Smoking Bans

[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.

As for food poisoning being relevant

If the restaurant informs the public that they would get food poisoning, let them put a sign on the door stating that fact.

I got no problem with that as long as they warn the public first.

 

[dblack]

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.

Re: the bolded question above - I assume you're asking "Isn't government protecting our rights with a smoking ban?"

No, it's violating them.

We don't have a right to enter someone else's property and demand that they cater to our desires. You might argue that we have a reasonable expectation of a smoke-free environment and that government should require that businesses notify customers, or potential employees, if this is not to be the case. That seems like proper regulation. But if a business hangs a sign at the door stating - "This is not a smoke free environment. Enter at your own risk." - no one will be exposed to second hand smoke that doesn't voluntarily agree to it.

If that results in restaurants that you want go to failing to provide you with a smoke free experience, well, those are the breaks. That's part of what freedom and tolerance is all about. People don't always do what we want them to, and it's not right to resort to force when they don't. A business that fails to offer you what you want isn't harming you. They're just losing your business.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Re: the bolded question above - I assume you're asking "Isn't government protecting our rights with a smoking ban?"

No, it's violating them.

We don't have a right to enter someone else's property and demand that they cater to our desires. You might argue that we have a reasonable expectation of a smoke-free environment and that government should require that businesses notify customers, or potential employees, if this is not to be the case. That seems like proper regulation. But if a business hangs a sign at the door stating - "This is not a smoke free environment. Enter at your own risk." - no one will be exposed to second hand smoke that doesn't voluntarily agree to it.

If that results in restaurants that you want go to failing to provide you with a smoke free experience, well, those are the breaks. That's part of what freedom and tolerance is all about. People don't always do what we want them to, and it's not right to resort to force when they don't. A business that fails to offer you what you want isn't harming you. They're just losing your business.

But it's also not legal to murder in your own business, or to do illegal drugs, or to do many, MANY other things.

So do you think the govt should force owners to say whether there is a likelihood of rats in the kitchen, food poisoning possibilities, but actually does nothing about it? Does that seem like proper regulation to you?

I worked in a place that was a mess when I was uni, the bosses didn't care, and one woman was cooking with hot oil, wearing sandals. I told her this was illegal, and illegal for her OWN GOOD and she didn't seem to care. But then again another guy spilled hot oil all over himself and it was more than likely his fault because he never followed health and safety properly, and he sued the company and won.

But then again, I move around a lot. I travel to places where I don't know where to eat or what I'm getting. Do you think if I turn up in New York and go to a restaurant that I should be risking my life because the owner can do what the hell they like, and there's no regulation? Or do you think in a civilised society, that people demand a certain standard?

I'm going to bring in China now. You tell me what you think about this stuff.

A man worked for a company and wanted to buy some paint. He rang a company and specifically asked for non-toxic paint. The paint came, they tested the paint. It was toxic. They rang the company up, and the company said "well you bought it, tough luck".

Another situation. A school in China got its school uniform made from a company. The school uniforms were found to be toxic, a long time after the kids had started to wear them, obviously.

These are situations that happen without regulation. Do you want to have to check EVERYTHING you eat, everything you wear, everything you touch for toxic chemicals that, well, produce a cancer rate that is double the world average?

 

[paulitician]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have no problem with people smoking in appropriate places; for example, underwater at our homeowner association swimming pool...

 

[paulitician]

I have no problem with people smoking in appropriate places; for example, underwater at our homeowner association swimming pool...

I think they're Terrorists. You should report them to the Gestapo, err uh i mean Homeland Security. They're clearly a threat to our sacred American way of life. And anyone who disagrees with me, is a Terrorist too.

 

[Pop23]

I have no problem with people smoking in appropriate places; for example, underwater at our homeowner association swimming pool...

I think they're Terrorists. You should report them to the Gestapo, err uh i mean Homeland Security. They're clearly a threat to our sacred American way of life. And anyone who disagrees with me, is a Terrorist too.

Didn't ISIS tell Christians to convert PAY A HIGH TAX, or be killed?

Where you supposed terror groups ever got those ideas?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

So, legalise marijuana then?

 

[paulitician]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

So, legalise marijuana then?

Absolutely.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

So, legalise marijuana then?

Absolutely.

How many people do you think are "tired of Big Government" and would support the legalisation of marijuana? I doubt it would be that many.

 

[Pop23]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

So, legalise marijuana then?

Absolutely.

How many people do you think are "tired of Big Government" and would support the legalisation of marijuana? I doubt it would be that many.

You might be surprised. Banning alcohol makes as much sense.

 

[paulitician]

I think most Americans are tired of Big Government stooges screeching about banning things. They've had enough.

So, legalise marijuana then?

Absolutely.

How many people do you think are "tired of Big Government" and would support the legalisation of marijuana? I doubt it would be that many.

True, but their numbers are growing. Marijuana being illegal is just plain absurd. Legalize it now and then release all in Prison who've been convicted on Marijuana charges. They don't belong in Prison. Period, end of story.

 

[Vandalshandle]

[

Didn't ISIS tell Christians to convert PAY A HIGH TAX, or be killed?

Where you supposed terror groups ever got those ideas?[/QUOTE]

No doubt about it. It is a slippery slope from a "no smoking" sign to 9/11 suicide attacks....

 

[Pop23]

I have no problem with people smoking in appropriate places; for example, underwater at our homeowner association swimming pool...

I think they're Terrorists. You should report them to the Gestapo, err uh i mean Homeland Security. They're clearly a threat to our sacred American way of life. And anyone who disagrees with me, is a Terrorist too.

Didn't ISIS tell Christians to convert PAY A HIGH TAX, or be killed?

Where you supposed terror groups ever got those ideas?

No doubt about it. It is a slippery slope from a "no smoking" sign to 9/11 suicide attacks....

What part did ISIS play in 9/11?

But that's interesting

Do you suppose that, if a sign was posted on the doors of the twin towers that said. "Planes will strike these towers causing them to crumble, killing all inside" Anyone, except suicidal idiots, would enter that building?

 

[frigidweirdo]

True, but their numbers are growing. Marijuana being illegal is just plain absurd. Legalize it now and then release all in Prison who've been convicted on Marijuana charges. They don't belong in Prison. Period, end of story.

I think the numbers just grew from one to two in about the last couple of days. Really, there are Libertarians, who I respect, even if I don't always agree with them. They work based on fundamental principles.
Then there are just plain conservatives who don't have any set principles, whatever they feel like is what it is.

So they're spout off about Big Govt being bad. Then they'll happily support Big Govt policies.

I'm no drug user, well, I had a couple of cokes (soda not powder) to get over jet lag last week, but other than that, drugs are not my thing. But I don't have a problem with people doing things that involve drugs. However I do expect them to be responsible for their actions if they choose to do these things.
But smokers generally aren't responsible for the health of those they smoke around and I really don't see any way to make life better for non-smokers other than to have smoking bans. It doesn't stop the smoker from smoking, so...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Didn't ISIS tell Christians to convert PAY A HIGH TAX, or be killed?

Where you supposed terror groups ever got those ideas?[/QUOTE]

No doubt about it. It is a slippery slope from a "no smoking" sign to 9/11 suicide attacks....[/QUOTE]

What part did ISIS play in 9/11?

But that's interesting

Do you suppose that, if a sign was posted on the doors of the twin towers that said. "Planes will strike these towers causing them to crumble, killing all inside" Anyone, except suicidal idiots, would enter that building?[/QUOTE]

Well, I am sure that somehow, you have connected the dots between this smoking ban thread, and ISIS and terrorists in general, in your own mind, but I am afraid that you have left some of us behind.....

 

[Pop23]

Well, I am sure that somehow, you have connected the dots between this smoking ban thread, and ISIS and terrorists in general, in your own mind, but I am afraid that you have left some of us behind.....

Then why did you bring it up

I simply pointed out that them ISAS folks made a statement similar to yours, wanting smokers smoking underwater.

Sure you can smoke, but only under water

Sure you can still smoke, but you have to pay an incredible high tax.

Now look at ISIS/ISIL/LMNOP

Sure you can remain a Christian, just pay an incredibly high tax to us, or die.

Glad I could hep ya out

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

OK, then why campaign against use of e-cigarettes and vaporizers. There is no smoke, no odor, no litter, no harm to anyone but smoker himself. Care to explain?

 

[initforme]

This is such a common sense issue. I do not and should not have to breathe in your second hand smoke in a building. That is simply wrong and common sense dictates as such. So if you are at a bar, go OUTSIDE and smoke. Puff away. Then I don't have to breathe in that crap. If you are willing to go outside, then puff away. Fill up you lungs with carcinogens.... good for you!

 

[Pop23]

This is such a common sense issue. I do not and should not have to breathe in your second hand smoke in a building. That is simply wrong and common sense dictates as such. So if you are at a bar, go OUTSIDE and smoke. Puff away. Then I don't have to breathe in that crap. If you are willing to go outside, then puff away. Fill up you lungs with carcinogens.... good for you!

Common sense says if you see a sign that says smoking allowed, to walk away.

Fill your lungs with radon. Good for you