Smoking Bans

[dblack]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

 

[dblack]

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

Right. You keep saying stuff like that. We're trying to have a discussion about whether this is good policy or not. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, please quit interrupting.

 

[rightwinger]

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

Right. You keep saying stuff like that. We're trying to have a discussion about whether this is good policy or not. If you don't want to discuss it, please quit interrupting.

Good policy?

What are you still in the 1950s?

 

[Pop23]

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

^^^ now there's a well thought out argument ^^^

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

^^^ now there's a well thought out argument ^^^

Welcome to 2014

 

[dblack]

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

^^^ now there's a well thought out argument ^^^

It's the rhetorical equivalent of 'twerking'.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back

Yes. We're discussing the merits of that decision. Would you like to participate?

Its like trying to unsmoke a cigarette

Smoking is banned in public places....it ain't coming back
No amount of fantasy is going to change that

^^^ now there's a well thought out argument ^^^

Welcome to 2014

Indeed, nonsense rules!

 

[Pop23]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

 

[Pop23]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

If you are only 15, and have figured out that you don't need the government making decisions as to what door you can walk into, you are far ahead of those that do.

Bravo

 

[Pogo]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

"Proposed" does not equal "exists". I would opine that in the absence of a specific sign, smoking prohibition is assumed by now given its popularity; in other words the onus is now on the smoker to determine the status, which is as it always should have been--- or should be now. If we were living in 1940 'smoking permitted' would be a reasonable assumption as people did it everywhere -- doctor's offices.... on a plane.... in hotels... on television.... it's bizarre to look back at that knuckledragger past and reflect that that sick culture happened within one's own lifetime.

Anyway, given the great enlightenment we think we've undergone, a "smoking permitted" sign doesn't make much sense, because if your establishment does permit smoking, you don't exactly want to advertise it


The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

 

[dblack]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

I'm with you

I think you should pay by the pound for insurance

I'd like 320 lbs of insurance please?

 

[Pogo]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

 

[Pogo]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Where do you get that idea?

Because they live longer?

 

[dblack]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

 

[Dot Com]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link shit stain @Pop23 ?

 

[Dot Com]

I smoked non-filters for many years and finally gave that up. Glad I did.

 

[Pogo]

The hotel where I'm staying today has a strict absolute no-smoking-anywhere policy, subject to fine. Are they infringing on anybody's rights?

Of course not. The fact that such a question makes sense to you is the core of the problem.

It doesn't make sense to me. But it does to some of the Denialists here.
I like the policy. For me it's a selling point.

But you fail to recognize that one business refusing to allow smoking isn't the same as a law banning it for everyone.

Who the hell's talking about "banning for everyone"?
I just want the right to breathe air. That's it.

 

[dblack]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

As should fat folk, right.

And women use more medical care than men

Good lord, how bout dem fat female smokers.

Then again dummy, understand that the product they consumed IS TAXED AT A GOD FORSAKEN HIGH RATE.

but let's not counter those costs with those taxes

Think people

you think those taxes offset the burden placed upon society by smokers like Boehner (R) and their astronomical medical bills, not to mention the untold effects of 2nd hand smoke? lol

link?

How you really thought much about this vector? About where such micromanagement of our individual risk choices by government really leads us? I wish you, and all your statist compatriots, would take a deep breath and consider where you're trying to steer us.