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

[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.

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

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

 

[Anguille]

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.

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

 

[Ravi]

If weed becomes legal, business owners should be able to decide if they wish to allow it in their establishments.

 

[Anguille]

Great analogy.

Thanks, but it has its faults.



Immie

At least you're honest enough to admit that much.

 

[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?

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

 

[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

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?

I think the owner of a restaurant/bar or any other place of business that is not government owned should have the right to decide for him/her self what kind of clientele they want to attract.

Public areas does not mean public owned.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

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

I agree.

 

[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.

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes. Did you expect a different answer? They would be creating commerce by catering to a specific demographic which in no way, shape or form necessitates your ass entering the establishment as if your precious opinion means more than your refusal to choose a non-smokey bar.


NOW that we've established that the means of consumption equates two wildly different substances... Anyone got some HEROIN on them? My diabetic relatives just ate a candy bar.

 

[Shogun]

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

I agree.

of COURSE you do.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Ever read the sign:

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

How about this one:

"No shirt; no shoes no service"?

The owner of the business has the right to offer or refuse service to whomever he/she wants. IMHO of course!

Immie

 

[Shogun]

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

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

 

[Anguille]

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

I thought you said in a previous post that you don't believe you have ever suffered any ill effects from having been raised by smokers?

You said your own was not a perfect analogy. He's talking about mine.

 

[Anguille]

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?

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

We are talking about how the two substances, tobacco and marijuana, affect the people who must inhale the smoke created by those using those drugs. Did I really need to explain that to you?

 

[Shogun]

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

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

We are talking about how the two substances, tobacco and marijuana, affect the people who must inhale the smoke created by those using those drugs. Did I really need to explain that to you?

I see you have no retort even after calling me out to answer your question. shocker.

Indeed, you still never have to enter a hash bar were pot legal. Yet, ironically, you seem to be ok with the idea of public consumption of one but not the other. DESPITE the world of differences that pertain to both. Am I conveying my shock yet?

AND, your hypocrisy over allowing smoke dependant upon the Odor YOU prefer speaks volumes about your pink lunger standard. seriously.

 

[Shogun]

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me.


YOU get the Fonze...

 

[Anguille]

Public areas does not mean public owned.

Immie

They are regulated by the public via the government however, because even if a piece of property is privately owned it is not a separate nation, it is still United States Territory. A private property owner is also a member of the public which regulates public areas via government, the private property owner's wishes are not being ignored by the democratic process but they are sometimes overruled. Since we all have to share US territory in one way or another, some people's behavior will necessarily have to be limited for the will and the greater good of the country as a whole.

 

[Shogun]

Public areas does not mean public owned.

Immie

They are regulated by the public via the government however, because even if a piece of property is privately owned it is not a separate nation, it is still United States Territory. A private property owner is also a member of the public which regulates public areas via government, the private property owner's wishes are not being ignored by the democratic process but they are sometimes overruled. Since we all have to share US territory in one way or another, some people's behavior will necessarily have to be limited for the will and the greater good of the country as a whole.

uh, my HOUSE is not a separate nation either. Again, the shit you people latch onto is just RETARDED. All you are doing is rationalizing your opinion. nothing more, nothing less. even if it means validating fascist behavior by using the government like a boxer does a 16 ounce everlast glove. YOU don't have to share shit when you choose a non-smoking location to walk into. THAT, anguille, is the fact that you just can't avoid.

 

[Anguille]

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



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.

Ever read the sign:

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

How about this one:

"No shirt; no shoes no service"?

The owner of the business has the right to offer or refuse service to whomever he/she wants. IMHO of course!

Immie

Do you believe "WHITES ONLY" policies are an owner's right as well?

 

[Father Time]

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

Privately owned areas are privately owned and not public. Get it right.

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?

Yes I'd fight for the right of property owners to dictate whether they allow patrons to smoke weed in their property.

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?

Yes. Are you going to cough up any evidence saying 2nd hand weed smoke is harmful?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.

To the smoker, so what's your point?

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.

Ok so do you have any evidence it's harmful or not?

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?

Yup, especially considering some people need to smoke it for medical reasons.

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.

Why?

 

[Anguille]

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.

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.