Smoking Bans

[Esmeralda]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

 

[Ame®icano]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Hey, who said people couldn't smoke?

Do you remember those pesky little things called HUMAN RIGHTS? They say that you can do ANYTHING you want, as long as it doesn't HARM others. Does smoking in confined spaces around other people harm those other people? YES IT DOES.

Does this mean there is a right to smoke around other people in confined spaces? No it doesn't. Just as there is a right to free speech but not one to shout fire in a crowded space.

It's not difficult.

You talk about business owners. What about workers who can't get a job, get offered a crappy job in a bar and they HAVE to take it to be able to feed their kids otherwise the right wingers will moan they're just out to get welfare, but they have to put their damn health on the line.

I guess you'd be in favor of people going into Uranium mines unprotected, hey, it's up to the owner right? Same with construction workers, who needs a hard hat? Up to the business owner right?

Safety is only the job of the business owner, no one else can tell them what to do, and if you die, so the hell what? Right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

 

[Esmeralda]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

Such people are extremely rare, as we all know. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I smoked for 40+ yrs. Loved it.

The damage is done then. Smoke 'em up.

Much of the damage can be reversed, even after such a long time. I smoked for 32 years. I quit three years ago. At 51, I can run a 5k in under 22 minutes. I run about 25 miles per week. My risk for lung cancer will always be slightly greater than that of a lifetime non-smoker, but compared to a smoker, my chances are minuscule.

true

at first i gained a bunch of weight

but then i switched off pop to water

and lost the non smoking gain

and the original over weight problem

 

[rightwinger]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

 

[Pop23]

Smoking is a health problem for employees. Leave your guns and sigs at home, I do...

Radon kills seven times more EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS than second hand smoke, yet I am the only one pointing out how silly it is to ban the less of the two evils , while allowing the other element in public spaces.

Too bad we can't get that word out over the uproar of the anti smoking nannies

 

[Pop23]

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

Her house was likely clear of radon

 

[Pop23]

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

It's icky so you don't like it

Where have I heard that before?

 

[rightwinger]

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

Her house was likely clear of radon

Your attempts at diversion are falling flat

 

[gipper]

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.

Hey, who said people couldn't smoke?

Do you remember those pesky little things called HUMAN RIGHTS? They say that you can do ANYTHING you want, as long as it doesn't HARM others. Does smoking in confined spaces around other people harm those other people? YES IT DOES.

Does this mean there is a right to smoke around other people in confined spaces? No it doesn't. Just as there is a right to free speech but not one to shout fire in a crowded space.

It's not difficult.

You talk about business owners. What about workers who can't get a job, get offered a crappy job in a bar and they HAVE to take it to be able to feed their kids otherwise the right wingers will moan they're just out to get welfare, but they have to put their damn health on the line.

I guess you'd be in favor of people going into Uranium mines unprotected, hey, it's up to the owner right? Same with construction workers, who needs a hard hat? Up to the business owner right?

Safety is only the job of the business owner, no one else can tell them what to do, and if you die, so the hell what? Right?

You are living in the 19th century. You might want to get current.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Hey, who said people couldn't smoke?

Do you remember those pesky little things called HUMAN RIGHTS? They say that you can do ANYTHING you want, as long as it doesn't HARM others. Does smoking in confined spaces around other people harm those other people? YES IT DOES.

Does this mean there is a right to smoke around other people in confined spaces? No it doesn't. Just as there is a right to free speech but not one to shout fire in a crowded space.

It's not difficult.

You talk about business owners. What about workers who can't get a job, get offered a crappy job in a bar and they HAVE to take it to be able to feed their kids otherwise the right wingers will moan they're just out to get welfare, but they have to put their damn health on the line.

I guess you'd be in favor of people going into Uranium mines unprotected, hey, it's up to the owner right? Same with construction workers, who needs a hard hat? Up to the business owner right?

Safety is only the job of the business owner, no one else can tell them what to do, and if you die, so the hell what? Right?

You are living in the 19th century. You might want to get current.

But the 19th century is the favorite century of conservatives

 

[Pop23]

Smoking is very bad. It causes cancer and emphysema as well as contributing to the development of and exacerbating other illnesses. It affects not only the smoker but those around the smoker. It is a filthy, smelly, dirty and disgusting habit. Smokers should be given ten days to quit, cold turkey. Any who don't should be shipped off to Bikini Atoll and left to fend for themselves. That's how bad it is.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but it should be eliminated: cigarettes and tobacco products should be banned worldwide.

Long term smokers lose 10 years of life expectancy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/putting-a-number-to-smokings-toll/

Being an alcoholic and drinking increases your chance of diseases, impairs judgement, and can lead to violence against others. Should we ban alcohol too?

Oh, wait. We already tried that.

We don't ban alchohol but we restrict where you are allowed to drink it

Same as smoking

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

You don't have to be addicted to alcohol to cause death by consuming it. So your right in away. Maybe if we called the victims of drunk drivers, victims of second hand drinking?

 

[Pop23]

Not even close.

The thing is that virtually EVERYONE who smokes becomes addicted to nicotine. That is absolutely not true of alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so socially and are not at all addicted to it, are not alcoholics, do not drink to the point it damages their health and well being, etc. The comparison between alcohol and tobacco is a fallacious one: no true comparison exists.

Virtually, like proven or its more like more or less? Or is that just your opinion.

I could agree that what you said about alcohol is true. I also know people who smoke socially and they're not addicted to it.

You tell em....My Aunt Elsie smoked four packs a day and lived to be 93

That PROVES smoking is not harmful

Her house was likely clear of radon

Your attempts at diversion are falling flat

^^ fears the truth ^^

 

[gipper]

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.

Hey, who said people couldn't smoke?

Do you remember those pesky little things called HUMAN RIGHTS? They say that you can do ANYTHING you want, as long as it doesn't HARM others. Does smoking in confined spaces around other people harm those other people? YES IT DOES.

Does this mean there is a right to smoke around other people in confined spaces? No it doesn't. Just as there is a right to free speech but not one to shout fire in a crowded space.

It's not difficult.

You talk about business owners. What about workers who can't get a job, get offered a crappy job in a bar and they HAVE to take it to be able to feed their kids otherwise the right wingers will moan they're just out to get welfare, but they have to put their damn health on the line.

I guess you'd be in favor of people going into Uranium mines unprotected, hey, it's up to the owner right? Same with construction workers, who needs a hard hat? Up to the business owner right?

Safety is only the job of the business owner, no one else can tell them what to do, and if you die, so the hell what? Right?

You are living in the 19th century. You might want to get current.

But the 19th century is the favorite century of conservatives

So why do you lefties reside there?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are living in the 19th century. You might want to get current.

Any explanation to go with this so I might know what you're talking about?

 

[Redfish]

If a business wants to allow smoking that's fine with me.

People can look for jobs at nonsmoking businesses if they want and customers can patronize businesses that ban smoking as well.

Freedom of choice. Period.

Sure, you can choose where to shop, that's fine; if you don't want carcinogens in your lungs you can patronize somewhere else, nobody forces you in there. All true. BUT...

That business, in order to operate, must have employee staff. And they can't be forced to breathe that stuff against their will -- unless the business wants to hire only smokers, which they can't do. So keep it out of the workplace to protect the employees -- who have no choice -- and the dilemma of what to do about the clientele takes care of itself. Problem solved.

no one is forced to work for an employer that allows smoking. Smoking is permitted in most casinos, no one is forced to work as a dealer or cocktail waitress. If you accept a job in a place that allows smoking, you do so voluntarily.

why does freedom confuse you liberals so much?

Why does "safe workplace" confuse you?

Is it because you get off on bootlicking? Or you just don't have the cojones to stand up for your own rights?

No one is forced to work in a place they consider unsafe. If a restaurant wants to serve only smokers and only hire smokers, that should be its right. Why do libs fear freedom?

 

[Redfish]

no one is forced to work for an employer that allows smoking. Smoking is permitted in most casinos, no one is forced to work as a dealer or cocktail waitress. If you accept a job in a place that allows smoking, you do so voluntarily.

why does freedom confuse you liberals so much?

Why does "safe workplace" confuse you?

Is it because you get off on bootlicking? Or you just don't have the cojones to stand up for your own rights?

Are you forced to work in a place that allows smoking? yes or no.

untli smoking becomes illegal, it can be allowed in any place that people enter voluntarily. Do you comprehend the difference between a casino and a drivers license bureau?

Won't be long until a casino worker sues his/her employer because he is diagnosed with lung cancer due to the second hand smoke. That will put an end to smoking in casinos if nothing else does first.

I think such suits have already been filed. Some casinos are smoke free.

 

[Pogo]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

What about the freedom to breathe?



It ain't about the "rights" of the business owner --- it's about the rights of the breather.



Duh?

The people can choose to go to a no smoking restaurant or bar. I don't smoke and that may be my choice. But just because I don't smoke, I don't expect others to go without their cigarettes.

"Can choose to go to a non-smoking (whatever)" is the same as denial of the right to breathe.
Prove it's not.


Whether smokers go with or without their cigarettes, who cares, that's on them. But once they impinge on my ability to breathe, shit's gonna hit the fan. Why should they get breath rights and I don't?

No its not.

To non smoker, any smoker is a problem. Even when it doesn't affect non smoker at all.

Don't be absurd. Why would I give a flying shit what a smoker's doing to his own lungs in East Jipip? Obviously you didn't read my post even though you had a week which for most people is enough time to catch the conditional phrase. You must be one of the super-slower readers. I bolded it for you so you can maybe Where's Waldo it. Get back to me in three more months.