Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Immanuel]

More like the smoker has no right to tell me I have to ingest his drug.

Forcing someone who wants an abortion to give birth is like forcing people to put up with having to breath other people's cigarette smoke.
The government is not telling anyone they can't drug themselves with nicotine. What they are saying is that they can't force anyone else to take their drug.

If you don't like it, then leave.

Go someplace that doesn't cater to smokers and believe me there are plenty of places that don't and won't.

Maggie was talking about restaurants that use to have smoking and non-smoking sections. I remember them. When asked if I wanted a table in the smoking or non-smoking section, I always said non-smoking unless there were none available. If so, I would take a smoking table.

I didn't like taking a smoking table, but it was my choice and it allowed people who chose to smoke the ability to eat in pleasure. Why should I deny them that right?

Immie

Why are you rehashing the same old stuff already discussed?

Separate smoking and non smoking sections turned out not to work. The smoke still wafted over to the non smoking section and employees still had to go into the smoking sections.

Why should you deny non smokers the pleasure of a smoke free dining experience.
You are clearly in favor of granting smokers all kinds of freedoms to do whatever they want with the air that must be shared by all. But you seem to be dead set against granting non smokers and smokers who also want a smoke free dining experience any kind of freedom or say in how air is to be shared.

Rehashing because I am only catching up on the discussion.

I'm not denying non-smokers anything. They are free to chose to patronize any establishment they want and if they don't want to patronize an establishment that has chosen to cater to smokers they are not being forced to go to that establishment.

There are and always will be plenty of establishments that will chose not to allow smoking at least not in doors. I, personally, happen to find these establishments much more pleasant to patronize and would do so given my choice.

What I would not do is dictate to the owners what they can do INSIDE their own establishments.

Immie

 

[Shogun]

More like the smoker has no right to tell me I have to ingest his drug.

Forcing someone who wants an abortion to give birth is like forcing people to put up with having to breath other people's cigarette smoke.
The government is not telling anyone they can't drug themselves with nicotine. What they are saying is that they can't force anyone else to take their drug.

If you don't like it, then leave.

Go someplace that doesn't cater to smokers and believe me there are plenty of places that don't and won't.

Maggie was talking about restaurants that use to have smoking and non-smoking sections. I remember them. When asked if I wanted a table in the smoking or non-smoking section, I always said non-smoking unless there were none available. If so, I would take a smoking table.

I didn't like taking a smoking table, but it was my choice and it allowed people who chose to smoke the ability to eat in pleasure. Why should I deny them that right?

Immie

Why are you rehashing the same old stuff already discussed?

Separate smoking and non smoking sections turned out not to work. The smoke still wafted over to the non smoking section and employees still had to go into the smoking sections.

Why should you deny non smokers the pleasure of a smoke free dining experience.
You are clearly in favor of granting smokers all kinds of freedoms to do whatever they want with the air that must be shared by all. But you seem to be dead set against granting non smokers and smokers who also want a smoke free dining experience any kind of freedom or say in how air is to be shared.

oh they worked... YOU still can't prove that SHS smoke has caused a single case of cancer outside of bullshit stat manipulation and a healthy dose of assumption. Good thing no one forces you to work at a smokey bar, eh? You probably don't want to work on a farm if you are afraid of smelling like cow shit too. fair warning.

No one denies pink lungers a damn thing. YOU don't own every bar that wants to cater to us. Feel free to choose some other location to work and gather with your friends. I don't recall a mandate which states that your opinion means more to business owners than their decision to cater to the smoking demographic. If I owned a bar I'd kick out pink lungers on principal alone and then let you cry about your rights being violated.

 

[Immanuel]

Exaggerate much? Smokers have all the same rights as everyone else in this country.

Really?

And so do homosexuals, yet you liberals scream that they are discriminated against.

Immie

Hetero smokers can get married to each other, gay smokers can not marry each other.

Well, we are working on that, aren't we?

I am pro-civil unions for all. I do not believe that the government should be in the marriage business.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Did anything you just said have any relevance to the discussion?

I do not believe in killing defenseless human beings but keep on claiming that if you think telling lies will make you look good.

You are "pro-choice" are you not?

Immie

Yes, I am pro choice. To claim that I am for murdering children because I am pro choice is a cheap and dirty trick. Something I would think beneath a person like you, Immie.

I thought I was going to have a real discussion will you but it seems you just want to invent lies about me and derail the thread.

That is not what I claimed. I said you were for the right of killing a defenseless human being. Also, I don't use the word murder and am surprised that you would.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

You are "pro-choice" are you not?

Immie

Yes, I am pro choice. To claim that I am for murdering children because I am pro choice is a cheap and dirty trick. Something I would think beneath a person like you, Immie.

I thought I was going to have a real discussion will you but it seems you just want to invent lies about me and derail the thread.

That is not what I claimed. I said you were for the right of killing a defenseless human being. Also, I don't use the word murder and am surprised that you would.

Immie

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

 

[tigerbob]

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it? Have to compared cigarette smokers to crackheads yet? That normally makes an appearance somewhere within your tobacco diatribes.

You're the kook who thinks cigarette smoke cause no harm.

Find me one post where I've ever said cigarette smoke is harmless.

Despite having made my position abundantly clear to you on numerous occasions, you still lie about what people have posted.

Try arguing a point rather than distorting it.

 

[Anguille]

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it? Have to compared cigarette smokers to crackheads yet? That normally makes an appearance somewhere within your tobacco diatribes.

You're the kook who thinks cigarette smoke cause no harm.

Find me one post where I've ever said cigarette smoke is harmless.

Despite having made my position abundantly clear to you on numerous occasions, you still lie about what people have posted.

Try arguing a point rather than distorting it.

Maybe you've come to your senses since we last discussed this issue. My recollection is that you tried to convince me that cigarette smoke was not a proven health hazard.

If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes, I am pro choice. To claim that I am for murdering children because I am pro choice is a cheap and dirty trick. Something I would think beneath a person like you, Immie.

I thought I was going to have a real discussion will you but it seems you just want to invent lies about me and derail the thread.

That is not what I claimed. I said you were for the right of killing a defenseless human being. Also, I don't use the word murder and am surprised that you would.

Immie

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

 

[JenT]

Personally, I'd rather have a smoker or two around me than people with children.

yeah and I'd rather have a smoker than be around a certain co-worker that wears that skank cologne...what IS that cologne? Smells like rotten eggs and its getting more popular

Seriously, I can understand non-smokers not wanting smoking in restaurants etc, I gotta admit I appreciate the freshness, but they are even banning it outside? That's just powercrazed environazis going out of control.

 

[JenT]

That is not what I claimed. I said you were for the right of killing a defenseless human being. Also, I don't use the word murder and am surprised that you would.

Immie

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

Great point.

 

[Anguille]

That is not what I claimed. I said you were for the right of killing a defenseless human being. Also, I don't use the word murder and am surprised that you would.

Immie

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

 

[tigerbob]

You're the kook who thinks cigarette smoke cause no harm.

Find me one post where I've ever said cigarette smoke is harmless.

Despite having made my position abundantly clear to you on numerous occasions, you still lie about what people have posted.

Try arguing a point rather than distorting it.

Maybe you've come to your senses since we last discussed this issue. My recollection is that you tried to convince me that cigarette smoke was not a proven health hazard.

If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.

There you go again. I find it astonishing that you can be so mind-blowingly arrogant as to use an expression like "come to your senses" when you don't have the first fucking clue about the science.

My position has ALWAYS been that there is a well supported link between smoking and a whole host of debilitating conditions, including emphysema, heart disease and several forms of cancer, to name but a few of the better known ones.

My position has ALWAYS been that the science to support a ban on public smoking is at best flawed and at worst deliberately falsified.

Your position has ALWAYS been that you are unable to see that these are two separate issues and debate them accordingly.

 

[Anguille]

Seriously, I can understand non-smokers not wanting smoking in restaurants etc, I gotta admit I appreciate the freshness,

Do you think it's fair to ban smoking in bars and restaurants?

 

[Anguille]

My position has ALWAYS been that the science to support a ban on public smoking is at best flawed and at worst deliberately falsified.

I was right. You are a kook.

 

[dilloduck]

Seriously, I can understand non-smokers not wanting smoking in restaurants etc, I gotta admit I appreciate the freshness,

Do you think it's fair to ban smoking in bars and restaurants?

You bet---anything that bothers someone else should be banned.

 

[JenT]

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

well I think the abortee might have an objection, if he/she had the chance to live long enough to voice it

 

[tigerbob]

My position has ALWAYS been that the science to support a ban on public smoking is at best flawed and at worst deliberately falsified.

I was right. You are a kook.

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

 

[dilloduck]

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

well I think the abortee might have an objection, if he/she had the chance to live long enough to voice it

Well that's not fair-----since women are stuck with being the world's baby sitters they outta be able to decide what their workload is.

 

[JenT]

Seriously, I can understand non-smokers not wanting smoking in restaurants etc, I gotta admit I appreciate the freshness,

Do you think it's fair to ban smoking in bars and restaurants?

Bars, no - that should be up to the owner.

Restaurants...I gotta say yes. I'd rather it was left up to the owner but restaurant owners can't afford to tick off all the smokers so their hands are kinda tied. And non-smoking sections don't work because smoke floats where it will.

And I differentiate bars from restaurants because I know most smokers can easily handle an hour without a smoke, long enough for a meal. Bars are a different story. I tended bar for a short time and that clientele by and large don't mind smoke, its part of the territory. It WAS amazing, though, how much my clothes smelt like smoke after a shift.

 

[Anguille]

My position has ALWAYS been that the science to support a ban on public smoking is at best flawed and at worst deliberately falsified.

I was right. You are a kook.

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?