Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Anguille]

The little "boo hoo" response says it all. Eisntein doesn't get it. It isn't about the heaters. It's about the bar being virtually empty while there's no room to stand on the patio. Both bars I went to in SoCal were EXACTLY like that. SO much so that the one in Temecula moved a bar and bartender to the patio.

If I'm a bar owner and this is my livelihood, I'm PISSED the government is dictating how I can run it, bearing in mind that smoking is NOT against the law.

Your an adminstrator here? You do a marvelous job, I must say.

 

[Anguille]

The little "boo hoo" response says it all. Eisntein doesn't get it. It isn't about the heaters. It's about the bar being virtually empty while there's no room to stand on the patio. Both bars I went to in SoCal were EXACTLY like that. SO much so that the one in Temecula moved a bar and bartender to the patio.

If I'm a bar owner and this is my livelihood, I'm PISSED the government is dictating how I can run it, bearing in mind that smoking is NOT against the law.

Smoking is against the law. It's against several laws in several states. Hello!

 

[Ravi]

Happy to provide with the evidence once one of you, not you, Blowgun, you don't count, has aswered my question. I asked it first and asked it several times, yet not one of you will even come near it.

Why would a smoker want to inflict their smoke on anyone?

No one's answered it because it's a strawman question. Not one person has expressed a desire to inflict smoke on anyone. Read through the thread again.

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

 

[Anguille]

Happy to provide with the evidence once one of you, not you, Blowgun, you don't count, has aswered my question. I asked it first and asked it several times, yet not one of you will even come near it.

Why would a smoker want to inflict their smoke on anyone?

No one's answered it because it's a strawman question. Not one person has expressed a desire to inflict smoke on anyone. Read through the thread again.

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Did I say desire to inflict smoke? I believe I said smoke where your smoke will do harm to another human being.

But thanks for not answering my question. As I said, I asked it first, before I was asked to do research for you guys. One of you might have the courage to answer instead of twisting words around so that you can avoid it.

 

[Ravi]

Smoking is against the law. It's against several laws in several states. Hello!

Really??? In what states is it against the law?

 

[Ravi]

Did I say desire to inflict smoke? I believe I said smoke where your smoke will do harm to another human being.

But thanks for not answering my question. As I said, I asked it first, before I was asked to do research for you guys. One of you might have the courage to answer instead of twisting words around so that you can avoid it.

Nope. You said,
Why would a smoker want to inflict their smoke on anyone?


Who said they want to do this? No one.

Still waiting.

 

[Ravi]

Did I say desire to inflict smoke? I believe I said smoke where your smoke will do harm to another human being.

But thanks for not answering my question. As I said, I asked it first, before I was asked to do research for you guys. One of you might have the courage to answer instead of twisting words around so that you can avoid it.

Oh, and btw, want and desire mean the same thing. AND, people that smoke have no problem smoking where it doesn't harm anyone that is against smoking. That's why they want bars that cater to them. Just like you are welcome to have bars that cater to you.

But for some reason, that's not good enough for you.

Oh, and Happy Easter.

 

[Gunny]

Your an adminstrator here? You do a marvelous job, I must say.

Okay, fun and games is over. My being the administrator here has NOTHING to do with my posting as an individual member. I can keep the two separate just fine. If you can't, you'd better learn how.

My being an administrator was not a factor until YOU brought it into play. Members will not question the actions of USMB staff AS USMB staff members in public forums, period. If you have an issue with a decision by anyone on the USMB staff, feel free to PM one of us about it.

Otherwise, keep it at the personal level and we'll get along JUST fine. If i have been unclear about anything, feel free to PM me with your question and I will be more than happy to provide you with clarification.

 

[Gunny]

Smoking is against the law. It's against several laws in several states. Hello!

Smoking is NOT against the law in ANY state. Regulating where and when one can and cannot light up does NOT make smoking itself against the law.

 

[AllieBaba]

Your an adminstrator here? You do a marvelous job, I must say.

That's code for..."you're supposed to ban the opinions I don't like".

 

[Gunny]

Really??? In what states is it against the law?

The state of confusion?

 

[Anguille]

Really??? In what states is it against the law?

Silly! Every state that has restrictions against smoking.
If you smoke where it is illegal to smoke; schools, hospitals, barrooms and the Ladie's Lounge at BDC, you are smoking against the law.

 

[Anguille]

Really??? In what states is it against the law?

Silly Rav! Every state that has restrictions against smoking.
If you smoke where it is illegal to smoke; schools, hospitals, barrooms and the Ladie's Lounge at BDC, you are smoking against the law.

 

[Anguille]

Smoking is NOT against the law in ANY state. Regulating where and when one can and cannot light up does NOT make smoking itself against the law.

Oh please!! The laws do not say you can't light up they say smoking is prohibited. Smoking ITSELF is prohibited by law, thus illegal The lengths you losers go to, to avoid reality ...

 

[Anguille]

Okay, fun and games is over. My being the administrator here has NOTHING to do with my posting as an individual member. I can keep the two separate just fine. If you can't, you'd better learn how.

My being an administrator was not a factor until YOU brought it into play. Members will not question the actions of USMB staff AS USMB staff members in public forums, period. If you have an issue with a decision by anyone on the USMB staff, feel free to PM one of us about it.

Otherwise, keep it at the personal level and we'll get along JUST fine. If i have been unclear about anything, feel free to PM me with your question and I will be more than happy to provide you with clarification.

I suggest you back off NOW. I have no desire to play this out, but if push it, you'll leave me no choice. -- Gunny
QUOTE]

 

[Anguille]

From the Pink Lung Easter Bunny.

 

[Gunny]

Oh please!! The laws do not say you can't light up they say smoking is prohibited. Smoking ITSELF is prohibited by law, thus illegal The lengths you losers go to, to avoid reality ...

Oh puh-lease is right. You can't drive off the road except where it is specifically allowed. Does that mean driving is illegal?

Your argument is pathetically weak and factually incorrect. Smoking is CONTROLLED ... it is not illegal.

I'd watch slinging the word "loser" around so carelessly when you definitely resemble that remark as far as this argument goes.

The lengths you fanatics will go to try and avoid reality ...

 

[Anguille]

Oh puh-lease is right. You can't drive off the road except where it is specifically allowed. Does that mean driving is illegal?

Your argument is pathetically weak and factually incorrect. Smoking is CONTROLLED ... it is not illegal.

I'd watch slinging the word "loser" around so carelessly when you definitely resemble that remark as far as this argument goes.

The lengths you fanatics will go to try and avoid reality ...

I was not aware that I used the word "loser" but if it offends you I'll be careful never to. I'll try to improve my vocabulary by learning something from that sock puppet, Shogun. Keep up the good work.

 

[Gunny]

I was not aware that I used the word "loser" but it offends you I'll be careful never to. I'll try to improve my vocabulary by learning something from that sock puppet, Shogun. Keep up the good work.

Nah ... I'm not offended. I found your use of the term rather ironic, actually.

 

[tigerbob]

I should have been more explicit. I am surprised that anyone would doubt that second hand smoke would be hazardous. It's like when you read in the news something like "studies show naps are good for you". It's common sense to assume that if primary smoke is harmfull, so is secondary smoke, even if you haven't had personal experience of it as I have. I recall some studies which suggested that secondary smoke might even be more harmful because smokers had the benefit of filters. I also recall some studies which compared exposure to second hand smoke over 8 hour periods and found that it was the equivalent to smoking a certain amount of cigarettes a day. I don't recall how many but it was more than just a few. regardless of whether or not SHS is carcinagenic or causes asthma or sinus problems, the fact that so many people object to it as highly offensive and annoying is reason enough to ban it. People can be arrested for playing music too loudly or being a public nuisance in other ways. Cigarette smoking falls right into that category. It sucks when someone blasts their radio on the subway but the police will put a stop to it and at least your clothes don't stink afterwards. Can as much be said about unwanted cigarette smoke? I know someone who sued a guy in a bar who had burned his jacket with the end of his cigarette. The smoker lost the case and had to pay to replace the damaged jacket. I wonder if anyone has sought damages for having to have clothes drycleaned as a result of someone smoking in their presence? LOL!

Smoking is a public nuisance. Smoking has no redeeming social value. Smokers have a choice to injest nicotene in ways that do not adversly affect others. Smokers need to get real.

OK - sorry for the tardy response. I was out of the country last weekend and this week's been really busy at work. Anyhow, I have some observations which I've numbered for ease of response.

It's common sense to assume that if primary smoke is harmfull, so is secondary smoke

1. It was once common sense to assume that the earth was flat, so assumptions don't really amount to anything. If we are talking about laws being enacted that infringe upon liberties, then there has to be a quantifiable reason for it. Your next point moved in this direction....

I recall some studies which suggested that secondary smoke might even be more harmful because smokers had the benefit of filters. I also recall some studies which compared exposure to second hand smoke over 8 hour periods and found that it was the equivalent to smoking a certain amount of cigarettes a day.

2. And do you recall where you saw these studies? Can you post a link? You did mention over a week ago that you would do this when you had time, as I recall. Maybe you've had a busy week as well. Can you clarify? Have you been or are you currently looking for these data? If you have been looking for a week and have been unable to find them then.....that's interesting.

the fact that so many people object to it as highly offensive and annoying is reason enough to ban it

3. So if more than 50% of the population are offended by something it should be banned? Or is it 60%? Or 70%? Where do you think the line should be drawn?

And one follow up from another one of your posts....

Did I say desire to inflict smoke? I believe I said smoke where your smoke will do harm to another human being.

4. That's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? Unfortunately, I'm afraid I am not able to answer the question because I have not seen proof that second hand smoke is harmful to 3rd parties. To attempt to answer the question would therefore indicate that I believe the question has a basis in fact. I suspect Ravir may be of the same opinion. I suspect many others are of the same opinion. Like others, I am waiting for that all important "proof" that STS is harmful. If you can post a link to that proof, I suspect your critics would have little option but to agree with much or your argument.

If you can't support your hypothesis with facts, wouldn't it just be better to admit it? I'm not saying that that is the case, but you seem to be sparring with anyone who disagrees with you and falling back on the "when someone answers my question, I'll answer theirs" issue. They are not refusing to answer, as far as I can tell. What they are doing (and what I'm doing) is asking you to expand on the substance of your question so that it can be answered fully and correctly.