[StreetLegal]

Originally Posted by Dhult

Basically just proving my point. The majority don't smoke. The majority then would go to a nonsmoking bar. Nobody would be dictating to the majority. You're free to do what you like and open a bar that caters to the majority. That's not good enough for you. You would rather the majority dictate to the minority.
Population desires in a bar? LOL. Open it up then. What are you waiting for?

That's great when you are in the majority on a topic. Not so good if you happen to fall in the minority.

Smoking is not good for you. Don't smoke and go to places that don't allow it. That's your choice.

Minority isn't dictating squat. Your position makes you the dictator of what people should allow on their premises.

Please stop trying to equate smoking bans in bars to some kind of "tyranny of the majority" over the minority . Smoking bans in bars or restaurant are not a violation of an individual's due process or civil rights like say a poll tax on voting clearly is. There is no constitutional right to smoke anywhere I damn please.

I am all for legalizing pot smoking...but I'd never advocate it be ok to toke up in a restaurant or a bar. That is just selfish.

The scientific evidence is clear that smoking nicotine is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively.

People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so.

Governments and by extension the taxpayers pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage and regulate smoking outside of one's private residence.

[Dhult]

Originally Posted by StreetLegal

Please stop trying to equate smoking bans in bars to some kind of "tyranny of the majority" over the minority . Smoking bans in bars or restaurant are not a violation of an individual's due process or civil rights like say a poll tax on voting clearly is. There is no constitutional right to smoke anywhere I damn please.

I am all for legalizing pot smoking...but I'd never advocate it be ok to toke up in a restaurant or a bar. That is just selfish.

The scientific evidence is clear that smoking nicotine is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively.

People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so.

Governments and by extension the taxpayers pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage and regulate smoking outside of one's private residence.

You are the one that stated " Why should a minority with a toxic habit dictate what the rest of the population desires in a bar"

You don't want to talk about "tyranny"? Then don't bring it up! You got up on your soapbox with the tyranny speech first.

Nobody disputes how bad smoking is. Heck, everyone has said it over and over again. Are you thick or do you just have to repeat the same thing? I just stated so in the last post to you.

Yes, the evidence is clear (That was already covered and I stated back to you) that smoking is bad for you, Nanny. OOOOh NO, no other jobs are available but the smokey bar.

Open up your smoke free bar and hire them.

Basically just proving my point. The majority don't smoke. The majority then would go to a nonsmoking bar. Nobody would be dictating to the majority. You're free to do what you like and open a bar that caters to the majority. That's not good enough for you. You would rather the majority dictate to the minority.
Population desires in a bar? LOL. Open it up then. What are you waiting for?

Nobody states you have to go to a private business where they allow smokers. Nobody would force anyone to work there. Particularly if there are competing bars that don't allow smoking. Obviously they are going to be more popular right? The people smoke are the minority right? The bars would die out, Right?

So where are all these smart bar owners catering to the nonsmoking crowd if that is what the majority of the people want?

You will not answer that part will you? I've asked it many times. Where are all the nonsmoking bars considering the huge untapped market?

Don't worry you will win in the end because to many people can't phantom in their head someone might want to do something to themselves that isn't exactly healthy.

I live in a smoke free city. You can't smoke on the sidewalks, beach, inside or outside. Nowhere you might come in contact with another person. All parking lots, hiking trails, etc. etc.. Any business or city road, unless you are inside your vehicle and none under 18 is with you.

All the people that are outside are now back inside. That's until they start passing you can't smoke in your own house . Then you win. You will eventually. Then you can move on to another bad habit and start taking the salt shakers off the restaurants tables and sending in the swat team to raid the fat kid's house to see what's in his fridge.

Oh wait a minute... Let me refer back to your quote.

Governments and by extension the taxpayers pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases.

Taxpayers and health... Hmm.... Yep, It will be something else. Hide the bacon! Tyrant

You don't just want to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking, you want to disallow anyone who might want to regardless if everyone going there was happy with their decision.

You wouldn't be content in a nonsmoking bar if you thought someone else was Gasp, Smoking away down the street.

It's not about smoking it's about not leaving other people alone. Their business, their choice!

[JERSEY MAN]

I really have to laugh at the smokers who still complain that it's their "right" to smoke wherever they want, subjecting everyone else to their smoke. I used to do that too

So you did it for years and were fine with it. Now if someone else does it they're the bad guys.

[Roscoe Conkling]

I still find it amusing that Americans become puritanical when it comes to smoking and drinking but have absolutely no problem with weighing 300lbs and eating 5,000 calories a day.

[StreetLegal]

Originally Posted by Dhult

You are the one that stated " Why should a minority with a toxic habit dictate what the rest of the population desires in a bar"

You don't want to talk about "tyranny"? Then don't bring it up! You got up on your soapbox with the tyranny speech first.

Taxpayers and health... Hmm.... Yep, It will be something else. Hide the bacon! Tyrant

You don't just want to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking, you want to disallow anyone who might want to regardless if everyone going there was happy with their decision.

You wouldn't be content in a nonsmoking bar if you thought someone else was Gasp, Smoking away down the street.

It's not about smoking it's about not leaving other people alone. Their business, their choice!

You are inhaling something if you think somebody is a tyrant for wanting to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.

What about the federal ban on smoking on flights: Do you think we should have airlines where people can smoke and non-smoking airlines for those that don't smoke? Let the market decide so absolutely nobody will be inconvenienced ever?

Or how about smoke free colleges vs. smoking colleges, certainly we should not stop anybody from smoking in the classroom if that is what they want.

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by Roscoe Conkling

I still find it amusing that Americans become puritanical when it comes to smoking and drinking but have absolutely no problem with weighing 300lbs and eating 5,000 calories a day.

Have someone else weigh 300lbs and eating 5000 calories a day doesn't infringe upon my comfort or well-being, unlike inhaling secondhand smoke.....so what exactly is the relevance?

[Avalon08]

Originally Posted by JERSEY MAN

I really have to laugh at the smokers who still complain that it's their "right" to smoke wherever they want, subjecting everyone else to their smoke. I used to do that too

So you did it for years and were fine with it. Now if someone else does it they're the bad guys.

Right.

[Roscoe Conkling]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Have someone else weigh 300lbs and eating 5000 calories a day doesn't infringe upon my comfort or well-being, unlike inhaling secondhand smoke.....so what exactly is the relevance?

Neither does not choosing to drink in one of the few remaining bars catering for drinkers who like to smoke.
The relevance is that obesity causes a massive strain on America's health system paid for in tax dollars by people of a healthy size who may or not be smokers.
If you take tax dollars from a pack of cigarettes civil rights suggest you ought to at least give the smoker the same rights as a non-smoker - namely the ability to smoke in a place of their choosing.

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by Roscoe Conkling

Neither does not choosing to drink in one of the few remaining bars catering for drinkers who like to smoke.
The relevance is that obesity causes a massive strain on America's health system paid for in tax dollars by people of a healthy size who may or not be smokers.
If you take tax dollars from a pack of cigarettes civil rights suggest you ought to at least give the smoker the same rights as a non-smoker - namely the ability to smoke in a place of their choosing.

Those who do not take their prescription medications, those who do not regularly see a doctor and those who eat poorly (and aren't obese) also cause a massive strain on America's health system...where's the moral outrage there? Picking on fat people just comes easier doesn't it? The difference is within all of these subsets one doesn't infringe upon the private space of those who choose not to follow the same path. A smoker lighting up where ever they want does infringe upon that and isn't avoidable unless one chooses to not place themselves in that environment. Being a democracy and all, the 8 out of 10 who don't smoke find that offensive and not something we should have to adapt for as the overwhelming majority.

[Roscoe Conkling]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Those who do not take their prescription medications, those who do not regularly see a doctor and those who eat poorly (and aren't obese) also cause a massive strain on America's health system...where's the moral outrage there? Picking on fat people just comes easier doesn't it? The difference is within all of these subsets one doesn't infringe upon the private space of those who choose not to follow the same path. A smoker lighting up where ever they want does infringe upon that and isn't avoidable unless one chooses to not place themselves in that environment. Being a democracy and all, the 8 out of 10 who don't smoke find that offensive and not something we should have to adapt for as the overwhelming majority.

The 8 of of 10 who find smoking offensive have much more chance of finding a bar that doesn't allow smoking than the 20% who don't would have a finding one that does.

Surely the puritans have enough choice among those bars to avoid going to those which allow smoking in order to be deliberately offended.

America has way more problems on its hands with an obese population eating itself to an early death than it does of a few people seeking out those rare bars which allow them to fire one up.