Smoking Bans

[dblack]

So do, some don't. No one should be forced to be around smokers. But if they want to associate with people who are smoking, it's their business - not yours.

Fine, they can associate with who they like. But there's a difference between associating and working under.

It's still none of your business.

Generally smokers litter all over the place, will smoke where the can, will spend half their life borrowing lighters from people etc. They often don't care.

The also kick puppies and worship Satan. Would you like to see them rounded up and put in camps?

Who's talking about camps? Oh, you. I'm just talking about banning smoking in the work place.

It just sounds like it's smokers you want to persecute, as much the smoking. You're ranting on about here like a first class bigot. Borrowing lighters from people? The horror!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fine, they can associate with who they like. But there's a difference between associating and working under.

It's still none of your business.

It clearly is if they're blowing smoke into my face.

Generally smokers litter all over the place, will smoke where the can, will spend half their life borrowing lighters from people etc. They often don't care.

The also kick puppies and worship Satan. Would you like to see them rounded up and put in camps?

Who's talking about camps? Oh, you. I'm just talking about banning smoking in the work place.

It just sounds like it's smokers you want to persecute, as much the smoking. You're ranting on about here like a first class bigot. Borrowing lighters from people? The horror!

No, I don't give a damn if someone smokes, as long as they don't smoke near me.
How am I ranting like a first class bigot? Have I called for a ban on smoking? No. I've called for a ban on smoking when it affects the health of people who really don't want their health affected by other people's smoke.

Simple as.

Human rights = you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others. Does smoking around people who don't want to be smoked around harm them? Yes it does.

You'd call me a first class bigot for saying people shouldn't shout fire in a crowded theater too, right? Goes against the first amendment and all that.

 

[Pogo]

Fine, they can associate with who they like. But there's a difference between associating and working under.

It's still none of your business.

It clearly is if they're blowing smoke into my face.

Generally smokers litter all over the place, will smoke where the can, will spend half their life borrowing lighters from people etc. They often don't care.

The also kick puppies and worship Satan. Would you like to see them rounded up and put in camps?

Who's talking about camps? Oh, you. I'm just talking about banning smoking in the work place.

It just sounds like it's smokers you want to persecute, as much the smoking. You're ranting on about here like a first class bigot. Borrowing lighters from people? The horror!

No, I don't give a damn if someone smokes, as long as they don't smoke near me.
How am I ranting like a first class bigot? Have I called for a ban on smoking? No. I've called for a ban on smoking when it affects the health of people who really don't want their health affected by other people's smoke.

Simple as.

Human rights = you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others. Does smoking around people who don't want to be smoked around harm them? Yes it does.

You'd call me a first class bigot for saying people shouldn't shout fire in a crowded theater too, right? Goes against the first amendment and all that.

This is the inconvenient part they keep skipping past and ignoring. That's why you can't kill or rob or assault people just because you "want to" -- because it impacts other heretofore uninvolved people. You have the right to smoke if you want to; you do not have the right to force me to smoke if I don't. It's really not rocket surgery; you get the right to smoke, I get the right to breathe. Air to breathe is necessary to survive, smoke isn't. Therefore taking away my air is not up for negotiation, period.

Goes right back to the self-centered emotional maturity of a four-year-old "me me me" basis.

 

[dblack]

It's still none of your business.

It clearly is if they're blowing smoke into my face.

Listen - and please stop ignoring this distinction, we're talking about people who don't mind being around smokers. No one is saying you should be forced to put up with cigarette smoke. I avoid it myself. But some people don't care, and if they want to eat in a restaurant with other people who also don't care - why should anyone else have anything to say about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen - and please stop ignoring this distinction, we're talking about people who don't mind being around smokers. No one is saying you should be forced to put up with cigarette smoke. I avoid it myself. But some people don't care, and if they want to eat in a restaurant with other people who also don't care - why should anyone else have anything to say about?

I understand what you mean, don't get me wrong. I just don't see how it would work. I've lived in countries with no smoking ban, with a smoking ban that works and with a smoking ban that doesn't work.

In the first, if you go out, you get smoked on, no matter what. Every bar will have a smoker, every restaurant will have a smoker. Even places which have smoking and non-smoking places will be smoky all over. You can't get away from it. People smoke on buses, people smoke wherever the hell they feel like it.

The second, you go to a bar, a restaurant wherever, inside is smoke free. You simply don't have to worry about there being smoke. Smokers can go sit outside. Usually there is a place for smokers to go smoke, they simply stand up, move somewhere, go smoke. Just like if they need to pee. They can't pee on the floor where they're sat, they have to get up, go do what they want, then come back and carry on.

The third is the same as the first. Nothing worse than seeing people sat right by a non-smoking sign smoking. I've had it in swimming pools, not only the swimmers but the life guards working there sitting right by the edge of the pool puffing away on a cigarette.

In cases 1 and 3 you'll find smokers who couldn't give a damn about other people. They're about as health conscious as a dead dog. So why would they think about other people? I've even had people who are slightly concerned, a boss of mine wanted to smoke a dinner table with about 8 people, so he, and the other smoke, moved to one side of the table and I was stuck right in the middle. What do I do? Tell my boss where to stick it?

But your view is that you can somehow have smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurant. It doesn't work like that. If you allow smoking, restaurants will allow smoking. I've never seen non-smoking restaurants where they didn't have to ban it. Simple as.

You'd call me a first class bigot for saying people shouldn't shout fire in a crowded theater too, right?

I called you a bigot for stereotyping smokers as inconsiderate jerks. Some are, some aren't.

Well that's what you've taken from what I've said. I'd love to see where exactly I said they were jerks. I said they didn't care, and I could give you a million examples of where smokers, and I mean just about all smokers, don't care.
This includes, for example, the boss I spoke about before, always polite, wears tweed suits because he wants to be an English gentleman or some nonsense like that. Yet when it comes to smoking, he usually doesn't care. He will light up at the dinner table and he won't ask.

 

[dblack]

But your view is that you can somehow have smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurant. It doesn't work like that. If you allow smoking, restaurants will allow smoking. I've never seen non-smoking restaurants where they didn't have to ban it. Simple as.

That's not my view - although I've definitely been to non-smoking restaurants and bars where there was no ban. My view is that it's wrong to use government to force our personal preferences on others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's not my view - although I've definitely been to non-smoking restaurants and bars where there was no ban. My view is that it's wrong to use government to force our personal preferences on others.

Where my parents live, in the countryside in a place of a few hundred people, and the bar/restaurant is always struggling to make money. Competition is very high, each small place around the area has one or two, the place down the road had two, one has now closed. Food is where it's at, it's where they make their money. They need people coming in the door. If there's smoking, people will be allowed to smoke there. If there's a ban, they won't. It's as simple as that.

Maybe in the big cities or whatever you could survive as a non-smoking restaurant. A bar possibly, a night club, almost impossible.

My point is that sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you want your business to do well.

The govt forces one thing or another on us. Either they force non-smoking in businesses, or they force smoking in businesses. I really don't see it any other way.

Do you think it's right for the govt to force businesses to abide by health and safety laws? Maybe I like dangerous bacteria in my kebab, it's russia roulette, my choice?

 

[dblack]

The govt forces one thing or another on us. Either they force non-smoking in businesses, or they force smoking in businesses. I really don't see it any other way.

I don't understand. How are they forcing smoking in businesses?

 

[Pop23]

Dood

You attack me about bringing up radon (an indoor air quality issue), which was in response to Sillouttes post about a. 20 year old, long distance runner, afflicted with lung cancer. She indicated it must have been second hand smoke from working on a casino because she never smoked. My response was, statistically it was more likely Radon exposure

You attacked me for deflection.

Then you bring up mining regulations?

Get real and try to keep up.

No, I didn't attack you for bringing up radon. I attacked you for bringing up radon for no reason. You didn't have an argument behind it. You could have brought up anything and it'd have made the same difference. You're always deflecting, because you're a stirrer and nothing else. You don't have a decent point to make ever because you don't care.

You're now trying to link radon towards your cause, and you've still not got anywhere close.

So there's stuff in the air which also causes health issues. And?

It is the MAIN reason for the health conditions used to get these bans put into place as health department regulations.

Such a con job when an easily controlled element gets no play at all

Next, google off gassing and the dangers of granite materials and countertops.

IF you all were so darned worried about indoor environmental safety (which you aren't), these would be at the top of your list and, even though smoking is banned, you would never visit these businesses.

These bans are put in place for no other reason than government sponsored hate.

 

[Pop23]

That's not my view - although I've definitely been to non-smoking restaurants and bars where there was no ban. My view is that it's wrong to use government to force our personal preferences on others.

Where my parents live, in the countryside in a place of a few hundred people, and the bar/restaurant is always struggling to make money. Competition is very high, each small place around the area has one or two, the place down the road had two, one has now closed. Food is where it's at, it's where they make their money. They need people coming in the door. If there's smoking, people will be allowed to smoke there. If there's a ban, they won't. It's as simple as that.

Maybe in the big cities or whatever you could survive as a non-smoking restaurant. A bar possibly, a night club, almost impossible.

My point is that sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you want your business to do well.

The govt forces one thing or another on us. Either they force non-smoking in businesses, or they force smoking in businesses. I really don't see it any other way.

Do you think it's right for the govt to force businesses to abide by health and safety laws? Maybe I like dangerous bacteria in my kebab, it's russia roulette, my choice?

So the government SHOULD pick winners and losers?

At least weirdo's telling the truth as to why these bans exist.

Kudos to that

 

[Pop23]

The best way would be actually to educate them about smoking effects.

How many smokers already know the effects of smoking? Do they care? No, it's the people who don't smoke who care. Hence why non-smokers don't want to be around people smoking.

Generally smokers litter all over the place, will smoke where the can, will spend half their life borrowing lighters from people etc. They often don't care.

Borrowing a lighter shows they don't care?

Specifically how ?

I made a point. You've completely side stepped the point, once again, and picked up on something that doesn't matter. You're about this far from getting put on the blocked list.

You made a statement that clear as hell pointed to the act of borrowing a lighter shows how smokers don't care.

You make statements, get challenged and then run.

Block me, you ain't much of a challenge anywho.

 

[Pop23]

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

Yes

You have the freedom to go into public spaces without deciding whether of not you want to risk your health

Restaurants are private businesses and you are trying to impose your ideals on their freedoms.

Private businesses are not kingdoms. They still must comply with local business. labor and safety ordinances

These bans do not only restrict the business owners, but the customers that CHOOSE to frequent them.

They sure do

A customer wishing to foul the air must take it outside

A sign on the door serves the purpose and preserved everyone's rights.

Don't let sense get in the way of your hatred though

 

[frigidweirdo]

The govt forces one thing or another on us. Either they force non-smoking in businesses, or they force smoking in businesses. I really don't see it any other way.

I don't understand. How are they forcing smoking in businesses?

Like I've explained a few times. Either you have smoking, or you have non-smoking, and it's like that for almost all businesses, especially those which are catering to food and drink. There is no in between.

If a restaurant owner is in society with smoking, they will feel forced to accept smoking. They don't have to. Just like they don't have do anything which keeps their business afloat.

It's a different type of "force", it's not force in "you must do this by law", it's a "you must do this to survive".


Also, from the perspective of the employee, how many of them will have the luxury of deciding whether to work in a smoking or non-smoking establishment? Say, 95% of employers choose smoking, and 75% of employers choose non-smoking, there's going to be a problem somewhere. Generally, as history has show quite spectacularly, it's the employees who don't get to choose.

Should a coal miner get to choose whether to work in the mine which has safety as priority or the mine which has no safety standards at all?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is the MAIN reason for the health conditions used to get these bans put into place as health department regulations.

Such a con job when an easily controlled element gets no play at all

Next, google off gassing and the dangers of granite materials and countertops.

IF you all were so darned worried about indoor environmental safety (which you aren't), these would be at the top of your list and, even though smoking is banned, you would never visit these businesses.

These bans are put in place for no other reason than government sponsored hate.

I think i get your point. It's not a good point, but I get it. i'm still not sure what this has to do with this debate other than you trying to claim I don't care. You do realise that just because I don't say something on an unrelated topic, that doesn't mean I don't care? We've been through this before, and you're still doing it.

As for backing yourself up. Saying I should google stuff is pathetic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You made a statement that clear as hell pointed to the act of borrowing a lighter shows how smokers don't care.

You make statements, get challenged and then run.

Block me, you ain't much of a challenge anywho.

Well if you tried hard, you could see what the point was. As you're not trying hard and just want to be pedantic, then there's no point.

Sure, I'm no challenge, I don't lower myself to your level.

 

[dblack]

The govt forces one thing or another on us. Either they force non-smoking in businesses, or they force smoking in businesses. I really don't see it any other way.

I don't understand. How are they forcing smoking in businesses?

Like I've explained a few times. Either you have smoking, or you have non-smoking, and it's like that for almost all businesses, especially those which are catering to food and drink. There is no in between.

If a restaurant owner is in society with smoking, they will feel forced to accept smoking. They don't have to. Just like they don't have do anything which keeps their business afloat.

It's a different type of "force", it's not force in "you must do this by law", it's a "you must do this to survive".


Also, from the perspective of the employee, how many of them will have the luxury of deciding whether to work in a smoking or non-smoking establishment? Say, 95% of employers choose smoking, and 75% of employers choose non-smoking, there's going to be a problem somewhere. Generally, as history has show quite spectacularly, it's the employees who don't get to choose.

Should a coal miner get to choose whether to work in the mine which has safety as priority or the mine which has no safety standards at all?

It's not force, period. Again, this is an example of using government to force others to cater to our preferences, and I think that's wrong. Government is about protecting our rights, not bullying others for our convenience.

 

[Pop23]

You made a statement that clear as hell pointed to the act of borrowing a lighter shows how smokers don't care.

You make statements, get challenged and then run.

Block me, you ain't much of a challenge anywho.

Well if you tried hard, you could see what the point was. As you're not trying hard and just want to be pedantic, then there's no point.

Sure, I'm no challenge, I don't lower myself to your level.

Or, perhaps if you weren't so wrapped up in yourself, you might actually stand by the point you were trying to make.

Soooooo

How does a smoker borrowing a lighter prove they don't care.

(Like pulling teeth folks)

 

[Pop23]

It is the MAIN reason for the health conditions used to get these bans put into place as health department regulations.

Such a con job when an easily controlled element gets no play at all

Next, google off gassing and the dangers of granite materials and countertops.

IF you all were so darned worried about indoor environmental safety (which you aren't), these would be at the top of your list and, even though smoking is banned, you would never visit these businesses.

These bans are put in place for no other reason than government sponsored hate.

I think i get your point. It's not a good point, but I get it. i'm still not sure what this has to do with this debate other than you trying to claim I don't care. You do realise that just because I don't say something on an unrelated topic, that doesn't mean I don't care? We've been through this before, and you're still doing it.

As for backing yourself up. Saying I should google stuff is pathetic.

No, the google reference was made so you would attempt to actually educate you on the issues of indoor environmental hazards. (What the hell am I even trying for)

If you have this very real fear of second hand smoke, a fear great enough to demand it be banned, yet didn't even know what radon was, you would NEVER ENTER AN ENCLOSED BUILDING AGAIN WITHOUT KNOWING IF THE BUILDING WAS TESTED FOR IT.

capise?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not force, period. Again, this is an example of using government to force others to cater to our preferences, and I think that's wrong. Government is about protecting our rights, not bullying others for our convenience.

Is it not protecting rights?

The Constitution prevents the US and state govts from infringing upon rights. Who prevents individuals from infringing upon people's rights? The answer is the govt.

The govt makes murder illegal, it infringes on the right to life.

The whole rights theory is, you may do anything as long as it doesn't harm others.

Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? Not if it causes a danger, no.
Can you punch someone? No, you're hurting someone else.

Should the govt have the power to prevent individuals infringing on the rights of others?
Is health not a right?

I know that the US doesn't see healthcare as a right. But there's a difference between healthcare and health.

In fact just about every first world nation protects the right to health in the workplace. Building sites, mines, restaurants, all sorts of places have plenty of laws so that injury and death are reduced to a bare minimum if it can be helped.

You walk into a restaurant, do you expect to pick up food poisoning? Of course not. Surely, if it's up to the individual business owner, he can decide if their food has food poisoning or not. Just as he can decide if the air is toxic or not.

I don't see it like that.

 

[Pop23]

B freaking S

Adults have been long allowed to harm each other without the need of the gubmint stepping in.

There is a long and glorious history of it. In many cases this even applies to children.