their beliefs upon others.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

 

[Shogun]

um.. what kind of dank ass, inebriating tobacco are YOU able to get your hands on? Did you just laughably equate two substances based solely on how they are consumed?


well.. thats the logic of a pink lunger for ya.

 

[Immanuel]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

I'm all for making pot legal.

I hate the smell of it.

I would not be for them banning its use on private property which is what we are discussing here.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Exactly... I think the point that is not being understood here is that it is private property.

I can understand the issue when we are talking about public property as it is the choice of most Americans to remain smoke free, but when you go to private property, even such property that is open to the public, there is a difference. No one is forcing anyone to enter a privately owned bar.

I suppose it could be stated this way... if I, being straight, wanted to enter a bar and not be offended by guys playing tonsil hockey with other guys, I would have to chose something other than a gay bar. I could not, nor would I, go in there and demand they stop groping each other because I find it offensive.

I'd have to chose to go to a different bar as it is the owner of the gay bar's right to chose to cater to whomever he/she cares to cater to.

Immie

Great analogy.

Thanks, but it has its faults.

I can't claim that anything tonsil hockey players are doing physically threaten my well being, but still the ideas are similar as to someone attempting to force their beliefs upon others.

Immie

sure as will any analogy, but it makes its point very well anyway.

 

[noose4]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

Marijuana if made legal should have regulations regarding where it can be consumed just like tobacco and alcohol.

 

[noose4]

um.. what kind of dank ass, inebriating tobacco are YOU able to get your hands on? Did you just laughably equate two substances based solely on how they are consumed?


well.. thats the logic of a pink lunger for ya.

It was a good analogy, why do you consider it not to be so?

 

[Immanuel]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

Marijuana if made legal should have regulations regarding where it can be consumed just like tobacco and alcohol.

I agree and on public property, it should be regulated, but IMHO, on private property, it should be up to the property owner.

um.. what kind of dank ass, inebriating tobacco are YOU able to get your hands on? Did you just laughably equate two substances based solely on how they are consumed?


well.. thats the logic of a pink lunger for ya.

I'm probably not a "pink lunger" as I lived most of my young life with smokers. My lungs are probably as dark as anyone elses.

And I said it was not a perfect analogy.

Immie

 

[noose4]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

Marijuana if made legal should have regulations regarding where it can be consumed just like tobacco and alcohol.

I agree and on public property, it should be regulated, but IMHO, on private property, it should be up to the property owner.

um.. what kind of dank ass, inebriating tobacco are YOU able to get your hands on? Did you just laughably equate two substances based solely on how they are consumed?


well.. thats the logic of a pink lunger for ya.

I'm probably not a "pink lunger" as I lived most of my young life with smokers. My lungs are probably as dark as anyone elses.

And I said it was not a perfect analogy.

Immie

And if owner of said private property should open it up to business for the general public applicable laws should apply.

 

[Anguille]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

I'm all for making pot legal.

I hate the smell of it.

I would not be for them banning its use on private property which is what we are discussing here.

Immie

We are discussing public areas, some of which are located on private property.
Just to make sure I understand your position, it seems to me from your past posts that you think that unless a smoker is on the private property of a person who does not want to inhale tobacco smoke, a smoker is fully within his/her rights to smoke regardless of the presence of other people who may or may not object to the smoke. Is that so?