Smoking Bans

[CorvusRexus]

Opinions? Everyone has one

Opinions based on life experience? Afraid not

Of course you can still have an opinion. But those opinions must be qualified by the limited life experience of a 15 year old

Just out of curiosity, Rightwinger and Pogo, did you guys do things like this as a teenager? Try to stay up to date and involved in the world of politics?

I sure didn't. For one thing there was no internet. Electricity wasn't even invented until I was 28. If you wanted to document something you either got a chisel and a rock, or you were just on your own to memorize it.

No I had no interest in politics. At your age I was interested in radios and building them and getting an amateur radio license. And I read a lot, but about topics that interested me, such as anthropology and history. And I started expanding my learning of musical instruments. Those, and simply surviving school and preparing to make my way in the world. Politics didn't really kick in (seriously) until about age 40.

I did smoke at 15, but I would never have puffed myself up, pun intended, to pass myself off as an expert on what the rules for people who could legally smoke should have been. At 15 I was in learn mode. And I've never left that mode. When you do that and declare you know everything, that's when you've stopped living.

(/offtopic)

PS
Ain't nothing wrong with chasing girls. The sticky part comes when one lets you catch her.

"You'll understand when you're older"

Well, I assume you were in Band then? I'm doing that this year. Also, my parents would quite literally kill me if I smoked, so I will admit to not having experience personally smoking. I also read about what interests me: history, archaeology, politics, military theory, and religion. About girls, I chase "girl", as in singular. As to radios, I freely confess to being absolutely befuddled by technology.
About being on here and "debating", could the point not be made that by arguing my point against adults, I could learn from their arguments?
(/offtopic)

 

[CorvusRexus]

I'm a smoker myself and I support banning smoking near all business or government establishments. If there is even one person there who doesn't smoke, you are harming them by smoking around them. I don't support a ban on smoking in general, because it can be done without hurting anybody, and no victimless act should be illegal. The only businesses that should be exempt from the ban on smoking in businesses are those whose purpose is smoking, such as a cigar lounge, or a smoker bar/casino, where no nonsmoker would have a need or want to go.

I'm not going to dissect every piece of that, because it pretty much has by both sides earlier in the thread. I will however object to the last statement. My grandmother abhors smoking yet frequents the local casino.

I said 'smoker bar/casino," which may have been a bit ambiguous. I meant a smoker casino. One that specifically allows smoking.

Ah. My apologies, I thought you meant smoker bars and casinos, as in separate items.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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?

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

 

[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.

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?

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

Thanks
Why we need bans on smoking

 

[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?

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

I have yet to see a town with just one coffee shop.

But if a town only has one and it allows smoking why not open a coffee shop that doesn't allow smoking to cater to those who don't want to smoke with their coffee.

If a business can prosper by serving a niche market like smokers why not let it?

As I said over and over you are not required to patronize any business anywhere.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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.

For some reason I get the idea that words like "restrictions" make you very happy.

 

[rightwinger]

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/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

 

[CorvusRexus]

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/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

No. Alcohol is perfectly legal in restaurants and bars and such, but you wish smoking to not be allowed in there. Correct?

 

[rightwinger]

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

No. Alcohol is perfectly legal in restaurants and bars and such, but you wish smoking to not be allowed in there. Correct?

You are not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer. But you can walk down the street smoking a cig

Public drinking is discouraged in most municipalities

 

[OriginalShroom]

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

No. Alcohol is perfectly legal in restaurants and bars and such, but you wish smoking to not be allowed in there. Correct?

You are not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer. But you can walk down the street smoking a cig

Public drinking is discouraged in most municipalities

Speak for where you live... Not every place is ran by Liberals who want to control all aspects of a person's life.

 

[rightwinger]

No. Alcohol is perfectly legal in restaurants and bars and such, but you wish smoking to not be allowed in there. Correct?

You are not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer. But you can walk down the street smoking a cig

Public drinking is discouraged in most municipalities

Speak for where you live... Not every place is ran by Liberals who want to control all aspects of a person's life.

Of course I know what life in Redneck America is like

Public drunkenness is encouraged

 

[CorvusRexus]

You are not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer. But you can walk down the street smoking a cig

Public drinking is discouraged in most municipalities

Speak for where you live... Not every place is ran by Liberals who want to control all aspects of a person's life.

Of course I know what life in Redneck America is like

Public drunkenness is encouraged

My area is largely democratic and the current mayor is the first republican in a long time, yet I do believe it is legal to drink outside on the street.

 

[Crystalclear]

You are not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer. But you can walk down the street smoking a cig



Public drinking is discouraged in most municipalities

Speak for where you live... Not every place is ran by Liberals who want to control all aspects of a person's life.

Of course I know what life in Redneck America is like



Public drunkenness is encouraged

Not being discouraged doesn't mean encouraged.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Won't be long until a casino worker sues his/her employer because he is diagnosed with lung cancer due to the second hand smoke. That will put an end to smoking in casinos if nothing else does first.

Considering that many of the casinos are on Indian reservations & therefore basically above the law...unlikely. Also note: having been in several, there is ZERO smoke and zero odor even in the areas that DO allow smoking.

Where there is smoking, there is smoke and odor. A smoker may not notice it, but any non-smoker will. I can smell cigarette smoke fifty feet away outdoors.

Bullshit. News flash: I have been there! There is NO smoke and NO odor...whoever designed the ventilation system did a superb job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Every day and every night! News flash: THOUSANDS of "fire traps" remain open, especially in older cities! (Boston comes to mind.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

If there is no coffee shop B and you're so sure there's a market for it...then OPEN ONE!

 

[CorvusRexus]

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?

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

If there is no coffee shop B and you're so sure there's a market for it...then OPEN ONE!

Exactly. If you don't like the ones out there, get off your rear and open one. We have this beautiful thing called freedom, and it gives you the ability to make as many smoke-free establishments as your liberal heart desires. If everybody hates smoking, like you seem to be convinced, then you will drain their business, bolster yours, and put them out of business. No more smoke-free businesses.


Gotta love "freedom" and "choice", don't ya?

 

[Pogo]

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.

How come the only way you're able to view this is in terms of "what the business' policy is"? Again, forget the business; let the smoker take the responsibility. After all the business isn't forcing him to smoke, and he's the one polluting the air.

Similarly, if you and I walk into coffee shop B, I am not at liberty to put my coffee down and walk over and start assaulting you. What the business' policy is on assault is irrelevant, because that action on my part is countermanded by law. On me.

 

[Pogo]

Patrons of a business that allows smoking would be aware of the fact. It is thus their choice to visit the establishment. It is their choice to enter a property that has smoke. By freely entering the smoke-filled premises, they fully accept the potential dangers involved.


As it has been said repeatedly: if Coffee Shop A allows smoking, visit Coffee Shop B. If there is no Coffee Shop B, then A has a monopoly and can do whatever they like.

If there is no coffee shop B and you're so sure there's a market for it...then OPEN ONE!

Exactly. If you don't like the ones out there, get off your rear and open one. We have this beautiful thing called freedom, and it gives you the ability to make as many smoke-free establishments as your liberal heart desires. If everybody hates smoking, like you seem to be convinced, then you will drain their business, bolster yours, and put them out of business. No more smoke-free businesses.


Gotta love "freedom" and "choice", don't ya?

If there is no coffee shop B and you're so sure there's a market for it...then OPEN ONE!

Oh pleeeease.

You two are actually suggesting that in order to be free of some goon blowing smoke in my face while I sip my coffee I have to gather capital, get a loan, seek a business permit, rent a storefront (or build one) and declare my own tree house. The mindlessness -- it hurts.

When you're answer is "go start your own coffee shop, go build your own car, go start your own airline, go find another job", you've already conceded that you have no argument.