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

[Walt]

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.

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

 

[noose4]

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.

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

 

[Ipsl]

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.

Don't forget alcoholism.

 

[noose4]

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.

Don't forget alcoholism.

Indeed another addiction that has regulations pertaining to where it can be practiced.

 

[Walt]

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.

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Breathe fresh air in an establishment that does not allow it. Stay out of those that do. Your rights are not impeded and neither are those of the smokers due to the choice of the busines owner and peoples personal choice of where to go.

 

[noose4]

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Breathe fresh air in an establishment that does not allow it. Stay out of those that do. Your rights are not impeded and neither are those of the smokers due to the choice of the busines owner and peoples personal choice of where to go.

A place used for public business must adhere to health codes, if you want to smoke and kill yourself do so in the privacy of your home, dont try killing the rest of us with you.

 

[Walt]

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Breathe fresh air in an establishment that does not allow it. Stay out of those that do. Your rights are not impeded and neither are those of the smokers due to the choice of the busines owner and peoples personal choice of where to go.

A place used for public business must adhere to health codes, if you want to smoke and kill yourself do so in the privacy of your home, dont try killing the rest of us with you.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.

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.

At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

 

[Walt]

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.

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.

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.

At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

Another cause he can champion is the removal of water from bars and resturants. After all it is a health hazard. It causes cancer and other health problems on unsuspecting patrons. At least with smoke you can smell it and run if you want to.

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

 

[noose4]

Breathe fresh air in an establishment that does not allow it. Stay out of those that do. Your rights are not impeded and neither are those of the smokers due to the choice of the busines owner and peoples personal choice of where to go.

A place used for public business must adhere to health codes, if you want to smoke and kill yourself do so in the privacy of your home, dont try killing the rest of us with you.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

It is for them to legislate and they have and we are the better for it.

 

[noose4]

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.

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.



At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

Another cause he can champion is the removal of water from bars and resturants. After all it is a health hazard. It causes cancer and other health problems on unsuspecting patrons. At least with smoke you can smell it and run if you want to.

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

When drinking water a person does not shower it onto others who do not want to drink it or get wet.

 

[noose4]

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.

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.

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.

At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

You do not have the personal choice to inflict harm upon others or to engage in certain addictive harmful acts, you can not shoot heroin or snort cocaine legally any where and can only smoke and drink alcohol in designated places.

 

[Walt]

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.



At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.



They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

Another cause he can champion is the removal of water from bars and resturants. After all it is a health hazard. It causes cancer and other health problems on unsuspecting patrons. At least with smoke you can smell it and run if you want to.

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

When drinking water a person does not shower it onto others who do not want to drink it or get wet.

It is a health hazard that resturants and bars give it to you. Do they warn you what you are about to drink is a known cancer causing agent? Is it legal to serve people such things without a warning? At least with the warning labes on smokes you have a warning.

No one forces you to go to an establishment that allows smoking. So they are not showering it on you or forcing you to inhale it. Just stay out of such places.

 

[Shogun]

I'll try to remember that we "can only drink alcohol in designated places" when Columbia vendors sell me a beer on the very streets of the city during this years Roots & Blues BBQ fest.

 

[Walt]

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.

And his answers were spot on . . . and basically ignored.



At the rate they are banning smoking, that will be everywhere.

Keep skating around it. You do not have to go to a strip bar and you do not have to go to a bar that allows smoking. This is not for them to legislate and the ban should be removed. Business should make the decision.

They fail to see that the issue here is about personal choice vs. government mandate. They are quick to forfeit their individual choice in favor of government control because they don't like smoking (well, except for pot . . . maybe). Perhaps uncle should start banning peanuts in all eateries because so many people suffer from peanut allergies rather than, you know, letting that individual decide for themselves whether they want to take a risk and eat at the peanut gallery.

You do not have the personal choice to inflict harm upon others or to engage in certain addictive harmful acts, you can not shoot heroin or snort cocaine legally any where and can only smoke and drink alcohol in designated places.

No one is harming them. If they choose to go in such places they take their own risk. Or if they detest it so much they do not even have to enter at all. If a bar or resturant choose to become a designated smoking establishment they should have that right. You have the right not to go there. Doing it this way inflicts harm on no one. It is personal choice.

 

[noose4]

Another cause he can champion is the removal of water from bars and resturants. After all it is a health hazard. It causes cancer and other health problems on unsuspecting patrons. At least with smoke you can smell it and run if you want to.

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

When drinking water a person does not shower it onto others who do not want to drink it or get wet.

It is a health hazard that resturants and bars give it to you. Do they warn you what you are about to drink is a known cancer causing agent? Is it legal to serve people such things without a warning? At least with the warning labes on smokes you have a warning.

No one forces you to go to an establishment that allows smoking. So they are not showering it on you or forcing you to inhale it. Just stay out of such places.

Non smokers have rights, we should not have to avoid places that do business with the public because inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others without any care.

 

[noose4]

I'll try to remember that we "can only drink alcohol in designated places" when Columbia vendors sell me a beer on the very streets of the city during this years Roots & Blues BBQ fest.

Take a walk down the street in NYC while drinking from an open bottle of beer.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I'm so sorry you don't approve, but she has shown her desire to discriminate against people she finds disgusting. Discrimination is disgusting whether it be used against a black person, a Muslim, a white woman, an elderly woman, a child, an Israeli, a person of asian decent or even a smoker.

The question was about repealing the ban on the restriction of rights of business owner to decide what they want to do with their own property, but it has become evident that Anguille wants to discriminate against people who smoke.

Yes, I believe these laws are unfair.

Yes, I believe these laws should be repealed.

Yes, I believe that Anguille is discriminating against people who are only exercising a legal right.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who happens to be the victim.

Immie

 

[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

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

The comparison fits very well.

And if you had read the post you would see that it was a description of something that could be taken away from me and that many people in this country would like to take away from me. There is something out there that is near and dear to both you and Anguille and it might just be that privilege that is stolen from you next.

Immie

 

[noose4]

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?

The comparison fits very well.

And if you had read the post you would see that it was a description of something that could be taken away from me and that many people in this country would like to take away from me. There is something out there that is near and dear to both you and Anguille and it might just be that privilege that is stolen from you next.

Immie

If something I do negatively affects the lives of others when I do it then it should be taken from me.