Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you are saying that SMOKERS have the right to damage the lungs of NONSMOKERS? Second hand smoke actually damages the lungs of those around the person smoking. Nonsmokers are not damaging anything - maybe increasing their anxiety - but no organ damage. Why should smokers have the right to damage others? BTW - I am a smoker
This debate is not about the health hazards of smoking. It is about taking the rights away from private ownership.
I was going to simply ignore this but then felt compelled. Based on this silly logic, can I drink myself to oblivion then drive up and down the streets your kids play on and then say well you can simply CHOOSE to live on another street, your kinds don't HAVE to play where I CHOOSE to drink and drive. give me a break. I am an ex smoker and I at least had the respect to wait until the person sitting next to me was done eating before I lit up. Also, all I'm really saying is that where I'm originally from you were once allowed to smoke in public eateries, then the law changed and you couldn't. It was the greatest thing ever, even the smokers agreed that it was simply more pleasant. Then to move to an area where you can smoke in bars/restaurants is just a difficult transition to make. You're right, I can choose to go where I want, but I should also be able to choose whether I smoke or not, and going to these enclosed places doesn't offer me that choice.
Hey, maybe next time you're sitting next to me eating my ribs I'll dump bbq sauce over your head and say hey, you can choose not to sit next to me ever again. Not the greatest logic c_guy.
Your response is quite illogical. It is illegal to drive under the influence so that is a moot point. You are using public roads in which no one has a choice to go from point A to point B. In contrast, a privately-owned restaurant is a not a public establishment and in fact you have a plethora of options to choose from. It is no different than the government telling me I cannot smoke in my own house because it infringes upon your right to be in a nonsmoking environment if you choose to come visit me. My private home is the same as a private restaurant. I'll ignore your last comment so we can keep this thread open.
This answer isn't really fair. I enjoy going out to eat, but you're saying privately owned restaurants are the only ones offering no smoking, and that's where we (non-smokers) should go. But I enjoy eating at places like: Cheesecake Factory, PF Changs, etc. So I guess I'm out of luck then.
You see, the real issue for me is that my 4 year old son is asthmatic, and cigarette smoke would be a no no for us to be around.
UUhhhhh.....Cheesecake Factory and PF Changs are privately-owned restaurants. I'm sorry your son is asthmatic, but it doesn't give you the right to tell a private owner what to do with his restaurant.
Morally, I find it unacceptable to use the government monopoly on the legal use of force to limit the behavior of others in a privately owned establishment, against the will of the owner of the establishment. And I can't stand the smell of smoke when I am eating.
Very well said! And FWIW, I'm an ex-smoker.
And you know what else isn't fair? Fat people stuffing their faces every day at McDonalds and ending up in the hospital with a coronary. Your heart disease and diabetes is driving up my health care costs. Maybe your Nanny government should step in and regulate the trans fats and the amount of sugar you take in to keep you out of the hospital? It's not fair that you are making me pay more for my health care.
The point is, government needs to butt out. The more we let government take control, the more rights ALL of us lose, and the less likely we'll get any of those rights back. I personally do not want to live in a nation draped with a red flag. Do you?
Do they ever bring this topic up for a public vote? Thats what they did down in FL? Now I know that one of the big tobacco companies is up here but surely not everyone in NC is a smoker. I really just didn't like spending $200 at Ruth Chris only to be smelling someone's cigar while eating
And you know what else isn't fair? Fat people stuffing their faces every day at McDonalds and ending up in the hospital with a coronary. Your heart disease and diabetes is driving up my health care costs. Maybe your Nanny government should step in and regulate the trans fats and the amount of sugar you take in to keep you out of the hospital? It's not fair that you are making me pay more for my health care.
The point is, government needs to butt out. The more we let government take control, the more rights ALL of us lose, and the less likely we'll get any of those rights back. I personally do not want to live in a nation draped with a red flag. Do you?
It took me a while to get to this point, but I agree with Carolina_guy. FWIW, I am asthmatic and the mother of an asthmatic child. I'm also a Libertarian who hates to see the government involved in anything that is not absolutely necessary. Coming from the Pacific Northwest with its Clean Air Act, I must say that smoke in indoor establishments was a very unpleasant surprise, and my first reaction was "Outlaw that!" But as Carolina Guy said, we can't turn to the government to ban everything that some people don't like, even the majority doesn't like, because it's a slippery slope. People, let your dollars be your voice. I frequent non-smoking restaurants because I don't like the smoke. I was at a restaurant that was smoky and gross even in the "non-smoking section" (what a joke), and I won't be back. If it gets to the point where enough people won't support a business because of the smoking/nonsmoking policy, the owners will get the message, and Big Brother won't be involved.
It's also very easy to ascertain which places allow smoking and which ones don't before you even leave the house. More and more restaurants are going non-smoking, and it's not hard at all to find places to eat that don't allow smoking.
Do they ever bring this topic up for a public vote? Thats what they did down in FL? Now I know that one of the big tobacco companies is up here but surely not everyone in NC is a smoker. I really just didn't like spending $200 at Ruth Chris only to be smelling someone's cigar while eating
Ya know, I just hate driving past that strip club every day. I think the government should regulate such facilities so people with families don't have to expose their children to such immoral behavior.
Doesn't make much sense does it?
So does your right to not be around that cigar trump the right of the cigar smoker? What makes your right more special than his? You are both priveleged patrons of that establishment and neither one of you has the right to be there. His dollar is just as important as yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
