Smoking Bans

[auditor0007]

Constantly repeating the same stupid one-liner does not make it less-stupid, stupid!

On the contrary it's a great line and amazingly the counter to the post you made just before this one.

Drinking coffee affects no one but the coffee drinker. Smoking tobacco affects everyone in a confined space. There's just no getting around that.

smoking is a filthy habit, it shortens your life. But, its legal. If a place of business wants to allow smoking, that is its right. Non-smokers are not required to go there.

If you want to destroy your body with smoke in your car or your home, fine, thats your right.

But, smoking in public places where non smokers must go, should not be allowed.

Said another way, do whatever you want to your body as long as it does not impact someone else's body.

Places of business cannot discriminate as to who can and cannot shop their business, but allowing smoking discriminates against the non-smoker who does not want to breathe cigarette smoke. All those who support the right of a business to allow smoking are more concerned with the rights of the smoker than the rights of the non-smoker. The bottom line is that the right of any individual to breathe clean air comes before the right of the smoker to violate that clean air. That is the bottom line.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't believe smoking should be banned

I just believe that smokers should be social outcasts and held up for derision

Your opinion.

But you still haven't told me how a privately owned business operated on private property allowing smoking would be of any danger to you.

You keep wet-dreaming on Business Almighty rhetorical porn and leaving out the inconvenient part. That is, you still haven't 'splained what gives a smoker the right to force others to smoke who may not choose to. That's taking away their right to breathe.

Why are you against freedom of choice?

If everyone knows the establishment allows smoking how are they or you being forced to breathe in any smoke when all you have to do is not patronize that particular business?

That is choice. Let a business decide what their policies are and let the public decide whether or not to patronize that business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your opinion.

But you still haven't told me how a privately owned business operated on private property allowing smoking would be of any danger to you.

You keep wet-dreaming on Business Almighty rhetorical porn and leaving out the inconvenient part. That is, you still haven't 'splained what gives a smoker the right to force others to smoke who may not choose to. That's taking away their right to breathe.

Why are you against freedom of choice?

Nah. He's just all for the smoker. You work next to a smoker. Tough shit. Nobody is making you work in this place. You get asthma attacks breathing smoke in the work place. Tough shit. No one's making you work there.
It very important to skull that personal decisions, even if those personal decisions harm others, that those people be allowed to do what they choose.

Unless it has a negative impact on skull. Then there's an issue. Right skull?

Wrong again as usual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't believe smoking should be banned

I just believe that smokers should be social outcasts and held up for derision

Your opinion.

But you still haven't told me how a privately owned business operated on private property allowing smoking would be of any danger to you.

I have explained multiple times

It is a privately held public conveyance. If they want to operate in our society they must conform to our rules

Public safety is one of those rules

Even if all the people who enter know the policies of the business?

Sorry but if you have no intention of patronizing a business that allows smoking then you and anyone else who does not want to be subjected to smoke does not have to enter.

You make it sound like you are forced to enter any bar or restaurant that might allow smoking. You are not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A business cannot discriminate in its hiring of employees by only hiring smokers. Non-smokers have a right to breath smoke free air, hence smoking bans.

But businesses can discriminate in hiring smokers

Purely on principle I think that is wrong, but I do understand the employer's right to limit employees to those who do not smoke. The fact is that smokers miss more work and are less productive, because they are not as healthy as non-smokers. Since I quit smoking nearly three years ago, I've had one cold, and it only lasted three days. When I was a smoker, my average cold lasted ten days. On top of that, smokers increase health insurance premiums for the entire company.

People with kids miss a lot of work too so why can't I discriminate on that measure?

 

[Crystalclear]

On the contrary it's a great line and amazingly the counter to the post you made just before this one.

Drinking coffee affects no one but the coffee drinker. Smoking tobacco affects everyone in a confined space. There's just no getting around that.

smoking is a filthy habit, it shortens your life. But, its legal. If a place of business wants to allow smoking, that is its right. Non-smokers are not required to go there.

If you want to destroy your body with smoke in your car or your home, fine, thats your right.

But, smoking in public places where non smokers must go, should not be allowed.

Said another way, do whatever you want to your body as long as it does not impact someone else's body.

Places of business cannot discriminate as to who can and cannot shop their business, but allowing smoking discriminates against the non-smoker who does not want to breathe cigarette smoke. All those who support the right of a business to allow smoking are more concerned with the rights of the smoker than the rights of the non-smoker. The bottom line is that the right of any individual to breathe clean air comes before the right of the smoker to violate that clean air. That is the bottom line.

Then those people will go to another business that doesn't allow smoking and otherwise costumers can demand the business to stop allowing smoking.

 

[Esmeralda]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

 

[Skull Pilot]

On the contrary it's a great line and amazingly the counter to the post you made just before this one.

Drinking coffee affects no one but the coffee drinker. Smoking tobacco affects everyone in a confined space. There's just no getting around that.

smoking is a filthy habit, it shortens your life. But, its legal. If a place of business wants to allow smoking, that is its right. Non-smokers are not required to go there.

If you want to destroy your body with smoke in your car or your home, fine, thats your right.

But, smoking in public places where non smokers must go, should not be allowed.

Said another way, do whatever you want to your body as long as it does not impact someone else's body.

Places of business cannot discriminate as to who can and cannot shop their business, but allowing smoking discriminates against the non-smoker who does not want to breathe cigarette smoke. All those who support the right of a business to allow smoking are more concerned with the rights of the smoker than the rights of the non-smoker. The bottom line is that the right of any individual to breathe clean air comes before the right of the smoker to violate that clean air. That is the bottom line.

It does not discriminate as non smokers would be served if they chose to enter.

I see it as serving a niche market.

People who want to patronize it will people who don't won't.

For example most states have an allowance for cigar bars to allow smoking. People who do not smoke cigars don't patronize cigar bars.

If as it has been said only about 20% of the population smokes I don't see a few business allowing smoking diminishing the choices of nonsmokers.

Now I have been pretty consistent in mentioning bars and restaurants in particular

I can understand a smoking ban in an office or production setting but when it comes to service businesses such as bars restaurants and other entertainment facilities I don't see the harm in allowing those that wish to allow smoking as to capitalize on that particular niche market.

It's no different than a restaurant serving only steak and potatoes. Vegetarians won't patronize that particular establishment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Control freak.

Everyone who smokes knows it's bad for them yet they choose to smoke anyway.

It is none of your business and you do not have to associate with any smokers if you choose not to.

 

[rightwinger]

Your opinion.

But you still haven't told me how a privately owned business operated on private property allowing smoking would be of any danger to you.

I have explained multiple times

It is a privately held public conveyance. If they want to operate in our society they must conform to our rules

Public safety is one of those rules

Even if all the people who enter know the policies of the business?

Sorry but if you have no intention of patronizing a business that allows smoking then you and anyone else who does not want to be subjected to smoke does not have to enter.

You make it sound like you are forced to enter any bar or restaurant that might allow smoking. You are not.

Yes, even then

A business still needs to conform to the regulations of the community. Especially when they apply to health or safety

If a business fails a health inspection, can they still remain in business even if people are willing to take the risk?
Can a business that is a fire trap stay open if the public is willing to risk it?

 

[Esmeralda]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Control freak.

Everyone who smokes knows it's bad for them yet they choose to smoke anyway.

It is none of your business and you do not have to associate with any smokers if you choose not to.

Okay, so as it isn't any of my business that an addictive narcotic is legal and sold at every mini-mart and supermarket, let's legalize heroine and sell it at the supermarket too as it is also an addictive narcotic. Let's legalize all addictive narcotics: it's the only fair response to cigarettes being legal.

 

[zeke]

smoking is a filthy habit, it shortens your life. But, its legal. If a place of business wants to allow smoking, that is its right. Non-smokers are not required to go there.

If you want to destroy your body with smoke in your car or your home, fine, thats your right.

But, smoking in public places where non smokers must go, should not be allowed.

Said another way, do whatever you want to your body as long as it does not impact someone else's body.

Places of business cannot discriminate as to who can and cannot shop their business, but allowing smoking discriminates against the non-smoker who does not want to breathe cigarette smoke. All those who support the right of a business to allow smoking are more concerned with the rights of the smoker than the rights of the non-smoker. The bottom line is that the right of any individual to breathe clean air comes before the right of the smoker to violate that clean air. That is the bottom line.

It does not discriminate as non smokers would be served if they chose to enter.

I see it as serving a niche market.

People who want to patronize it will people who don't won't.

For example most states have an allowance for cigar bars to allow smoking. People who do not smoke cigars don't patronize cigar bars.

If as it has been said only about 20% of the population smokes I don't see a few business allowing smoking diminishing the choices of nonsmokers.

Now I have been pretty consistent in mentioning bars and restaurants in particular

I can understand a smoking ban in an office or production setting but when it comes to service businesses such as bars restaurants and other entertainment facilities I don't see the harm in allowing those that wish to allow smoking as to capitalize on that particular niche market.

It's no different than a restaurant serving only steak and potatoes. Vegetarians won't patronize that particular establishment.

But but but........don't those office or production workers have a choice not to work where smoking is allowed? I wanna smoke at my machine.......wawawa. I wanna smoke at my desk wawawa. Why can't those smokers CHOOSE to smoke in those places?

At least you've shown progress.

But your analogy of a veggie not wanting to visit a streak and potato restaurant? The veggie eater MIGHT visit that meat and potato restaurant to eat a.......potato.
A better analogy would have been a meat eater visiting a vegetarian restaurant.
Not likely.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have explained multiple times

It is a privately held public conveyance. If they want to operate in our society they must conform to our rules

Public safety is one of those rules

Even if all the people who enter know the policies of the business?

Sorry but if you have no intention of patronizing a business that allows smoking then you and anyone else who does not want to be subjected to smoke does not have to enter.

You make it sound like you are forced to enter any bar or restaurant that might allow smoking. You are not.

Yes, even then

A business still needs to conform to the regulations of the community. Especially when they apply to health or safety

If a business fails a health inspection, can they still remain in business even if people are willing to take the risk?
Can a business that is a fire trap stay open if the public is willing to risk it?

Not the same thing at all.

The condition of the business proper is a separate entity altogether from what patrons of the business are allowed to do on the property.

As I said cigar bars are allowed in most states why not a cigarette bar?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Places of business cannot discriminate as to who can and cannot shop their business, but allowing smoking discriminates against the non-smoker who does not want to breathe cigarette smoke. All those who support the right of a business to allow smoking are more concerned with the rights of the smoker than the rights of the non-smoker. The bottom line is that the right of any individual to breathe clean air comes before the right of the smoker to violate that clean air. That is the bottom line.

It does not discriminate as non smokers would be served if they chose to enter.

I see it as serving a niche market.

People who want to patronize it will people who don't won't.

For example most states have an allowance for cigar bars to allow smoking. People who do not smoke cigars don't patronize cigar bars.

If as it has been said only about 20% of the population smokes I don't see a few business allowing smoking diminishing the choices of nonsmokers.

Now I have been pretty consistent in mentioning bars and restaurants in particular

I can understand a smoking ban in an office or production setting but when it comes to service businesses such as bars restaurants and other entertainment facilities I don't see the harm in allowing those that wish to allow smoking as to capitalize on that particular niche market.

It's no different than a restaurant serving only steak and potatoes. Vegetarians won't patronize that particular establishment.

But but but........don't those office or production workers have a choice not to work where smoking is allowed? I wanna smoke at my machine.......wawawa. I wanna smoke at my desk wawawa. Why can't those smokers CHOOSE to smoke in those places?

At least you've shown progress.

But your analogy of a veggie not wanting to visit a streak and potato restaurant? The veggie eater MIGHT visit that meat and potato restaurant to eat a.......potato.
A better analogy would have been a meat eater visiting a vegetarian restaurant.
Not likely.

I have consistently mentioned restaurants and bars throughout this thread. All my references to employees have been to those working in service, food or entertainment businesses.

You have conflated my statements into other areas even other issues completely unrelated to smoking.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Control freak.

Everyone who smokes knows it's bad for them yet they choose to smoke anyway.

It is none of your business and you do not have to associate with any smokers if you choose not to.

Okay, so as it isn't any of my business that an addictive narcotic is legal and sold at every mini-mart and supermarket, let's legalize heroine and sell it at the supermarket too as it is also an addictive narcotic. Let's legalize all addictive narcotics: it's the only fair response to cigarettes being legal.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs. Other countries have done it and have seen drops in addiction and drug related crime.

 

[rightwinger]

Even if all the people who enter know the policies of the business?

Sorry but if you have no intention of patronizing a business that allows smoking then you and anyone else who does not want to be subjected to smoke does not have to enter.

You make it sound like you are forced to enter any bar or restaurant that might allow smoking. You are not.

Yes, even then

A business still needs to conform to the regulations of the community. Especially when they apply to health or safety

If a business fails a health inspection, can they still remain in business even if people are willing to take the risk?
Can a business that is a fire trap stay open if the public is willing to risk it?

Not the same thing at all.

The condition of the business proper is a separate entity altogether from what patrons of the business are allowed to do on the property.

As you, yourself stated...the no smoking rules are against the business not the patrons

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, even then

A business still needs to conform to the regulations of the community. Especially when they apply to health or safety

If a business fails a health inspection, can they still remain in business even if people are willing to take the risk?
Can a business that is a fire trap stay open if the public is willing to risk it?

Not the same thing at all.

The condition of the business proper is a separate entity altogether from what patrons of the business are allowed to do on the property.

As you, yourself stated...the no smoking rules are against the business not the patrons

Yes they are. But if a business wants to allow patrons to smoke why shouldn't it be able to.

I don't know how many times or in how many forms I can ask the question.\

If a cigar bar were to get a permit to open that allowed the smoking on premises would you care?

Would you insist it be a nonsmoking cigar bar?

I see no difference allowing some bars to allow cigarette smoking

If as you say only 20% of people smoke then a few businesses allowing smoing will not affect your choices or your health.

 

[zeke]

Not the same thing at all.

The condition of the business proper is a separate entity altogether from what patrons of the business are allowed to do on the property.

As you, yourself stated...the no smoking rules are against the business not the patrons

Yes they are. But if a business wants to allow patrons to smoke why shouldn't it be able to.

I don't know how many times or in how many forms I can ask the question.\

If a cigar bar were to get a permit to open that allowed the smoking on premises would you care?

Would you insist it be a nonsmoking cigar bar?

I see no difference allowing some bars to allow cigarette smoking

If as you say only 20% of people smoke then a few businesses allowing smoing will not affect your choices or your health.

More progress. We have gone from "it's a persons choice" as to what they do. And a persons choice to work where smoking is allowed.

Too if a business "were to get a permit".

Hummmm. Permits. Restrictions. Government. What happened to free choice?

Progress I tell you. Progress.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As you, yourself stated...the no smoking rules are against the business not the patrons

Yes they are. But if a business wants to allow patrons to smoke why shouldn't it be able to.

I don't know how many times or in how many forms I can ask the question.\

If a cigar bar were to get a permit to open that allowed the smoking on premises would you care?

Would you insist it be a nonsmoking cigar bar?

I see no difference allowing some bars to allow cigarette smoking

If as you say only 20% of people smoke then a few businesses allowing smoing will not affect your choices or your health.

More progress. We have gone from "it's a persons choice" as to what they do. And a persons choice to work where smoking is allowed.

Too if a business "were to get a permit".

Hummmm. Permits. Restrictions. Government. What happened to free choice?

Progress I tell you. Progress.

All businesses need permits. But you must not have known that.

You of course as usual took the discussion out of the parameters of my statements and chose to include ALL business and even private residences.

 

[Crystalclear]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.



Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Control freak.



Everyone who smokes knows it's bad for them yet they choose to smoke anyway.



It is none of your business and you do not have to associate with any smokers if you choose not to.

Okay, so as it isn't any of my business that an addictive narcotic is legal and sold at every mini-mart and supermarket, let's legalize heroine and sell it at the supermarket too as it is also an addictive narcotic. Let's legalize all addictive narcotics: it's the only fair response to cigarettes being legal.

Indeed, it isn't any of your business. I would be a big supporter of legalizing all addictive narcotics (even heroine or crystal meth). Prohibition is not the solution.