Smoking Bans

[Pogo]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

 

[Ame®icano]

I have no problem with smoking in your home, car or private club

I just don't want your stink where I am

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not smoke?

So then why do you have a problem with some businesses allowing smoking when other similar businesses will surely not allow smoking ?

If Coffee Shop A allows smoking and Coffee Shop B does not why not just patronize Coffee Shop B and leave Coffee Shop A alone?

That's what I would do.

What if it's a small town and coffee shop A is your only option?

Then make your own coffee.

He want's to hang out with cool people...

 

[Pop23]

I worked my way through university in restaurants and the like. Smoking was permitted and I had to deal with that. It's not like I had a choice here. This was back home in my parent's house in the middle of the countryside, jobs for uni students at xmas, easter, summer time and nothing else don't grow on trees. I needed the money, and besides, every other job had the same situation, people smoked in them.

You either have a ban, or you don't. You allow choice for owners, it's not really much of a choice, because they need to compete with those who choose to allow smoking.

And what was the radon levels in those work places?

 

[Clementine]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

Nonsense.

There's no 'right' to smoke.

Apparently, no one has a right to do anything liberals don't like. Smoking is legal. Business owners should decide whether they allow it in their bars or restaurants. Don't like it, don't go there. It should be up to the owners, not the whiny ass liberals who are so intent on imposing their will on others.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

Smoking is offensive and dangerous. It is no longer welcome in society

No great loss

For the love of god RW, do not google radon exposure or off gassing!

As paranoid as you are about your health, you would not be able to sleep at night!

 

[Pop23]

I am so sorry your fears run your lift.

Btw, when was the last time you had your home tested for radon?

Fears don't run my lift. A guy named Otis runs it.

It's not "fears"; it's common ******* sense. You don't grab a hot stove, you don't run across an interstate highway and you don't suck carcinogenic smoke into your lungs. That's a choice I get to make for myself --- not some self-absorbed asshole who's addicted making it for me.

Sorry, I still have the right to breathe air, and nobody has the right to take that away from me. You don't like it? Find your own ******* atmosphere. This one's taken.

Yet you would probably visit NYC in a heartbeat. That's some atmosphere!

Plus I know almost no one that's had there home tested for radon, but then claim every lung cancer death on second hand smoke?

Might want to google radon. And while your at it, granite countertops and radiation.

Honestly, I don't care that MOST public buildings are smoke free, but to say bars should be is absurd. Deaths that can be directly attributed to the product sold in them takes zero guesswork.

Is somebody losing a bad argument by so much that he's gotta shift the topic to radon, granite countertops and visiting New York ******* City?

There's an easy way out dood. Just essplain to the class the reasoning in which some joker who wants to pollute his own lungs has the right to pollute mine as well. Then we'll be done.

Poor hater dude. So damn worried about his health he can't address whether he's had his house, OR FOR THAT MATTER, the businesses he works in or frequents tested for radon.

Hypocrite much?

But, then again, the gubment gave you doofuses a license to spew hate and you're just goin wid da flow aye?

Care to show the class where "radon" appears in the topic? Or "New York City"? Or "radiation? Or "granite countertops"?
Care to show how any of these, even a single one -- represent some clown's self-indulgence forced on other people?

No, of course you don't.
Perhaps there are other irrelevant tangents as yet untouched.
Bigfoot... the heartbreak of psoriasis.... can zombies be far behind?

DeNialism -- it's a deep river of shit.

Finish the sentence......

A river your up to your ass in

 

[MrDVS1]

After watching a story on the news about banning smoking in public areas- including businesses- forcibly, I realized how wrong that is. On government property- ie streets and government buildings like courthouses- the government should have the ability to ban it. But for privately owned businesses, they should be given the ability to choose. If they ban smoking, smokers can simply go elsewhere. If smoking is allowed, and offends people, said customers can use their competitors instead. As such, a business owner can then allow/disallow smoking if it would help their business. Government doesn't have a right to mandate businesses to ban something, even if it is for "the public's safety". Even that could be disproved by showing that smoking inside a building where everyone is okay with it does not harm those who actually care. And enviromentalists will now proceed to ask about factories pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and try to apply my logic to that. That is a different case, simply because potentially harmful pollutants are being put directly into the atmosphere, whereas smoking in a restaurant hasn't killed anyone walking in the street outside, as far as I know.

It's been my observation that businesses are more than happy to ban smoking and I do see their point, it stinks, it puts a brown coating on everything it touches, not to mention the ash mess and the burning holes in things issue and of course the time it wastes.

If people are on a break obviously there is no time lost but people who can smoke and work at the same simultaneously may loose a minute or two per cigarette so an employee smoking a pack in 8 hours automatically wastes 40 or so minutes. I smoke cigarettes, I made the time observation on my own.

 

[Ame®icano]

Of course there is, it is a perfectly legal activity. What compelling government interest is there in banning it on private property or outside?

If you have the right to blow cigarette smoke in my face in open air, then I should certainly have the right to spit in your face.

By that "logic", I now demand that the public consumption of coffee be criminalized.

If I drink coffee it has zero effect on you. That's the glaring difference.

True.

Now, do you drive a car?

 

[Ame®icano]

My health is more important than your so called right to pollute your body and the air around me.

So why not to ban cars?

 

[Pogo]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

 

[Pogo]

I worked my way through university in restaurants and the like. Smoking was permitted and I had to deal with that. It's not like I had a choice here. This was back home in my parent's house in the middle of the countryside, jobs for uni students at xmas, easter, summer time and nothing else don't grow on trees. I needed the money, and besides, every other job had the same situation, people smoked in them.

You either have a ban, or you don't. You allow choice for owners, it's not really much of a choice, because they need to compete with those who choose to allow smoking.

And what was the radon levels in those work places?

Still losing the argument... still desperately moving the goalposts.
This just in -- Nobody smokes radon.

 

[Ame®icano]

My health is more important than your so called right to pollute your body and the air around me.

Cars and trucks spew more pollutants than a smoker so maybe you control freaks should ban them too.

I won't get cancer from them.

You really believe in that shit?

 

[Pogo]

Fears don't run my lift. A guy named Otis runs it.

It's not "fears"; it's common ******* sense. You don't grab a hot stove, you don't run across an interstate highway and you don't suck carcinogenic smoke into your lungs. That's a choice I get to make for myself --- not some self-absorbed asshole who's addicted making it for me.

Sorry, I still have the right to breathe air, and nobody has the right to take that away from me. You don't like it? Find your own ******* atmosphere. This one's taken.

Yet you would probably visit NYC in a heartbeat. That's some atmosphere!

Plus I know almost no one that's had there home tested for radon, but then claim every lung cancer death on second hand smoke?

Might want to google radon. And while your at it, granite countertops and radiation.

Honestly, I don't care that MOST public buildings are smoke free, but to say bars should be is absurd. Deaths that can be directly attributed to the product sold in them takes zero guesswork.

Is somebody losing a bad argument by so much that he's gotta shift the topic to radon, granite countertops and visiting New York ******* City?

There's an easy way out dood. Just essplain to the class the reasoning in which some joker who wants to pollute his own lungs has the right to pollute mine as well. Then we'll be done.

Poor hater dude. So damn worried about his health he can't address whether he's had his house, OR FOR THAT MATTER, the businesses he works in or frequents tested for radon.

Hypocrite much?

But, then again, the gubment gave you doofuses a license to spew hate and you're just goin wid da flow aye?

Care to show the class where "radon" appears in the topic? Or "New York City"? Or "radiation? Or "granite countertops"?
Care to show how any of these, even a single one -- represent some clown's self-indulgence forced on other people?

No, of course you don't.
Perhaps there are other irrelevant tangents as yet untouched.
Bigfoot... the heartbreak of psoriasis.... can zombies be far behind?

DeNialism -- it's a deep river of shit.

Finish the sentence......

A river your up to your ass in

I ain't even got my feet wet.

I'm not the one trying to deny sloppy-second smoke causes cancer in those with no wish to smoke, am I?

Denialists -- they even deny the Denial....

 

[Clementine]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

Businesses should have say because they own the property. It's up to you to avoid things you don't like and if you know a business allows it, then you're an idiot for going in. I never went to a local place because it was small and everyone smoked. Their business. I just went elsewhere since they have a right to do as they please on their own property.

Personally, I would ban perfume if I owned a restaurant because some people douse themselves in it and it makes me sneeze. Maybe you liberals could get right on that and ensure that I don't run into people who wear too much perfume or people with bad body odor. How well would that go over if places turned people away because they were stinky?

And since some places even ban the American flag because they are "offended", maybe we should all ban stuff that offends us. I mean if we can't stand something, then no one else should be allowed to do it, right?

 

[Pogo]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

Businesses should have say because they own the property. It's up to you to avoid things you don't like and if you know a business allows it, then you're an idiot for going in. I never went to a local place because it was small and everyone smoked. Their business. I just went elsewhere since they have a right to do as they please on their own property.

Personally, I would ban perfume if I owned a restaurant because some people douse themselves in it and it makes me sneeze. Maybe you liberals could get right on that and ensure that I don't run into people who wear too much perfume or people with bad body odor. How well would that go over if places turned people away because they were stinky?

We weren't talking about businesses -- we got ourselves a couple of denialists here (one of whom may have left) who would have us believe forced smoking is innocuous. That's got zero to do with what anybody "likes". My mother died from lung cancer and she said she "liked" the smell of it (though she was not a smoker). It's about being ******* honest about public health hazards. We can't take step two if people are gonna stuff their heads in the sand and declare it doesn't happen when there's direct evidence that it does.

You know how completely recycled the air is on a plane? (hint: never take a flight when you feel a cold coming on) Should smokers have the "right" to light up on a plane then? What about the rights of the other passengers to breathe what little air there is? **** 'em, they can walk to San Diego, right?

Randbots.....

 

[Ame®icano]

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

If you live in a circumstance where coal mining is your only option for employment, just to entertain this analogy, then it's your only "choice". Similarly if your circumstance is that some office is your only choice of employment, and that office is removing your right to breathe simple unadulterated air, then your attitude is restricting that worker's choices -- you're giving him FEWER choices --- not more.

If a room prohibits smoking, what's the downside? That a smoker who wants to pollute his own lungs has to take it outside. If a room doesn't prohibit it, what's the downside? Innocent non-smokers get cancer.

You have the "right" to give yourself cancer. You do NOT have the right to give it to me against my will.

So, if coal mining is "only" choice of employment. Who's forcing you to work there? How about starting own business, lets say dry clean for miners. Just an idea.

Following your analogy, if smoking is prohibited, then what is the other choice?

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

Businesses should have say because they own the property. It's up to you to avoid things you don't like and if you know a business allows it, then you're an idiot for going in. I never went to a local place because it was small and everyone smoked. Their business. I just went elsewhere since they have a right to do as they please on their own property.

Personally, I would ban perfume if I owned a restaurant because some people douse themselves in it and it makes me sneeze. Maybe you liberals could get right on that and ensure that I don't run into people who wear too much perfume or people with bad body odor. How well would that go over if places turned people away because they were stinky?

We weren't talking about businesses -- we got ourselves a couple of denialists here (one of whom may have left) who would have us believe forced smoking is innocuous. That's got zero to do with what anybody "likes". My mother died from lung cancer and she said she "liked" the smell of it (though she was not a smoker). It's about being ******* honest about public health hazards. We can't take step two if people are gonna stuff their heads in the sand and declare it doesn't happen when there's direct evidence that it does.

You know how completely recycled the air is on a plane? (hint: never take a flight when you feel a cold coming on) Should smokers have the "right" to light up on a plane then? What about the rights of the other passengers to breathe what little air there is? **** 'em, they can walk to San Diego, right?

Randbots.....

This thread is about smoking bans dummy, that includes business

Businesses that probably have never tested for radon.

Educate yourself.

Oh, and I thought your support was for health reasons.

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

Appears not

It appears anything that simply upsets a nanny must be banished from society

How very exciting for you

And I thought you were serious, for what, the first time?

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

Businesses should have say because they own the property. It's up to you to avoid things you don't like and if you know a business allows it, then you're an idiot for going in. I never went to a local place because it was small and everyone smoked. Their business. I just went elsewhere since they have a right to do as they please on their own property.

Personally, I would ban perfume if I owned a restaurant because some people douse themselves in it and it makes me sneeze. Maybe you liberals could get right on that and ensure that I don't run into people who wear too much perfume or people with bad body odor. How well would that go over if places turned people away because they were stinky?

We weren't talking about businesses -- we got ourselves a couple of denialists here (one of whom may have left) who would have us believe forced smoking is innocuous. That's got zero to do with what anybody "likes". My mother died from lung cancer and she said she "liked" the smell of it (though she was not a smoker). It's about being ******* honest about public health hazards. We can't take step two if people are gonna stuff their heads in the sand and declare it doesn't happen when there's direct evidence that it does.

You know how completely recycled the air is on a plane? (hint: never take a flight when you feel a cold coming on) Should smokers have the "right" to light up on a plane then? What about the rights of the other passengers to breathe what little air there is? **** 'em, they can walk to San Diego, right?

Randbots.....

Educate yourself dummy

Radon kills 7 times more people from lung cancer than second had smoke.

Link

Lung Cancer - The Nevada Cancer Coalition

Ask the next home owner or business place you walk into if they've tested for radon

If they say no, tell them they should not be allowed to spew their filth at you

K?

Oops, I think I just spoiled Pogo's and RightWinger's hate fest.

So very sad aye?

 

[Pogo]

"Support" of what? The fact of forced smoking causing cancer and emphysema? Yeah it is for health reasons. Ain't that a Captain Obvious moment.
Doesn't need "support" though; it's a known known. And it's not in question that my right to breathe air trumps somebody else's right to force me to breath shit.

This makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the entire subject. But then again, this isn't about the environment inside enclosed space. It's about you controlling others.

NO, it's about the right to breathe. I claim it. It's not something I have a choice not to claim. Now if we were all fish this wouldn't be an issue.

You don't have the right to pour hot tar down my throat; if you view that as "controlling" you, I think you need a shrink to examine said homicidal fantasies.

Businesses should have say because they own the property. It's up to you to avoid things you don't like and if you know a business allows it, then you're an idiot for going in. I never went to a local place because it was small and everyone smoked. Their business. I just went elsewhere since they have a right to do as they please on their own property.

Personally, I would ban perfume if I owned a restaurant because some people douse themselves in it and it makes me sneeze. Maybe you liberals could get right on that and ensure that I don't run into people who wear too much perfume or people with bad body odor. How well would that go over if places turned people away because they were stinky?

We weren't talking about businesses -- we got ourselves a couple of denialists here (one of whom may have left) who would have us believe forced smoking is innocuous. That's got zero to do with what anybody "likes". My mother died from lung cancer and she said she "liked" the smell of it (though she was not a smoker). It's about being ******* honest about public health hazards. We can't take step two if people are gonna stuff their heads in the sand and declare it doesn't happen when there's direct evidence that it does.

You know how completely recycled the air is on a plane? (hint: never take a flight when you feel a cold coming on) Should smokers have the "right" to light up on a plane then? What about the rights of the other passengers to breathe what little air there is? **** 'em, they can walk to San Diego, right?

Randbots.....

This thread is about smoking bans dummy, that includes business

Businesses that probably have never tested for radon.

Educate yourself.

Abandoning your denialist point now? When you came in the issue was denying that secondhand smoke is hazardous to one's health. You've been trying to switch lanes ever since you were called on that. Educate yourself.

K?

 

[Ame®icano]

It IS a restriction on the business not the smoker.

If someone lights up in a restaurant it's the business owner who will be fined.

And you have the right to patronize businesses that don't allow smoking and to avoid those that do.

And is a restriction on all business owners......a level playing field

A business doesn't have to decide which customers to offend. Should you chase away the smokers? Or allow smokers and chase away no smokers who dont like the stench?

This way you shrug to smokers and blame the evil nanny state

If it's your business you can do whatever the **** you want.

If you chase customers away then so be it. Why do you give a flying **** if a business chases customers away?

What does it matter if a few businesses allow smoking? They'll have a bar full of people puffing way while you are drinking your wine coolers like a good little girl at a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

You cannot do whatever the **** you want with your business

Remember ......We do not serve negroes?

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?