![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
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 13,000 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.| Search our forums (advanced): |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, I said fewer well-educated people smoke [because they're smart enough to know better]. I never referenced famous people.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clinton was a freakin Rhodes scholar... pretty sure he's well educated.
Barack Obama also has been a smoker for many years. Actually when he asked Michelle if he could run for president she told him yes, but only if you quit smoking. It's endearing really- a real man with real flaws. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
there seems to be two basically different attitudes in this debate:
A) Those against the ban believe: There should be smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants. People that don't smoke should be able to enjoy a smoke-free environment. People that enjoy smoking should be able to enjoy a smoke in some establishments as well. Some places for you, some places for me. Respect property owners. Let the market decide. Live and let live. Everybody wins. Right? B)Those in favor of the ban believe: I don't like smoke. Smoking is unhealthy. I know there's smoke-free places I can go, but that's not good enough for me. I want to force 100% of the businesses to cater to what I prefer. I am right. Anyone that has an opinion contrary to mine is therefore wrong, and must be forced to do what I think is right. Screw property rights. Screw the rights of smokers to freely associate. I say what is right and everyone else must obey!! Of course those in favor of choice have been called "militant" and "selfish" I ask: Which way of thinking seems most militant and selfish to you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously I can't prove what you're saying to be inaccurate (maybe someone else can) but I find it extremely hard to believe that every restaurant was smoking in the entirety of Southern Illinois.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you didn't like the smoking bars in Champaign, you could have gone to Urbana instead where they were all non-smoking. Are you people really so lazy that you couldn't cross over a simple municipal border to express your preference?
Before the smoking ban in Champaign was repealed for bars, several bar owners who saw a dip in their business got together and bought a billboard that said something to the effect of: "NON-SMOKERS: YOU PROMISED YOU'D COME. SO WHERE ARE YOU?" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Oh well just one more blow to free enterprise from the smoking ban! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny you should say that. Are YOU people really too lazy to walk outside of a door to express your smoking preference? Geez. You just can't win with these die-hard smokers...
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suppose if your preferance is to smoke indoors, that preference should be not only inconvienient, but illeagle?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me repeat, now for the third time: I am a non-smoker. Is that clear yet?
|
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It's free and quick. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|