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

[Skull Pilot]

Unless a heroin junkie robs me or is a relative his addiction doesnt affect me but as a breather the smokers addiction does affect me.

not if you don't patronize the place where people are smoking and only give your business to those establishment s that are smoke free.

People should not be impeded from enjoying a public establishment because of an addicts addiction, let the addict be inconvenienced not the general non addicted public.

so not going to one particular pub inconveniences you when you have many others to choose from?

You are selfish aren't you?

 

[noose4]

So naturally you are against driving cars in public places too ?

Transportation is necessary, feeding an addiction is not.

got it---if it's necessary to fuck peoples lungs up it's OK.

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

 

[noose4]

not if you don't patronize the place where people are smoking and only give your business to those establishment s that are smoke free.

People should not be impeded from enjoying a public establishment because of an addicts addiction, let the addict be inconvenienced not the general non addicted public.

so not going to one particular pub inconveniences you when you have many others to choose from?

You are selfish aren't you?

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

 

[Skull Pilot]

By that logic the victims of rape or murder should have avoided dangerous places and situations.

Not at all.

Because those acts are perpetrated by a person and the intention of that person is unknowable to the victim

You know my pub allows smoking and you are free to enter or not.

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

It does not impede their rights as they have the right to go to another establishment.

 

[Anguille]

Some smokers act like they think they are being murdered!

Some nonsmokers think smoking equals child pornography

No it just equals addiction, the only difference between a smoker and a heroin junkie is that ones addiction is legal.

Not to mention that when a heroin junkie shoots up the drug only enters his bloodstream whereas with a nicotine junkie anyone around him is drugged. Smokers are more like crackheads.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People should not be impeded from enjoying a public establishment because of an addicts addiction, let the addict be inconvenienced not the general non addicted public.

so not going to one particular pub inconveniences you when you have many others to choose from?

You are selfish aren't you?

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

 

[dilloduck]

Transportation is necessary, feeding an addiction is not.

got it---if it's necessary to fuck peoples lungs up it's OK.

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

 

[noose4]

so not going to one particular pub inconveniences you when you have many others to choose from?

You are selfish aren't you?

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

They do have a place to engage in their addiction, outside the door where they are not infringing on somebody else's right to breathe.

 

[Anguille]

right.. because not being able to smoke in a given area is totally the same as being murdered

Some smokers act like they think they are being murdered!

Please---even non-smokers have agreed that the smoking bans suck----try again

Not as many as non smokers and smokers who agree with them. That's why we have them.

 

[noose4]

got it---if it's necessary to fuck peoples lungs up it's OK.

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

How many people run a cars engine while it is indoors at a pub or restaurant?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

got it---if it's necessary to fuck peoples lungs up it's OK.

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

Hello, Mr Herring. Claiming that an act which harms other people should be tolerated because another act which is harmful results form a problem not yet solved is fallacious and dishonest. Please try to stay on topic and address the matter at hand if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[Anguille]

Tobacco use is stupid, be it smoked, snorted or chewed. Purveyors of tobacco products are no different (morally, ethically) then those who sell other drugs; and judges, legislators and others who continue to allow tobacco to be grown, sold and marketed are evil.

I think it's funny how some smokers complain that the government is trying to run their lives when no one is running their life more than the tobacco industry which got them hooked to their product.

 

[Anguille]

Just so you know,

I don't smoke, never did never will.

Your avatar does.

 

[Anguille]

So you are being forced to patronize a pub that allows smoking?

You have the right to choose you know.

If I allow smoking and everyone who patronizes my pub knows it then they make the choice to enter or not.

If you wish to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community, you are obliged to respect the laws concerning consumer and employee protections. Otherwise that privilege will be taken away from you.

Another person who completely misses the point of the thread.

The thread asks whether or not the laws should be changed.

Since I started the thread I guess I know what the point of it is.
I answered your question and you didn't like the answer. So you pull an off topic accusation. Lame.

 

[dilloduck]

Just so you know,

I don't smoke, never did never will.

Your avatar does.

pssssssst----avatars aren't real

 

[Anguille]

And why is their addiction your business?

Unless a heroin junkie robs me or is a relative his addiction doesnt affect me but as a breather the smokers addiction does affect me.

So naturally you are against driving cars in public places too ?

Cars serve a useful purpose. Cigarettes do not.

Car emissions are regulated. Cigarettes emissions are too.

That false analogy has been shot down so many times. Why keep beating the dead horse?

Is that all you anti-smoking bans people have got?

 

[Anguille]

And therein lays the problem. No one should legislate to 'make sure' that others 'do the right thing'.

So I guess you are opposed to laws that prohibit rape, murder and child abuse?

Rape, murder and child abuse are inflicted on victims against their will.

If my pub allows smoking and you have the choice not to enter, how does that relate to rape murder and child abuse?

Read what she said.

 

[Anguille]

Jesus, how thick is your skull that you can't grasp the question of whether or not smoking bans should be changed?

Some of us believe they should be changed and we are making arguments as to why.

And so far every one of them has been shown to be faulty. If you can't come up with a single genuine reason to repeal the bans, why can't you just grasp the fact that you are wrong?

 

[Anguille]

By that logic the victims of rape or murder should have avoided dangerous places and situations.

Not at all.

Because those acts are perpetrated by a person and the intention of that person is unknowable to the victim

You know my pub allows smoking and you are free to enter or not.

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

They also guarantee the rights of bar and restaurant employees to have the same workplace protections afforded to all other kinds of employees.

 

[dilloduck]

Not at all.

Because those acts are perpetrated by a person and the intention of that person is unknowable to the victim

You know my pub allows smoking and you are free to enter or not.

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

They also guarantee the rights of bar and restaurant employees to have the same workplace protections afforded to all other kinds of employees.

They can choose to work in a smoking bar or non smoking bar