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

[noose4]

When the health-Nazis came for the smokers,
I was not a smoker,
therefore, I was not concerned.

And when the health-Nazis attacked the obese,
I was not obese,
therefore, I was not concerned.

And when the health-Nazis attacked the drinkers and the alcohol industry,
I was not a drinker,
therefore I was not concerned.

Then, the health-Nazis attacked me and the freedom loving Americans who remained,
and there was nobody left to be concerned.


NYC Smoking Ban

(yes, Dude, I have been afflicted by Godwin's Law - it's highly contagious)

worst analogy ever.

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

They still have to abide by the health codes, a private establishment can not serve rancid meat legally if they choose to do so either.

Irrelevant and dumb analogy.

The bar/restaurant isn't serving tobacco that isn't already processed and packaged, and smoking is (still) a perfectly legal activity.

 

[noose4]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

They still have to abide by the health codes, a private establishment can not serve rancid meat legally if they choose to do so either.

Irrelevant and dumb analogy.

The bar/restaurant isn't serving tobacco that isn't already processed and packaged, and smoking is (still) a perfectly legal activity.

The smoke emitted from cigars and cigarettes are indeed a health issue, drinking is also a legal activity that comes with certain rules regulating its useage.

 

[Oddball]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It should be up to the owner of the restaurant whether their establishment allows smoking or not.

If people want to go to a nonsmoking establishment, they have the absolute right not to patronize those establishments that allow smoking.

 

[Sarah G]

Sorry, no I wouldn't be in favor of a repeal. Smokers will puff anywhere they are allowed to because they're addicted. They have to be forced to be considerate in places where the public congregates.

Walk outside if you need to.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, smokers will puff anywhere they are allowed to because they're addicted. They have to be forced to be considerate in places where the public congregates.

Walk outside if you need to.

Which is none of your business if those smokers are on private property....Which bars and restaurants still are.

Go patronize a business that decides to be non-smoking, if you need to.

 

[noose4]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

If the owner of an establishment wants to allow people to spit and snot everywhere he should be able to do so.

If you do not want to be spit on, you have the absolute right to patronize an establishment that does not allow spitting and snotting.

 

[Sarah G]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

Maybe they aren't..

I agree with you, Noosey.

 

[noose4]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

If the owner of an establishment wants to allow people to spit and snot everywhere he should be able to do so.

If you do not want to be spit on, you have the absolute right to patronize an establishment that does not allow spitting and snotting.

Health code would forbid such an activity, even on private property people must abide the law.

 

[Oddball]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

Another really dumb example, that has no basis in actual reality.

You've gone beyond grasping at straws.

 

[noose4]

First of all, the data that supposedly determined so-called "second-hand smoke" were found to be cooked to get the desired result. This is a fact that was even admitted by the WHO hacks who got caught doing so.

Secondly, the private establishments still aren't serving tobacco as a house product.

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

Another really dumb example, that has no basis in actual reality.

You've gone beyond grasping at straws.

So smokers can infringe on the space of other but snotters cant?

SNOTTERS RIGHTS NOW!!!! I am tired of having to go outside to shoot my snots!!!!

 

[Luissa]

I'm surprised at the survey results. I am a smoker and not proud of that fact. However, I do not smoke in my house or around my kids. I cannot smoke within 500 feet of my workplace, and of course there is a smoking ban in NJ. It has cut down my habit which is a good thing.

However... When I am out with friends at a bar, I NEED a cigarette. I have no problem going outside during decent weather, but I rarely go to bars in the winter for that reason. I am not alone and many businesses around here are hurting. NJ was considering allowing bars to put in separate areas with ventilation, while at the same time discussing a total ban. None of the bar owners wanted to invest in high tech machines and new construction when they feared that that soon would be outlawed as well. So they didn't do it and the total ban went into effect.

Currently outside bars permit smoking, but there is talk about disallowing that as well. They actually wanted it banned 25 feet from any building, which may be coming soon. Some NJ beaches and boardwalks have also banned it. It's gone too far. When people can no longer smoke OUTSIDE, it has nothing to do with non-smoker's rights. It's about the "health nazis". And that should concern everyone.

They want the tax money, but then tell people it's practically illegal. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Oh and as a teacher, we have no control over teen smoking anymore. Unless the student is caught with cig in hand, and is proven to be smoking BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, no one even enforces it anymore. Thank the lawyers.

Welcome to Washington state, we are suppose to smoke 25ft from any door, window, or any vent. We do have bars that have outside areas, a lot more since the ban. I also smoke but don't do it around my son, and I also don't need anyone to tell me not to do it my car. I am sure some people still smoke around there kids but most everyone I know who smokes, smokes outside and not in the car when their children are present.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They arent serving spit or snot either but I can not enter an establishment and start spitting and shooting snot rockets all over the place.

If the owner of an establishment wants to allow people to spit and snot everywhere he should be able to do so.

If you do not want to be spit on, you have the absolute right to patronize an establishment that does not allow spitting and snotting.

Health code would forbid such an activity, even on private property people must abide the law.

The point I was trying to make is that it is nobody's business what happens on private property.

If I want to open a restaurant that only serves food that 99% of people hate and cater to the 1% who like it, that is my choice.

If you don't like the food then don't eat there.

If i want to allow people to smoke the most foul smelling cigars ever made in my pub then I should have that right as you have the right not to drink there.

The concept of freedom of choice is a simple one to grasp.

 

[Anguille]

I would like to see it repealed in bars and bingo halls. We had two bingo halls close that raised money for two different charities, and many of the bars saw a decrease in their profit due to the ban. I am fine with it not being in restratraunts but I don't see any way around only allowing it in certain places. Why don't they give businesses incentives to not allow smoking, instead of just banning it? For one it is the small businesses that are most effective by these restrictions.

Are the bingo halls run by volunteers or paid employees?
Are you sure smaill busineses in your areas are suffering from the bans? In mine, profits went up 15%. In any case, is profit more important than people's health?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I would like to see it repealed in bars and bingo halls. We had two bingo halls close that raised money for two different charities, and many of the bars saw a decrease in their profit due to the ban. I am fine with it not being in restratraunts but I don't see any way around only allowing it in certain places. Why don't they give businesses incentives to not allow smoking, instead of just banning it? For one it is the small businesses that are most effective by these restrictions.

Are the bingo halls run by volunteers or paid employees?
Are you sure smaill busineses in your areas are suffering from the bans? In mine, profits went up 15%. In any case, is profit more important than people's health?

My profit is my business.

I should be able to run my establishment any way I want.

If you believe patronizing my establishment is bad for your health, then you have the right to choose to bring your business elsewhere.

I am not responsible for your health.

 

[Anguille]

The concept of freedom of choice is a simple one to grasp.

Yes and smokers need to make their choice, smoke where they won't hurt anyone else or see laws get passed to make sure they do the right thing.

 

[noose4]

If the owner of an establishment wants to allow people to spit and snot everywhere he should be able to do so.

If you do not want to be spit on, you have the absolute right to patronize an establishment that does not allow spitting and snotting.

Health code would forbid such an activity, even on private property people must abide the law.

The point I was trying to make is that it is nobody's business what happens on private property.

If I want to open a restaurant that only serves food that 99% of people hate and cater to the 1% who like it, that is my choice.

If you don't like the food then don't eat there.

If i want to allow people to smoke the most foul smelling cigars ever made in my pub then I should have that right as you have the right not to drink there.

The concept of freedom of choice is a simple one to grasp.

And if you want to serve maggot infested meat in you restaurant the health code violation will result in you being shut down.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

When the health-Nazis came for the smokers,
I was not a smoker,
therefore, I was not concerned.

And when the health-Nazis attacked the obese,
I was not obese,
therefore, I was not concerned.

And when the health-Nazis attacked the drinkers and the alcohol industry,
I was not a drinker,
therefore I was not concerned.

Then, the health-Nazis attacked me and the freedom loving Americans who remained,
and there was nobody left to be concerned.


NYC Smoking Ban

(yes, Dude, I have been afflicted by Godwin's Law - it's highly contagious)

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