Civil Disobedience

[Anguille]

And smokers can chose not set foot in establishments where smoking is not permitted. They are perfectly free to do whatever they like, as long as it is lawful.

Smoking isn't permitted in many places at all nowadays . . . . so fuck those smokers, they can just do without huh?

Thats the general idea

 

[Zoom-boing]

And smokers can chose not set foot in establishments where smoking is not permitted. They are perfectly free to do whatever they like, as long as it is lawful.

Smoking isn't permitted in many places at all nowadays . . . . so fuck those smokers, they can just do without huh?

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

You have never been the the 'miss' of a spitter, have you?

The point of all of this is that the owners should be making this decision, not the government.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers lived so long with the freedom to be as rude as they please. Blow smoke in others face, put your stench in the air, soil other peoples homes and cars, ruin the health of others, throw their butts wherever they pleased...

Now when asked to be considerate of others they act like THEY are the victims

 

[Father Time]

Suppose I enjoyed the habit of mixing bleach and ammonia together while I was in bars and restaurants. Would you also be defending my right to do that?

If the owners were OK with it then yes, I could just leave. If the owners weren't fine with it, I'd fully support them being able to call the police to throw you out, same with smokers.

So you think it's okay for people to mix bleach and ammonia in public places. Noted.

Someone's bar is not a public place, it's a privately owned place. I would not be in favor of letting people do that on say the sidewalk or public transport, but a bar or a restaurant is different, that's someone's private property, they still retain the right to refuse service and I have no stake in their operation or success.

 

[Father Time]

Smokers lived so long with the freedom to be as rude as they please. Blow smoke in others face, put your stench in the air, soil other peoples homes and cars, ruin the health of others, throw their butts wherever they pleased...

Now when asked to be considerate of others they act like THEY are the victims

When were littering, wrecking people's property and harassment legal?

 

[Anguille]

Smoking isn't permitted in many places at all nowadays . . . . so fuck those smokers, they can just do without huh?

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

You have never been the the 'miss' of a spitter, have you?

The point of all of this is that the owners should be making this decision, not the government.

Should owners have the right to decide if they want to allow child molestation on their property? It is their property after all.

The claim that owners should be able to decide about smoking is moot as most owners don't want it in their establishments anyway and did not object to the legislation.
When people claim it should be up to the owners what they are really saying is it should be up to smokers. And even that foolish thought is misguided as most smokers understand that the laws are fair.

The plain fact is, is that the overwhelming majority of smokers and non smokers, owners, patrons and employees do not want smoking to be allowed in bars and restaurants and since nothing in the Constitution guarantees this presumed smoker's right to smoke wherever he/she pleases, smoking has been banned. The tyranny of the smoking minority has been vanquished. Long live America!

 

[rightwinger]

If the owners were OK with it then yes, I could just leave. If the owners weren't fine with it, I'd fully support them being able to call the police to throw you out, same with smokers.

So you think it's okay for people to mix bleach and ammonia in public places. Noted.

Someone's bar is not a public place, it's a privately owned place. I would not be in favor of letting people do that on say the sidewalk or public transport, but a bar or a restaurant is different, that's someone's private property, they still retain the right to refuse service and I have no stake in their operation or success.

It is still a public place and subject to regulation. If a bar is a privately owned place they would be able to serve minors, serve alchohol all night and day or allow patrons to engage in any activity they choose. They can't.
Now they can't allow people to smoke inside......Is this a great country or what?

 

[Anguille]

Smokers lived so long with the freedom to be as rude as they please. Blow smoke in others face, put your stench in the air, soil other peoples homes and cars, ruin the health of others, throw their butts wherever they pleased...

Now when asked to be considerate of others they act like THEY are the victims

That's what kills me. The whining and the tantrums thrown by these drug addled morons who think they are being crucified.

Addiction to powerful drugs certainly does affect some people's sanity.

 

[Father Time]

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

You have never been the the 'miss' of a spitter, have you?

The point of all of this is that the owners should be making this decision, not the government.

Should owners have the right to decide if they want to allow child molestation on their property? It is their property after all.

No, because the child can't consent to that.

The claim that owners should be able to decide about smoking is moot as most owners don't want it in their establishments anyway and did not object to the legislation.

So it's ok to trample on the rights of some if most people agree to it?

When people claim it should be up to the owners what they are really saying is it should be up to smokers.

No they aren't. Whether to allow smoking or not can have a big impact on their business so it should be their decision no one else's. Oh and do tell me where I can get bogus mind reading powers like yours.

And even that foolish thought is misguided as most smokers understand that the laws are fair.

Hooray for ad populum bullshit, because the majority can never be wrong .

The plain fact is, is that the overwhelming majority of smokers and non smokers, owners, patrons and employees do not want smoking to be allowed in bars and restaurants

So what, most of those people won't be affected much by the legislation anyway.

and since nothing in the Constitution guarantees this presumed smoker's right to smoke wherever he/she pleases, smoking has been banned.

It hasn't been fully banned, and this isn't about the right to smoke wherever they please, this is a right for bar owners to decide what to do with their private property.

The tyranny of the smoking minority has been vanquished. Long live America!

So your version of tyranny is being forced to admit the world doesn't revolve around you and that people may do things you don't like? You wouldn't know tyranny if it slapped you in the face.

 

[Father Time]

Smokers lived so long with the freedom to be as rude as they please. Blow smoke in others face, put your stench in the air, soil other peoples homes and cars, ruin the health of others, throw their butts wherever they pleased...

Now when asked to be considerate of others they act like THEY are the victims

That's what kills me. The whining and the tantrums thrown by these drug addled morons who think they are being crucified.

Addiction to powerful drugs certainly does affect some people's sanity.

So what exactly are you on? From the looks of it, my guess is cocaine.

 

[rightwinger]

So it's ok to trample on the rights of some if most people agree to it?

You don't have a right to smoke in public.

 

[Anguille]

You have never been the the 'miss' of a spitter, have you?

The point of all of this is that the owners should be making this decision, not the government.

Should owners have the right to decide if they want to allow child molestation on their property? It is their property after all.

No, because the child can't consent to that.



So it's ok to trample on the rights of some if most people agree to it?



No they aren't. Whether to allow smoking or not can have a big impact on their business so it should be their decision no one else's. Oh and do tell me where I can get bogus mind reading powers like yours.



Hooray for ad populum bullshit, because the majority can never be wrong .



So what, most of those people won't be affected much by the legislation anyway.

and since nothing in the Constitution guarantees this presumed smoker's right to smoke wherever he/she pleases, smoking has been banned.

It hasn't been fully banned, and this isn't about the right to smoke wherever they please, this is a right for bar owners to decide what to do with their private property.

The tyranny of the smoking minority has been vanquished. Long live America!

So your version of tyranny is being forced to admit the world doesn't revolve around you and that people may do things you don't like? You wouldn't know tyranny if it slapped you in the face.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Fuck' em if they think they can poison me just because they want to poison themselves.
They don't have to do without their fix. Chewing tobacco is still allowed because it only affects the chewer.

You have never been the the 'miss' of a spitter, have you?

The point of all of this is that the owners should be making this decision, not the government.

Should owners have the right to decide if they want to allow child molestation on their property? It is their property after all.

The claim that owners should be able to decide about smoking is moot as most owners don't want it in their establishments anyway and did not object to the legislation.
When people claim it should be up to the owners what they are really saying is it should be up to smokers. And even that foolish thought is misguided as most smokers understand that the laws are fair.

The plain fact is, is that the overwhelming majority of smokers and non smokers, owners, patrons and employees do not want smoking to be allowed in bars and restaurants and since nothing in the Constitution guarantees this presumed smoker's right to smoke wherever he/she pleases, smoking has been banned. The tyranny of the smoking minority has been vanquished. Long live America!

Child molestation? Left field much?

If they didn't want smoking in their establishment to begin with then they should have made their place non-smoking. No, what I'm saying is that it should be up to the owner.

The plain fact is that this is government, yet again, telling people what they can and can not do. Inch by inch, row by row, gonna see your freedoms go. btw, I don't smoke.

 

[rightwinger]

It hasn't been fully banned, and this isn't about the right to smoke wherever they please, this is a right for bar owners to decide what to do with their private property.

Bar owners have never had the right to do what they want with their private property.
They don't have a "right" to deny service to blacks
They don't have a "right" to serve alchohol after closing
They don't have a "right" to serve minors

 

[Father Time]

So you think it's okay for people to mix bleach and ammonia in public places. Noted.

Someone's bar is not a public place, it's a privately owned place. I would not be in favor of letting people do that on say the sidewalk or public transport, but a bar or a restaurant is different, that's someone's private property, they still retain the right to refuse service and I have no stake in their operation or success.

It is still a public place and subject to regulation. If a bar is a privately owned place they would be able to serve minors,

No who you can sell shit too is an entirely different manner than what you will allow on your property. Smoking in and of itself is not a crime correct? So why then shouldn't it be allowed on someone's property.

serve alchohol all night and day

Why not? Alcohol's legal last time I checked.

or allow patrons to engage in any activity they choose.

No there's still regular laws they have to abide by like murder etc. but is the concept of 'you're allowed to do more stuff on your own property than in public' really that completely alien to you?

You're not allowed to walk around nude for example but strip clubs are legal.

Now they can't allow people to smoke inside......Is this a great country or what?

Yeah hooray for nanny government thinking it knows what's best for us and butting into more and more of our lives.

 

[Valerie]

Hey, put that out!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

^ Ok, that's was funny.

 

[Father Time]

So it's ok to trample on the rights of some if most people agree to it?

You don't have a right to smoke in public.

A BAR IS NOT PUBLIC.

The owner could have it turned into a residence (if zoning permits him) or he could shut it down and leave it empty. The bar owner has the right to refuse service because it isn't public.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Anguille]

Hey, put that out!!!

I'm expressing civil disobedience.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers for generations abused their privledge (not right) to smoke.

So now they have lost that privledge.

It sucks being a smoker doesn't it? Everybody picks on you