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

[Anguille]

I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

If you have ever worked long hours in a crowded bar you would know that it's not a case being several faeet away from cigarette smoke for only a few few hour a week.

I acknowledge that you think there is no evidence to show exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant health risk, (though I do disagree with you). However is there any evidence that shows secondhand smoke is safe? Do you believe firsthand smoke is safe?
Can you think of any reason why a person should allow someone near them to poison the air they both breathe with a narcotic and carcinogens? Why would anyone be willing to accept any amount of these in the air? Does cigarette smoke have any redeeming value to anyone other than th smoker who must feed his addiction and selfishly chooses the most anti-social method of doing so?

imme
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Yes, I believe these laws should be repealed.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

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

The discrimination charge is just Immie blowing smoke up people's asses. He can't argue his points on genuine grounds so he tries to stir up hysteria.

I think you are right that he probably has no idea what real discrimination is. And if he does. More the shame on him.

It's good to see someone join the thread who is not afraid to stick to the issue and stand by his/her convictions on their merit alone.

 

[Anguille]

anguille
Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

I've pretty much answered all those questions several times in this thread but because you a refreshingly honest and seem interested in genuine debate I will summarize my opinion.
The government is working on behalf of the community in which the business is being operated and upon whose financial resources the business is dependent. The community calls for fairness in workplace safety laws and uniform enforcement of health codes. The alternative to calling for government intervention would be to boycott all businesses that do not respect the demands of their customers. But boycotts are destructive to both sides. Businesses go belly up and in this case, customers would go belly empty while they boycotted the restaurants. Government intervention is a better and more civilized solution in this case. Less loss all around. And in this case government intervention has benefited both business and it's customers. Trade is good and enabling it is part of governments job.
Of course, no intervention would have been necessary if more smokers had gotten smart in the first place and indulged their addiction in ways that don't harm others.

Just curious. If you did believe secondhand smoke was dangerous, would you be in favor of the bans or would you still be against them?

What is your major objection to them?
That they take choice out of the hands of th owners?
Or that you think that second hand smoke is not a hazard to patrons and employees?

 

[Ipsl]

I would assert that the health risk is irrelevant. Since the non-smoker has the choice to go there or not.

The way the laws stand currently its more a risk to a non smoker since I'm forced into a public area to smoke.

 

[FA_Q2]

I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

If you have ever worked long hours in a crowded bar you would know that it's not a case being several faeet away from cigarette smoke for only a few few hour a week.

I acknowledge that you think there is no evidence to show exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant health risk, (though I do disagree with you). However is there any evidence that shows secondhand smoke is safe? Do you believe firsthand smoke is safe?
Can you think of any reason why a person should allow someone near them to poison the air they both breathe with a narcotic and carcinogens? Why would anyone be willing to accept any amount of these in the air? Does cigarette smoke have any redeeming value to anyone other than th smoker who must feed his addiction and selfishly chooses the most anti-social method of doing so?

No there is no evidence that shows second hand smoke is safe, the same way there is no evidence that shows flatulence is safe. The burden of proof lies in the other direction.

To the second part, no, there is no reason to breath in someone else’s carcinogenic habits. That is the point here. You are not forced to breath in anything. I believe that the burden is on the patron to avoid those establishments. You and I see things a little differently. I believe that the choices should be there for you to make and you believe that the government should act in the interest of said people. The biggest problem I have is in the very nature of our government, any government for that matter, is to gain power and control. Each choice that is removed from you is another one you will never get back and an excuse to control the next item. Case in point, there are and have been successful movements to limit fast food restaurants and fatty foods because the health hazards associated with those establishments. The same excuses are used here are used to limit those establishments (minus the other people part). Bans like this lead to stricter bans on things like food. It is deplorable that my choice to have a fatty burger is limited because ‘daddy’ knows best. I can and do make decisions every day that affect my health in various ways and those choices are mine to make, not the governments. I believe VERY deeply in personal choice and accountability. I would NOT visit an establishment that allows smoking, didn’t back in the day either but I feel that is a choice that I make. It should not be made for me.

Here is a question for you – should it be illegal for a sick person to go to a restaurant? After all, that would present a larger risk to life than second hand smoke.

imme
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

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

The discrimination charge is just Immie blowing smoke up people's asses. He can't argue his points on genuine grounds so he tries to stir up hysteria.

I think you are right that he probably has no idea what real discrimination is. And if he does. More the shame on him.

It's good to see someone join the thread who is not afraid to stick to the issue and stand by his/her convictions on their merit alone.

[/quote]
Thank you. I do try

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry for the double post. Your last post was not there until after I started to type up my response

anguille
Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

I've pretty much answered all those questions several times in this thread but because you a refreshingly honest and seem interested in genuine debate I will summarize my opinion.
The government is working on behalf of the community in which the business is being operated and upon whose financial resources the business is dependent. The community calls for fairness in workplace safety laws and uniform enforcement of health codes. The alternative to calling for government intervention would be to boycott all businesses that do not respect the demands of their customers. But boycotts are destructive to both sides. Businesses go belly up and in this case, customers would go belly empty while they boycotted the restaurants. Government intervention is a better and more civilized solution in this case. Less loss all around. And in this case government intervention has benefited both business and it's customers. Trade is good and enabling it is part of governments job.
Of course, no intervention would have been necessary if more smokers had gotten smart in the first place and indulged their addiction in ways that don't harm others.

Just curious. If you did believe secondhand smoke was dangerous, would you be in favor of the bans or would you still be against them?

What is your major objection to them?
That they take choice out of the hands of th owners?
Or that you think that second hand smoke is not a hazard to patrons and employees?

I actually feel that boycotts are less destructive than regulation. I believe that regulation is more destructive in the long run because it is persistent. The law rarely goes away. Boycotts, on the other hand, are temporary and may be destructive at first they usually come to the best and most fluid answer. I find that lawmakers rarely get it right either. I don’t believe that boycotts would have been necessary in this case though. What needed to happen, and indeed what was happening, was non smokers frequent smoking establishments so that it became more profitable for some places to ban smoking within their own places of business. That would create a good balance of businesses to cater to the needs of ALL the patrons and would have turned out for the best of both parties.

Q1 – It depends on the danger. I do not necessarily believe that second hand smoke is without danger. I do believe that the danger is not sufficient to require banning. Did you know that the lubricants in most brass locks are known carcinogens! Where I work I am constantly exposed to benzene, a well known carcinogen. Everything has dangers. Most don’t require bans.

Q2 – I believe that I covered that above. Let me know if that is not clear. I was typing that response up when you posted your last statement so I had to respond again

Q3 – That is a major problem. The owners should have that choice. Again, I went into detail in the above but missed this Q.

 

[Anguille]

I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

If you have ever worked long hours in a crowded bar you would know that it's not a case being several faeet away from cigarette smoke for only a few few hour a week.

I acknowledge that you think there is no evidence to show exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant health risk, (though I do disagree with you). However is there any evidence that shows secondhand smoke is safe? Do you believe firsthand smoke is safe?
Can you think of any reason why a person should allow someone near them to poison the air they both breathe with a narcotic and carcinogens? Why would anyone be willing to accept any amount of these in the air? Does cigarette smoke have any redeeming value to anyone other than th smoker who must feed his addiction and selfishly chooses the most anti-social method of doing so?

No there is no evidence that shows second hand smoke is safe, the same way there is no evidence that shows flatulence is safe. The burden of proof lies in the other direction.

But there is evidence to support the theory that flatulence is involuntary. Farting and smoking don't make a good analogy.
I'm glad that the burden of proof is not in the other direction concerning most drugs. I'm glad they are not tested first by allowing them to be sold to the general public and then regulated after they killed enough people. I see no reason why second hand smoke should be exempted from safety precautions.If it's proven to be medically safe, then it would just fall under the same restrictions of other public nuisances. Do you think it can be proven to be safe?

To the second part, no, there is no reason to breath in someone else’s carcinogenic habits. That is the point here. You are not forced to breath in anything. I believe that the burden is on the patron to avoid those establishments. You and I see things a little differently. I believe that the choices should be there for you to make and you believe that the government should act in the interest of said people. The biggest problem I have is in the very nature of our government, any government for that matter, is to gain power and control. Each choice that is removed from you is another one you will never get back and an excuse to control the next item. Case in point, there are and have been successful movements to limit fast food restaurants and fatty foods because the health hazards associated with those establishments. The same excuses are used here are used to limit those establishments (minus the other people part). Bans like this lead to stricter bans on things like food. It is deplorable that my choice to have a fatty burger is limited because ‘daddy’ knows best. I can and do make decisions every day that affect my health in various ways and those choices are mine to make, not the governments.

As you would have it, concerning this issue, they are the business owner's to make not yours nor the governments. I agree that we should make individual decisions concerning our health including not having to inhale tobacco smoke in public places and the right to commit suicide.

I believe VERY deeply in personal choice and accountability. I would NOT visit an establishment that allows smoking, didn’t back in the day either but I feel that is a choice that I make. It should not be made for me.

Here is a question for you – should it be illegal for a sick person to go to a restaurant? After all, that would present a larger risk to life than second hand smoke.

Depending on the nature of their disease and it's severity and communicability, yes. I believe we already have quarantine laws in place. It's illegal for restaurants to sell food tainted with e-coli and that is sometimes brought into restaurants by patrons and employees. Any restaurant who knowing allows a customer or employee with an e-coli infection to handle food should be charged with and probably is breaking the law. That is why we have healthcodes to minimize the risk of spreading e-coli in food service establishments.

Rememember too, infectious illness is generally not a personal choice whereas smoking is.

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

The discrimination charge is just Immie blowing smoke up people's asses. He can't argue his points on genuine grounds so he tries to stir up hysteria.

I think you are right that he probably has no idea what real discrimination is. And if he does. More the shame on him.

It's good to see someone join the thread who is not afraid to stick to the issue and stand by his/her convictions on their merit alone.

Thank you. I do try

 

[Anguille]

FA_Q2, you have re-invigorated my interest in this thread which was going down the tubes. I will have to get back to you later on this post. It's unlikely we will ever agree but it's interesting to know how other folks are thinking without having to wade through waste.

 

[Father Time]

noose
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.

Yep, anther addiction that allows the ESTABLISHMENT to decide whether or not they will allow it in their facility and whether or not they will sell it. Go figure. Honestly, there is a bigger chance I will get into a fight and die from my injuries while in a bar then from me smoke that is present at the time.

Health codes are a good thing. THIS health code is not. As stated a hundred times here, no one is exposing you to anything by force. You chose to expose yourself by visiting an establishment that allows it. You still have not addressed this issue and continue to avoid it. I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

imme
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

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

So would you oppose the repeal of laws that prevent urinating on public streets?

You honestly think this is a valid comparison and that there's no difference between ethically between laws regulating what you do on publicly owned vs. privately owned property?

 

[Father Time]

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

No the government is telling people not to pollute a space, even though the owner doesn't mind and we can choose not to be at that space.

That's right. Most owners don't mind the ban and were glad to see it enforced across the board.

Irrelevant really.

That way they didn't have to deal with obnoxious whiny and uncooperative customers. It took the pressure off the owners. And you are absolutely right, the smokers have every right to choose not to be in that space if they feel that people not smoking around them is hazardous to their health.

But expecting nonsmokers to go somewhere else for the same reason is obviously asking way too much

 

[Father Time]

anguille
Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

I've pretty much answered all those questions several times in this thread but because you a refreshingly honest and seem interested in genuine debate I will summarize my opinion.
The government is working on behalf of the community in which the business is being operated and upon whose financial resources the business is dependent.

Exactly what do you mean by that?

The community calls for fairness in workplace safety laws and uniform enforcement of health codes. The alternative to calling for government intervention would be to boycott all businesses that do not respect the demands of their customers.

Now here comes the part about how acting like a grown up and not visiting places you don't like is somehow bad.

But boycotts are destructive to both sides. Businesses go belly up and in this case,

If they're smart they'd ban smoking before they go belly up. Although MANY businesses of all stripes whither and die when they don't know how to cater to customers, it's part of life.

customers would go belly empty while they boycotted the restaurants.

You honestly think people would starve? Why can't they go to a restaurant that does ban smoking (and don't try to tell me those don't exist) or use a grocery store?

Government intervention is a better and more civilized solution in this case.

Yes because using force to get what you want is clearly civilized.

Less loss all around.

Bullshit.
Bar owners lose rights. Smokers lose a hangout. Businesses lose profits and nose dive (and if you think it's OK to legislate away someone else's job in the name of workplace safety why would it be so bad to just let the employees who object to the smoke (and not all of them do) quit)?

And in this case government intervention has benefited both business and it's customers.

No it doesn't. People have posted evidence that this law puts businesses out of business. The customers can simply choose not to go to the bar if they don't want to deal with smoke so the benefits to them are insignificant.

Trade is good and enabling it is part of governments job.

You know this law actually means they trade with less people.

Of course, no intervention would have been necessary if more smokers had gotten smart in the first place and indulged their addiction in ways that don't harm others.

Oh brother. 'We had to make this stupid law you guys wouldn't do what we wanted on your own so we had to spend time making a law to get what we want. It's your fault."

Here's a thought if people like yourself would learn to GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, if there's things inside a restaurant that bother them we wouldn't have this stupid law. I look forward to a law coming from you that bans restaurants from playing music you don't like.

Maybe it is asking too much that you act like a fucking adult, then again if you can't act like an adult you shouldn't be inside a bar in the first place.

 

[Dr Grump]

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

That's right.
Hey, Gump, what are you smoking in your avatar? Anything good?

Knowing the type of person he is, dope.....

 

[jillian]

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

I really hate when people speak loudly in restaurants. I don't want to hear their discussions. I want to hear the one I'm engaged in.

I don't think government should legislate good manners, though.

 

[Immanuel]

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

I really hate when people speak loudly in restaurants. I don't want to hear their discussions. I want to hear the one I'm engaged in.

I don't think government should legislate good manners, though.

You know, come to think of it, I can't stand it when people let their little children run around the restaurant making noises spilling food and drinks (destroying my clothing when food gets spilled on my clothes) etc. Perhaps the government should legislate that people with children should not be allowed to go to restaurants!

AND THE HEALTH HAZARD SHOULD HOT SOUP BE SPILLED IN MY LAP!

Immie

 

[Father Time]

Does anyone know how close you have to be to second hand smoke for it to be toxic anyway?

 

[jillian]

You know, come to think of it, I can't stand it when people let their little children run around the restaurant making noises spilling food and drinks (destroying my clothing when food gets spilled on my clothes) etc. Perhaps the government should legislate that people with children should not be allowed to go to restaurants!

AND THE HEALTH HAZARD SHOULD HOT SOUP BE SPILLED IN MY LAP!

Immie

see...there are things that bug each of us. the question is should government legislate with regard to each of those things?

gotta watch the soup. go for the gazpacho. at least it doesn't hurt when it's spilled.

 

[Dr Grump]

Does anyone know how close you have to be to second hand smoke for it to be toxic anyway?

Any smoke you inhale is bad for you.....

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

 

[Anguille]

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

Exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke has been shown to cause high blood pressure. High blood pressure can cause complications for a pregnant woman. It can cause her to need to abort or it can even cause a miscarriage. Why should smokers be allowed to cause abortions in women who do not want one?

 

[Anguille]

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

Honest to God, Boing, if you don't know the difference between a public barroom and a woman's womb no amount of biology lessons is going to help you. Unless of course, you see them both as a place for conducting business and pulling in cash. though, in the case of the womb, in your twisted view, the womb would not be the property of the woman whose body enclosed it.

 

[Anguille]

Does anyone know how close you have to be to second hand smoke for it to be toxic anyway?

In your lungs, bronchial tubes and sinuses, that's how close.
Duh!