Smoking Bans

[Dot Com]

All discussion is pretty well moot

Smoking, for the most part, is no longer welcome in our society

It is one of the best things we ever did

yep. It is important to note that smokers, Like Boehner (R) for example, rack up the highest end of life medical bills because all of the ills associated w/ smoking. They should be required to double-up on insurance to cover it so the rest of us aren't forced to make up the diff for them

 

[dblack]

Winger owns the air?

Who knew

Yes I do...especially the air that reaches my lungs

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes I do...especially the air that reaches my lungs

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

 

[dblack]

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

Why are you afraid to address your ideas head on? You keep dodging and evading. You insinuated that if smoking were allowed, it would amount to you being 'excluded', which is nonsense. I mean, unless the owner of the establishment happened to know you were a jerk or something, you wouldn't be excluded. You could refrain from patronizing that business, to avoid the second hand smoke - which is what I'd do - but you'd only excluding yourself.

If you're just going to ignore this, and fling more shit against the wall, I can only take it as an admission.

 

[Pop23]

Winger owns the air?

Who knew

Yes I do...especially the air that reaches my lungs

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You may exclude yourself from anywhere you wish.

Do you know how silly you actually sound?

Our country chooses to exclude those who are engaging in offensive behavior

Ummm, no, only those that offend you

 

[Pop23]

Well, the current assumption is that, unless a sign prohibiting smoking is displayed, then smoking is allowed. As an alternative to smoking bans, the idea has been proffered that businesses could simply post signs designating that smoking is allowed, and that anyone entering the premises is voluntarily accepting that risk. Yet this alternative is rejected. Why?

Nobody would do that. It would kill business.

Then why the mandatory bans?

Good lord, do you actually believe your own arguments?

I haven't argued anything about "mandatory bans". Are you even reading the thread, or just going "radon radon radon, lalala"?

You don't keep up with the news do you. A ban, by it's nature is mandatory

But your meltdown is entertaining

Take a deep breath now

 

[Pop23]

Well, the current assumption is that, unless a sign prohibiting smoking is displayed, then smoking is allowed. As an alternative to smoking bans, the idea has been proffered that businesses could simply post signs designating that smoking is allowed, and that anyone entering the premises is voluntarily accepting that risk. Yet this alternative is rejected. Why?

Nobody would do that. It would kill business.

Nonsense. Many business have already banned smoking voluntarily. Or offered non-smoking areas. Business will cater to the desires of their customers.

You're affirming what I just said in effect.

I said nobody would voluntarily advertise that they DO allow smoking. It would be like a big sign saying "most of you really don't want to be in here". Not generally the way advertising works.

But they did, for decades.

Bullshit.

You don't remember smoking section available signs?

Of course not, you don't get out much?

 

[Pop23]

Winger owns the air?

Who knew

Yes I do...especially the air that reaches my lungs

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public

Yes they are.

 

[Pop23]

Then why go places with bad air?

You are a puzzle

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

But that's not what you were asserting, was it?

You are admitting that you require the government to make decisions for you.

Sad Really

 

[Pogo]

Nobody would do that. It would kill business.

Nonsense. Many business have already banned smoking voluntarily. Or offered non-smoking areas. Business will cater to the desires of their customers.

You're affirming what I just said in effect.

I said nobody would voluntarily advertise that they DO allow smoking. It would be like a big sign saying "most of you really don't want to be in here". Not generally the way advertising works.

But they did, for decades.

Bullshit.

You don't remember smoking section available signs?

Nope, never seen one.

Of course not, you don't get out much?

Guess not. There are still four whole states I haven't been to. And working in 65 different remote sites requires restaurants, so I see a lot.

Now I do remember a place that had no no-smoking section. That was somewhere in east Texas. But there was no sign to that effect. I found out the hard way.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

Why are you afraid to address your ideas head on? You keep dodging and evading. You insinuated that if smoking were allowed, it would amount to you being 'excluded', which is nonsense. I mean, unless the owner of the establishment happened to know you were a jerk or something, you wouldn't be excluded. You could refrain from patronizing that business, to avoid the second hand smoke - which is what I'd do - but you'd only excluding yourself.

If you're just going to ignore this, and fling more shit against the wall, I can only take it as an admission.

The point is....I no longer have to

It is no longer the non-smoker who has to make the decision to breathe in the filth from smokers or not go out in public spaces

It is the smoker being told that his filthy habit is no longer welcome in public spaces

 

[rightwinger]

Why should I be excluded from going somewhere because some asshole wants to foul the air?

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

But that's not what you were asserting, was it?

You are admitting that you require the government to make decisions for you.

Sad Really

The government acted in its role to guard the public health and safety.
It was welcome, but long overdue

 

[dblack]

You shouldn't be. Who is suggesting that?

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

Why are you afraid to address your ideas head on? You keep dodging and evading. You insinuated that if smoking were allowed, it would amount to you being 'excluded', which is nonsense. I mean, unless the owner of the establishment happened to know you were a jerk or something, you wouldn't be excluded. You could refrain from patronizing that business, to avoid the second hand smoke - which is what I'd do - but you'd only excluding yourself.

If you're just going to ignore this, and fling more shit against the wall, I can only take it as an admission.

The point is....I no longer have to

It is no longer the non-smoker who has to make the decision to breathe in the filth from smokers or not go out in public spaces

It is the smoker being told that his filthy habit is no longer welcome in public spaces

You're a silly person.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually...no one

Smokers are no longer permitted to engage in their filthy habit in public.

Dodge much? C'mon - back up your insinuation that you're being "excluded" because some asshole wants to foul the air. Or, admit it's bullshit.

I'm not being excluded

The person engaging in offensive behavior is

Why are you afraid to address your ideas head on? You keep dodging and evading. You insinuated that if smoking were allowed, it would amount to you being 'excluded', which is nonsense. I mean, unless the owner of the establishment happened to know you were a jerk or something, you wouldn't be excluded. You could refrain from patronizing that business, to avoid the second hand smoke - which is what I'd do - but you'd only excluding yourself.

If you're just going to ignore this, and fling more shit against the wall, I can only take it as an admission.

The point is....I no longer have to

It is no longer the non-smoker who has to make the decision to breathe in the filth from smokers or not go out in public spaces

It is the smoker being told that his filthy habit is no longer welcome in public spaces

You're a silly person.

 

[CorvusRexus]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

 

[Pogo]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

 

[CorvusRexus]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

 

[Pogo]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

 

[dblack]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

 

[rightwinger]

If a restaurant has a sign outside that says smoking is permitted, then anyone who enters willing risks any dangers associated with smoking.

Any employee who works there also has voluntarily subjected themselves to it.

Business owners should be able to reserve the right to allow legal practices on their premises, as long as they provide ample warning.

For example, can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself? Yes.

Can you sue a business if you slip on a wet floor and injure yourself, and they have a wet floor sign? No.

Again, you wouldn't know this at age 15 but there's no such thing as a restaurant with a "smoking permitted" sign. There's only the opposite, but of course only in some cases -- it's either no smoking on the premises or it's left unsigned and you have to roll the dice (or ask). But no restaurant is going to deliberately alienate three-quarters of its potential customer base with a sign telling them "don't bother coming in".

I'm sorry, but this was all I got from your post:
"You're a stupid kid with no business debating this. If a business put a sign up, they'd risk alienating people who would already be alienated if they ever went inside."

I wouldn't know if you're "stupid" but at 15 you don't have the experience to know that there's no such thing as a "yes smoking" sign, which is what you suggested. Nobody does that. And nobody would do that, and I told you why. So your hypothesis won't work because there's no such thing.

Further, you can't "already be inside" if you're just arriving at the door, according to linear time.

Sorry to interject, but I believe the "Smoking Allowed" signs have been proposed as an alternative to smoking bans. Whereas now, most people would assume smoking was allowed, unless banned or prohibited by a sign, such a regulation would require business to notify customers and potential employees that smoking was allowed on the premises.

That horse has left the stable and he ain't coming back