5stringJeff
Senior Member
Again, the issue just wouldn't warrant that type of activism.
I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again, the issue just wouldn't warrant that type of activism.
I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.
I agree, it won't, but that's the route smokers should take if they want to overturn the law.
I voted "yes" with the stipulation that the state legislature (the people) can regulate where they smoke in the interest of public health. If people have to smoke and they just can't wait, they need to go outside where their pollution won't affect other people who would rather not have their air painfully contaminated.
*Angry smoker liability clause* For the record, I smoked a pack-a-day for almost seven years and quit successfully and easily so I think I know what I'm talking about.
Now apply Gem's analogy. In the interest of public health, most if not all fast food joints would have to shut down since everything they sell is a heart attack in a sack.
Any place in particular this line should be drawn?
do you have a right to drive a car?.....that....
pollute the environment
causes cancer
causes global warming....or cooling depending on the day (coold as a witches tit today in california)
kills people and animals when opperated improperly
Yeah. Read the post you quoted me on Gunny. I didn't say the smoking industry needed to be shut-down. I said smoking areas should be regulated so non-smokers don't have to breathe it.
As an aside, Gem's fast-food comment is nonsensical. It's what I call "ironic fanaticism" or the use of an ironic metaphor that would never actually occur in reality to prove a zealous point of view. No sane person would ever entertain the idea of shutting-down an industry because it sells fatty burgers. Furthermore, a person can choose whether or not to buy and consume a fatty burger. One cannot choose to breathe second-hand smoke. C'mone mayne.
I didn't misread your post, and responded to it.
As far as your dissection of Gem's analogy, I doubt the tobacco industry in past days figured the same would happen to a product that was the financial basis of this Nation during it's original formation. Probably used the same "reasonable person" argument you are attempting to use here.
This isn't about reasonable.
People have just as much right to not go to places that allow smoking as anyone else has a right to or not to consume fast food.
So under your reasoning, the regulation of designated smoking areas should be left up to individual businesses and if people don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, they should not patronize businesses that allow smoking? Well Gunny. Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc. Should non-smokers just have to stay at home and peer out their windows if they want to get a glimpse of the world?
-OR-
(Hint. This is how reality is.) Should smokers *a very small minority* be relegated to a small area by the rest of society so that their unhealthy habit will not affect anyone who doesn't want to take part in it?
Untrue. I just saw an advertisment for Westin Hotels, smoke free. Restaurants would do the same, if the owner thinks more of health or that he'll make more by doing so.
What's untrue? Most hotels and motels have smoking and non-smoking rooms you can rent. What's your point? :huh:
HC said:...Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc....
Businesses will choose what they do, based on their own bottom line, could be cash, could be ideology.
Businesses will choose what they do, based on their own bottom line, could be cash, could be ideology.
Sure they will. But they won't if the government passes a constitutionally legitimate ban on a certain practice that is backed by the majority of the people. Then they will amend their decisions or be punished regardless of their bottom lines. That's how laws work.
Smoking is unhealthy so as a society, many of our cities have started to crack-down on an issue they see as affecting public health. No one is trying to take the cigarette out of your mouth and slap you on the wrist. In fact, by all means, continue to smoke. But we would appreciate it if you would go outside so that our omelette won't taste like a Virginia Slim.
So under your reasoning, the regulation of designated smoking areas should be left up to individual businesses and if people don't want to breathe tobacco smoke, they should not patronize businesses that allow smoking? Well Gunny. Without government regulations, non-smokers could not go to bars, restaurants, theaters, they couldn't fly, work, go to the post office, stand in line at Wal-Mart, fill-up their cars, etc. Should non-smokers just have to stay at home and peer out their windows if they want to get a glimpse of the world?
-OR-
(Hint. This is how reality is.) Should smokers *a very small minority* be relegated to a small area by the rest of society so that their unhealthy habit will not affect anyone who doesn't want to take part in it?
I voted "yes" with the stipulation that the state legislature (the people) can regulate where they smoke in the interest of public health. If people have to smoke and they just can't wait, they need to go outside where their pollution won't affect other people who would rather not have their air painfully contaminated.
*Angry smoker liability clause* For the record, I smoked a pack-a-day for almost seven years and quit successfully and easily so I think I know what I'm talking about.
I smoke pipe tobacco and cigars, I have to get on a golf course, sit at my tobacconist establishment or stay home to enjoy my right to smoke.Very few bars allow cigars anymore, cigarette smokers give me as much crap as the nonsmokers. I enjoy tobacco in it's puriat form and I'm a pariah. I think I'll go smoke a Commacho right now....see ya.