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

[Zoom-boing]

Yes

Prove this:

"You stated very clearly that you believed that if marijuana was legalized it should be allowed in more places than tobacco."

Really? Then maybe you should clarify this post! Sounds to me like you are both a) promoting the legalization of pot smoking and b) allowing it in more places than tobacco smoking.



And you are willing to allow it in more places because you like the smell of it. I think it smells like burning shit, but here we go again, your rights take precedence over my rights.

Immie

Proven. Now retract your lies about me!

Immie

You are ignoring the maybe. But I already explained that to you, more than once. You are also ignoring the other posts where I said I had withheld my opinion on it because I had to think about it more.

Find someone else to feed you, troll.

No, he's not. You said 'Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.". Maybe, possibly, perhaps . . . you're back peddling because you have two different views on pot vs. cigs. You don't need to think about it further. More places for pot because pot doesn't bother you as much; less places for cigs because you detest them. Immie was spot on in his previous post . . . .about everything.

 

[Anguille]

Proven. Now retract your lies about me!

Immie

You are ignoring the maybe. But I already explained that to you, more than once. You are also ignoring the other posts where I said I had withheld my opinion on it because I had to think about it more.

Find someone else to feed you, troll.

No, he's not. You said 'Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.". Maybe, possibly, perhaps . . . you're back peddling because you have two different views on pot vs. cigs. You don't need to think about it further. More places for pot because pot doesn't bother you as much; less places for cigs because you detest them. Immie was spot on in his previous post . . . .about everything.

Are you at all interested in discussing the topic of this thread or do you just want to keep playing this silly game of he said/ she said?

 

[Immanuel]

Yes

Prove this:

"You stated very clearly that you believed that if marijuana was legalized it should be allowed in more places than tobacco."

Really? Then maybe you should clarify this post! Sounds to me like you are both a) promoting the legalization of pot smoking and b) allowing it in more places than tobacco smoking.



And you are willing to allow it in more places because you like the smell of it. I think it smells like burning shit, but here we go again, your rights take precedence over my rights.

Immie

Proven. Now retract your lies about me!

Immie

You are ignoring the maybe. But I already explained that to you, more than once. You are also ignoring the other posts where I said I had withheld my opinion on it because I had to think about it more.

Find someone else to feed you, troll.

No, I am not ignoring the "maybe". At the time you made that statement you were standing up for the idea of allowing pot smoking in more places than tobacco smoking and you have yet to retract that statement. You made it very clear then that you thought pot smoking should be allowed in more places then tobacco smoking because you like the smell of pot.

You are still standing by your statement that pot smoking should maybe be allowed in more places than tobacco smoking.

I very clearly posted your words and I did not edit them at all. Anyone following this conversation will come to the same conclusion that I have.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

You are ignoring the maybe. But I already explained that to you, more than once. You are also ignoring the other posts where I said I had withheld my opinion on it because I had to think about it more.

Find someone else to feed you, troll.

No, he's not. You said 'Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.". Maybe, possibly, perhaps . . . you're back peddling because you have two different views on pot vs. cigs. You don't need to think about it further. More places for pot because pot doesn't bother you as much; less places for cigs because you detest them. Immie was spot on in his previous post . . . .about everything.

Are you at all interested in discussing the topic of this thread or do you just want to keep playing this silly game of he said/ she said?

Dodge ball. Your own words say that you would maybe be ok with pot smoking allowed in more places vs. cig smoking and that you personally like the smell of pot and detest the smell of cigs. Your disgust of cigs prevents you from seeing the point . .. .that choice has been taken out of the hands of individuals and taken over by government and you are just fine with it because you don't like smokes. Like I said earlier. . . just wait until they take away something you do like.

 

[Anguille]

Are you at all interested in discussing the topic of this thread or do you just want to keep playing this silly game of he said/ she said?

Dodge ball. Your own words say that you would maybe be ok with pot smoking allowed in more places vs. cig smoking and that you personally like the smell of pot and detest the smell of cigs. Your disgust of cigs prevents you from seeing the point . .. .that choice has been taken out of the hands of individuals and taken over by government and you are just fine with it because you don't like smokes.

I guess you're not interested.

Rant on ..

Like I said earlier. . . just wait until they take away something you do like.

You mean like every time a smoker lights up next to me?

 

[Immanuel]

. Like I said earlier. . . just wait until they take away something you do like.

That is a good point that has been left behind in this discussion.

I don't know Anguille well enough to put this effectively... but, using me for an example. I am a Christian. What if the government suddenly decided to interpose itself into my faith and say make me (us all) become "Jehovah's Witnesses"? I'd have a major problem with that! I'd feel my rights were being interfered with and I would not be happy.

There is something out there that you do, Anguille, that you would be very unhappy if the government suddenly decided... boom, no more X for Anguille.

The question is would those of us who do not X, defend Anguille's right to do them or would we simply say, "tough shit Anguille, remember when I wanted to light up that cigarette and you threw that bucket of water in my face?"

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

This is not a rights issue for smokers. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SMOKE. The issue is that the government has NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT YOUR SMOKING. Why is that so hard to understand. Each establishment DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. I do not believe that cigarette smoke has been proven to be sufficiently hazardous to your health to give the government the right to restrict it. This is a choice issue and it is almost always bad when choices are removed.

 

[Ravi]

And I pointed out to you that smokers are not discriminated against. They are free to enter any bar or restaurant they want to.

Smokers are discriminated against because the government is regulating their behavior by forcing property owners to disallow smoking.

But this is really amusing....you are using the same argument the wingers use with gay marriage...tff!

I like you Squeaky, but I have to agree with Immie...this thread has left you looking the bigot.

 

[Immanuel]

And I pointed out to you that smokers are not discriminated against. They are free to enter any bar or restaurant they want to.

Smokers are discriminated against because the government is regulating their behavior by forcing property owners to disallow smoking.

But this is really amusing....you are using the same argument the wingers use with gay marriage...tff!

I like you Squeaky, but I have to agree with Immie...this thread has left you looking the bigot.

Hey! I like "Squeaky" too. This has nothing to do with disliking her, just disagreeing with her.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you at all interested in discussing the topic of this thread or do you just want to keep playing this silly game of he said/ she said?

Dodge ball. Your own words say that you would maybe be ok with pot smoking allowed in more places vs. cig smoking and that you personally like the smell of pot and detest the smell of cigs. Your disgust of cigs prevents you from seeing the point . .. .that choice has been taken out of the hands of individuals and taken over by government and you are just fine with it because you don't like smokes.

I guess you're not interested.

Rant on ..

It's obvious that you don't want to discuss what you said cause you're dodging my post . . . again.

Like I said earlier. . . just wait until they take away something you do like.

You mean like every time a smoker lights up next to me?

In a privately owned place? Please. Choice is the issue here and you are apparently fine with giving away your right to choose.

 

[FA_Q2]

Please drop the discrimination stance. It is NOT discrimination. It is belittling to people that have suffered through real discrimination to compare them to the ‘abused smokers.’ It is a restriction of choice without just cause as many of you have been putting fourth and that is the strongest and truest argument for abolishing those bans. I am a pink lunger that sees that it is a terrible thing to removes the given choices to the populous and the business owners.

As to the pot issue – of course it should be up to the owner if it is legalized. ANY legal substance should be treated in the same manner.

 

[Anguille]

Please drop the discrimination stance. It is NOT discrimination. It is belittling to people that have suffered through real discrimination to compare them to the ‘abused smokers.’ It is a restriction of choice without just cause as many of you have been putting fourth and that is the strongest and truest argument for abolishing those bans. I am a pink lunger that sees that it is a terrible thing to removes the given choices to the populous and the business owners.

As to the pot issue – of course it should be up to the owner if it is legalized. ANY legal substance should be treated in the same manner.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the question presented in the OP.
It keeps going off track when people can't defend their arguments anymore and resort to strawmen, distortions and pettiness.

 

[noose4]

. Like I said earlier. . . just wait until they take away something you do like.

That is a good point that has been left behind in this discussion.

I don't know Anguille well enough to put this effectively... but, using me for an example. I am a Christian. What if the government suddenly decided to interpose itself into my faith and say make me (us all) become "Jehovah's Witnesses"? I'd have a major problem with that! I'd feel my rights were being interfered with and I would not be happy.

There is something out there that you do, Anguille, that you would be very unhappy if the government suddenly decided... boom, no more X for Anguille.

The question is would those of us who do not X, defend Anguille's right to do them or would we simply say, "tough shit Anguille, remember when I wanted to light up that cigarette and you threw that bucket of water in my face?"

Immie

Comparing religion to a filthy addiction that when partaken in is a health risk to those in its presence?

 

[noose4]

This is not a rights issue for smokers. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SMOKE. The issue is that the government has NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT YOUR SMOKING. Why is that so hard to understand. Each establishment DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. I do not believe that cigarette smoke has been proven to be sufficiently hazardous to your health to give the government the right to restrict it. This is a choice issue and it is almost always bad when choices are removed.

 

[Shogun]

Please drop the discrimination stance. It is NOT discrimination. It is belittling to people that have suffered through real discrimination to compare them to the ‘abused smokers.’ It is a restriction of choice without just cause as many of you have been putting fourth and that is the strongest and truest argument for abolishing those bans. I am a pink lunger that sees that it is a terrible thing to removes the given choices to the populous and the business owners.

As to the pot issue – of course it should be up to the owner if it is legalized. ANY legal substance should be treated in the same manner.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the question presented in the OP.
It keeps going off track when people can't defend their arguments anymore and resort to strawmen, distortions and pettiness.

yea... because a naked titty is not a naked titty when there is a baby attached to it.

 

[Ipsl]

So smoking is disgusting when you're in a bar? What bars do you go to? Cause from what I've seen bars as a whole are pretty gross.

It should be the right of the owner to determine what does or doesn't happen in his bar.

 

[Walt]

Strip clubs have strict rules and regulations regarding them and one can not choose to go nude to Mcdonalds, Walmart, or any other place that falls outside of the rules regarding public nudity.

So that business has the right to offer a service even though there is a public law against it. This should be no different for the bars and resturants. There was a good point made earlier about the gay clubs. Now if a Muslim, Christian or just a moralist goes to a strip club can they demand they enforce the laws because it it a public place?

In most places strip clubs would have to adhere to zoning laws and other such regulations, a person cant just drop their draws and walk around naked in just any bar or restaurant.

It is not about going naked through a resturant. If smoking was left up to the owners of bars and resturants that would not mean you could smoke in a hospital or airport. The point is a business open to the public can allow things to go on that are not allowed in places open to the general public. If you do not like nudity you do not have to go to a strip club. Those who do wish to go can. This should apply to smoking also. If people do not like it. They do not have to go to those places. I like going to resturants. I dislike sushi. So I do not go to a sushi resturant to eat. It is simple. If an establishment chooses to let people smoke. People who do not smoke to not have to go there.

 

[Walt]

Yes. If they want to ban smoking in public places, such as airports they can. However they should not be able to dictate to business such as bars and resturants. If it is not illegal then it is up to the business. If you think smoking pot does not cause cancer you need to do more research.

NIDA - Research Report Series - Marijuana Abuse

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke.4 A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase.17 A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens.40 In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.41 It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells.

42 Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

Thanks for the link. I did not claim that marijuana doe not cause cancer. In fact I suspect it, like any kind of smoke, is harmful and contains carcinogens. But studies such as have been done on tobacco smoke have yet to be done on marijuana smoke.

"These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does."
So the evidence is still inconclusive. Also keep in mind that the article notes "puff for puff " I don't think marijuana smokers in general smoke as much marijuana, puff for puff, as tobacco smokers. Also this article doesn't address the issue of second hand marijuana smoke.

So I take it you would be in favor of allowing owners to permit marijuana smoking in bars and restaurants once it becomes legal?

If a resturant or bar chooses to allow smoking, weather a cigarette or a doobie is {or should be} entirely up to the business. The evidence is only inconclusive on this point "may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does." It does not at all suggest that is in any less. Only that it may be more. I would follow up on what you wrote about how smoking pot may be allowed in more places than cigarettes but Immie all ready handled that.

 

[Walt]

You have completely misunderstood my stance. I made a point that my preference of the smell of one type of smoke over the other does not negate the right of anyone else who does not like the smell of pot to have to put up with it. Why not argue the points I make instead of inventing stuff I never said?

why not choose to take your fucking ass to a non smoking bar and make this entire debate a moot point?

Oh, we are ALL full of questions, aren't we?

Why not choose not to be an inconsiderate asshole and not feed your addiction where it will intrude into some one else's space?

If you do not like that business that allows smoking. You do not have to be in that space. So simply make a choice to not go. Like wise people who do smoke do not have to go to places that choose to ban smoking.

 

[noose4]

why not choose to take your fucking ass to a non smoking bar and make this entire debate a moot point?

Oh, we are ALL full of questions, aren't we?

Why not choose not to be an inconsiderate asshole and not feed your addiction where it will intrude into some one else's space?

If you do not like that business that allows smoking. You do not have to be in that space. So simply make a choice to not go. Like wise people who do smoke do not have to go to places that choose to ban smoking.

Non smokers have rights too, smokers are addicts who have an addiction that they are still allowed to partake in legally in places where it will not threaten the health and hygiene of those around them(unlike their brother adicts who use cocaine or heroin), a non smoker should not have to pass up a certain establishment because inconsiderate addicts are polluting the air.