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

[Immanuel]

Non smokers have rights too, smokers are addicts who have an addiction that they are still allowed to partake in legally in places where it will not threaten the health and hygiene of those around them(unlike their brother adicts who use cocaine or heroin), a non smoker should not have to pass up a certain establishment because inconsiderate addicts are polluting the air.

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Why don't you just start locking them all up in prison? It appears you think they have to be locked up in order to enjoy their habit. I hear Gitmo has available cells.

Immie

 

[noose4]

No one has said that non-smokes have no rights. You should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does not allow smoking. Smokers should have the right to go to a bar or resturant that does allow it. As I said you do not have to enter that space.

Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Why don't you just start locking them all up in prison? It appears you think they have to be locked up in order to enjoy their habit. I hear Gitmo has available cells.

Immie

No just not allowing it when around others in public is sufficient, if they want to damage their health and kill themselves with their addiction its a shame but as long as they dont do it around the general public that is fine.

 

[Immanuel]

When drinking water a person does not shower it onto others who do not want to drink it or get wet.

It is a health hazard that resturants and bars give it to you. Do they warn you what you are about to drink is a known cancer causing agent? Is it legal to serve people such things without a warning? At least with the warning labes on smokes you have a warning.

No one forces you to go to an establishment that allows smoking. So they are not showering it on you or forcing you to inhale it. Just stay out of such places.

Non smokers have rights, we should not have to avoid places that do business with the public because inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others without any care.

You do not have to avoid anyplace because "inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others".

First, you do not have to avoid any restaurant or bar at all. You are more than welcome to enter at your own risk if you so choose. Very similar to "No lifeguard on duty: Swim at your own risk".

Second, it is the owner of the bar or restaurant that makes the decision not smokers. So don't blame smokers, blame greedy business owners.

Third, the business owner is not required to let you into his place of business if he chooses not to for any reason except for protected classes of individuals. To my knowledge, non-smoker is not a protected class and it sure as hell should not be.

Immie

 

[noose4]

It is a health hazard that resturants and bars give it to you. Do they warn you what you are about to drink is a known cancer causing agent? Is it legal to serve people such things without a warning? At least with the warning labes on smokes you have a warning.

No one forces you to go to an establishment that allows smoking. So they are not showering it on you or forcing you to inhale it. Just stay out of such places.

Non smokers have rights, we should not have to avoid places that do business with the public because inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others without any care.

You do not have to avoid anyplace because "inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others".

First, you do not have to avoid any restaurant or bar at all. You are more than welcome to enter at your own risk if you so choose. Very similar to "No lifeguard on duty: Swim at your own risk".

Second, it is the owner of the bar or restaurant that makes the decision not smokers. So don't blame smokers, blame greedy business owners.

Third, the business owner is not required to let you into his place of business if he chooses not to for any reason except for protected classes of individuals. To my knowledge, non-smoker is not a protected class and it sure as hell should not be.

Immie

And with the health codes that ban smoking in such establishments I can now do business in them without having inconsiderate addicts endangering my health and making my clothes stink.

 

[Anguille]

Another cause he can champion is the removal of water from bars and resturants. After all it is a health hazard. It causes cancer and other health problems on unsuspecting patrons. At least with smoke you can smell it and run if you want to.

Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update

When drinking water a person does not shower it onto others who do not want to drink it or get wet.[/quote]
I wonder if the government will ever legislate stupidity.
It's hilarious that you even have to point out these things to these zombies.

 

[Father Time]

Non smokers have rights, we should not have to avoid places that do business with the public because inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others without any care.

You do not have to avoid anyplace because "inconsiderate addicts believe they can impose their addiction onto others".

First, you do not have to avoid any restaurant or bar at all. You are more than welcome to enter at your own risk if you so choose. Very similar to "No lifeguard on duty: Swim at your own risk".

Second, it is the owner of the bar or restaurant that makes the decision not smokers. So don't blame smokers, blame greedy business owners.

Third, the business owner is not required to let you into his place of business if he chooses not to for any reason except for protected classes of individuals. To my knowledge, non-smoker is not a protected class and it sure as hell should not be.

Immie

And with the health codes that ban smoking in such establishments I can now do business in them without having inconsiderate addicts endangering my health and making my clothes stink.

They could still throw you out for any reason (with some exceptions).

 

[Anguille]

Comparing religion to a filthy addiction that when partaken in is a health risk to those in its presence?

The comparison fits very well.

And if you had read the post you would see that it was a description of something that could be taken away from me and that many people in this country would like to take away from me. There is something out there that is near and dear to both you and Anguille and it might just be that privilege that is stolen from you next.

Immie

If something I do negatively affects the lives of others when I do it then it should be taken from me.

Particularly if that thing you do has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Given the positive response to the smoking bans, it looks like most people agree with you, including smokers. Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The comparison fits very well.

And if you had read the post you would see that it was a description of something that could be taken away from me and that many people in this country would like to take away from me. There is something out there that is near and dear to both you and Anguille and it might just be that privilege that is stolen from you next.

Immie

If something I do negatively affects the lives of others when I do it then it should be taken from me.

Particularly if that thing you do has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Given the positive response to the smoking bans, it looks like most people agree with you, including smokers. Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

The ban put it in government's hands.

 

[Immanuel]

If something I do negatively affects the lives of others when I do it then it should be taken from me.

Particularly if that thing you do has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Given the positive response to the smoking bans, it looks like most people agree with you, including smokers. Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

The ban put it in government's hands.

And we all know that everything belongs in the hands of the government!

The government knows what is best for us all. We could not even live if the government didn't hand us food to eat three times a day.

Thank God for uncontrolled governments!!!!

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Some people clearly have unresolved issues from their childhood. I'd say they go back as far as their terrible twos, when the automatic response to their nanny's was 'NO!". Here's hoping these people work their way up to adulthood without lingering too long in the teenage years.

 

[Immanuel]

Some people clearly have unresolved issues from their childhood. I'd say they go back as far as their terrible twos, when the automatic response to their nanny's was 'NO!". Here's hoping these people work their way up to adulthood without lingering too long in the teenage years.

You must be the nanny... Lord knows you sure believe in the Nanny State.

Has your governor given you permission to blow your nose today or are you still full of snot?

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

Some people clearly have unresolved issues from their childhood. I'd say they go back as far as their terrible twos, when the automatic response to their nanny's was 'NO!". Here's hoping these people work their way up to adulthood without lingering too long in the teenage years.

You must be the nanny... Lord knows you sure believe in the Nanny State.

Has your governor given you permission to blow your nose today or are you still full of snot?

Immie

There is clearly a difference between me clearing my nostrils of snot (a personal issue), as opposed to somebody blowing their smoke in my direction (non-personal issue)...;o)

 

[Immanuel]

Some people clearly have unresolved issues from their childhood. I'd say they go back as far as their terrible twos, when the automatic response to their nanny's was 'NO!". Here's hoping these people work their way up to adulthood without lingering too long in the teenage years.

You must be the nanny... Lord knows you sure believe in the Nanny State.

Has your governor given you permission to blow your nose today or are you still full of snot?

Immie

There is clearly a difference between me clearing my nostrils of snot (a personal issue), as opposed to somebody blowing their smoke in my direction (non-personal issue)...;o)

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

 

[Father Time]

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

No the government is telling people not to pollute a space, even though the owner doesn't mind and we can choose not to be at that space.

 

[FA_Q2]

noose
Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Non smokers have rights too, smokers are addicts who have an addiction that they are still allowed to partake in legally in places where it will not threaten the health and hygiene of those around them(unlike their brother adicts who use cocaine or heroin), a non smoker should not have to pass up a certain establishment because inconsiderate addicts are polluting the air.

Don't forget alcoholism.

Indeed another addiction that has regulations pertaining to where it can be practiced.

Yep, anther addiction that allows the ESTABLISHMENT to decide whether or not they will allow it in their facility and whether or not they will sell it. Go figure. Honestly, there is a bigger chance I will get into a fight and die from my injuries while in a bar then from me smoke that is present at the time.

Health codes are a good thing. THIS health code is not. As stated a hundred times here, no one is exposing you to anything by force. You chose to expose yourself by visiting an establishment that allows it. You still have not addressed this issue and continue to avoid it. I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

anguille
Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

imme
I'm so sorry you don't approve, but she has shown her desire to discriminate against people she finds disgusting. Discrimination is disgusting whether it be used against a black person, a Muslim, a white woman, an elderly woman, a child, an Israeli, a person of asian decent or even a smoker.

The question was about repealing the ban on the restriction of rights of business owner to decide what they want to do with their own property, but it has become evident that Anguille wants to discriminate against people who smoke.

Yes, I believe these laws are unfair.

Yes, I believe these laws should be repealed.

Yes, I believe that Anguille is discriminating against people who are only exercising a legal right.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who happens to be the victim.

Immie

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

 

[noose4]

noose
Smoking is a health and hygiene hazard, health codes are a good thing that protect the rights of the general population, If some one wants to partake in a nasty filthy addiction they can do so in private and not impede the rights of others to breathe fresh air and to remain stink free.

Indeed another addiction that has regulations pertaining to where it can be practiced.

Yep, anther addiction that allows the ESTABLISHMENT to decide whether or not they will allow it in their facility and whether or not they will sell it. Go figure. Honestly, there is a bigger chance I will get into a fight and die from my injuries while in a bar then from me smoke that is present at the time.

Health codes are a good thing. THIS health code is not. As stated a hundred times here, no one is exposing you to anything by force. You chose to expose yourself by visiting an establishment that allows it. You still have not addressed this issue and continue to avoid it. I still have yet to see ANNY evidence that there is a significant health hazard to the inhalation of second hand smoke from people that are several feet away in a ventilated aria for a few hours a week.

anguille
Though on the surface this appears to be a smokers versus non smokers issue, it really is an issue of control. The anti ban people want to put control to the hands of the business owners and the pro ban people want it to stay in the hands of the community in which the business is operated.

And this is the real issue. I believe that the government should stay the hell out of this and allow each business to decide what should be done> I see no reason that the government needs to be involved here and have yet to see any real argument that would support that. Why is it so difficult for people to allow others to choose what they want or do not want?

imme
I'm so sorry you don't approve, but she has shown her desire to discriminate against people she finds disgusting. Discrimination is disgusting whether it be used against a black person, a Muslim, a white woman, an elderly woman, a child, an Israeli, a person of asian decent or even a smoker.

The question was about repealing the ban on the restriction of rights of business owner to decide what they want to do with their own property, but it has become evident that Anguille wants to discriminate against people who smoke.

Yes, I believe these laws are unfair.

Yes, I believe these laws should be repealed.

Yes, I believe that Anguille is discriminating against people who are only exercising a legal right.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who happens to be the victim.

Immie

And you WILL continue to be ignored by most of the people here if you continue this rant on discrimination. IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR DISCRIMINATION. If you believe that then you have no idea what real discrimination is. I would not say the law is unfair. I would say the law is incorrect. I would agree that it should be repealed. The argument of choice is a strong one and that is where this debate should be focused on.

I fail to see the reason anyone backs restrictions other than ‘I don’t like it.’ That is never a sufficient reason for regulation.

So would you oppose the repeal of laws that prevent urinating on public streets?

 

[Anguille]

You must be the nanny... Lord knows you sure believe in the Nanny State.

Has your governor given you permission to blow your nose today or are you still full of snot?

Immie

There is clearly a difference between me clearing my nostrils of snot (a personal issue), as opposed to somebody blowing their smoke in my direction (non-personal issue)...;o)

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

Looks like you can't even keep your own analogy straight.

 

[Anguille]

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

That's right.
Hey, Gump, what are you smoking in your avatar? Anything good?

 

[Anguille]

This is true, but Anguille seems to think we need the government to tell us when we can blow our nose.

Immie

I disagree. I think she saying we need the government to stop people polluting our personal space because they're too ignorant/selfish not to do it themselves...

No the government is telling people not to pollute a space, even though the owner doesn't mind and we can choose not to be at that space.

That's right. Most owners don't mind the ban and were glad to see it enforced across the board. That way they didn't have to deal with obnoxious whiny and uncooperative customers. It took the pressure off the owners. And you are absolutely right, the smokers have every right to choose not to be in that space if they feel that people not smoking around them is hazardous to their health.