Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
Drover, you are a smoker I take it.
|
Uhhhmmmm, no, actually, I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
I don't find it ironic one bit, that smokers should have to take it somewhere else, that isn't in the public realm.
|
Of course not, because you refuse to acknowledge the disconnect between the two positions you implicitly and explicitly advocate; namely that smokers should take their habit to a private designation while you cheer on the legislative destruction of those private designations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
Destroy your lungs on your own, don't try to take everyone else with you for the sake of being obnoxious.
|
I didn't ask you to. Neither did anyone else. Smoking in most workplaces and most other places of public accommodation had already been nixed by employers and property managers before any piece of legislation came around to mandate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
Yea I know smokers used to have expectations that they could carry out their habit with out being hasseled by smoking nazi's... Movie theaters, resteraunts, bars, gas stations, play grounds,daycares, elevators, you name it I've seen smokers light up there.
|
And in most of these places, the marketplace had already determined that smoking was an undesirable activity long before the government stepped in and said so. Oh, and way to equate playgrounds and daycares with bars. I certainly hope, for your children's sake, that you're sharp enough to make the distinction, because I don't have a lot of sympathy for parents who see them as equivalents, though God help the children of such parents.
Please tell me you didn't raise your child(ren) in a bar mistaking it as a day care -- or, for that matter, any other explicitly adult facilities in which smoking is now banned, such as casinos or OTB facilities or hookah bars. If you can't tell the difference between these places and playgrounds and daycares, there isn't a piece of legislation this side of totalitarianism that can help your children or anyone else's children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
The fact of the matter is smokers will light up any where they can and most have little..... if any concern for folks who do not desire to inhale their poison fumes(This is evident by the hissy fit smokers are throwing because of the new laws).
|
The fact of the matter is that Smoking Nazis have little if any concern for personal preference. It's pretty simple: where people are permitted to smoke in a private setting, don't go there if you don't like it. (The intolerance of any such choice is evident by the hissy fit the Smoking Nazis have for any corner of existence where smoking may occur.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
No one is saying don't smoke in your car, don't smoke in your house, don't smoke in your garage, don't smoke while walking your dog, dont smoke while sitting on the john, etc.
|
For now, anyway; though I gather from your tone that you wouldn't mind if these erstwhile smoking redoubts were legislated out of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
People are simply saying don't smoke when you are in an enclosed space or by a door or window that might subjegate non smokers to unwanted poison fumes.
|
People are simply saying that Smoking Nazis can stay away from private institutions where smoking is a common undertaking, such as bars and casinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
It's not mine nor any other none smokers fault that you are so addicted to smokes that you simply can not wait to do it in a private setting |
Nor is it my fault that you aren't intellectually taut enough to acknowledge that my argument comes from a public policy position rather than a personal interest position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
And a private business establishment does not have the right to lower the quality of health of its patrons. Much like a private corporation does not have the right to lower the saftey and quality of health for its factory workers.
|
Pure economic ignorance. Private business establishments certainly do have the right to conduct a risk-benefit analysis of the health of its patrons versus the potential harm; the very existence of private enterprise requires it. Otherwise every restaurant would ostensibly be vegetarian (can't serve any saturated fats to our customers lest their arteries become clogged!), every car dealership would be required to sell tanks to their customers (can't sell regular cars to our customers because they'll be crushed like tin cans in an accident!), every bike would come with training wheels (can't let our customers risk injury by falling over!), and every house would be built with padded walls (can't let Little Junior who's just learning to walk stumble sideways and hit his head against a wall and risk injury!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito
And to answer your question, I have no problem with people smoking cancer sticks, as long as I don't have to be exposed to the smoke.
|
Fine, then don't patronize private businesses where you'll be exposed to said smoke. It's a much simpler solution than Nanny State legislation.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 400,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 14,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. Within the last few months our forum was cited in an article in 15 newspaper and in a story on AOL's homepage.
01-04-2008, 04:15 PM
Linear Mode
