Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Freedom, Penn: eat, design, swimming pool)

[harleyrider1978]

.....the freedom to breathe air free of cancerous carcinogens. You can argue that all laws are an "erosion of freedom," but then would you propose we become an anarchy? If you're against smoking bans, you must be against all laws.....

your first words make you an anti freedom to breathe you have a choise of nonsmoking section or smoking that compromise left the public open and free to everyone.........bannishment of one persons rights or liberties imperils all peoples liberties.....including yours.

[FightinPhils]

Smoking and nonsmoking sections are not a compromise, they're a joke. Comparable to a non-peeing section in a pool. Do you think that the smoke knows to confine itself to the boundaries of the smoking section?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

I look at it as a freedom gained.....the freedom to breathe air free of cancerous carcinogens.

And I'll ask again, at what point did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to enter an establishment that allowed smoking? You already have the freedom to breathe all the air you want that's free of smoke, you can't gain something you already have.

. You can't even concede the restaurants so families can go out to eat without a side of smoke?

Certainly if the restaurant owner wants to enforce that rule. It's not my place to tell him how to run his business. -AND- It's certainly not my right to force my lifestyle unto others. It's too bad you can't say the same thing.

[harleyrider1978]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Smoking and nonsmoking sections are not a compromise, they're a joke. Comparable to a non-peeing section in a pool. Do you think that the smoke knows to confine itself to the boundaries of the smoking section?

your also free to go outside for a fresh air break.........then be welcomed back inside so you dont freeze to death like smokers have to do now unless you frequent a smoke easy..........ahh illegal freedom what a hoot.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by harleyrider1978

your also free to go outside for a fresh air break.

I guess you don't get the fact that breathing is a necessity....smoking is a choice (a stupid choice at that).

[Grasonville]

Smoking bans were imposed by Nazi's in the 1930's.

Huh?

Go back even farther:
History
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose".[18] The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 1600s. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848.[19] The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself.[20] Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.[21

[What!]

Originally Posted by harleyrider1978

your also free to go outside for a fresh air break.........then be welcomed back inside so you dont freeze to death like smokers have to do now unless you frequent a smoke easy..........ahh illegal freedom what a hoot.

I never get this. Why do smokers feel a non-smoker should leave more than himself? Selfish to the core!

[What!]

Originally Posted by harleyrider1978

(Update: As of 10/1/2007 a new Minnesota statewide smoking ban is beginning to have a negative financial impact on bars and restaurants outside of the metro area, the metro area closings started to occur after Mpls, St. Paul, and Bloomington smoking bans in 2005)
Edit: I cut out the rest because of length.

I live in MN and as far as the bars closing goes I can easily say there are a chunk of bars not affected. The majority are not affected. I wouldn't worry if these bars closed down because there are still A WHOLE LOT of bars to choose from in MN.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by What!

I wouldn't worry if these bars closed down because there are still A WHOLE LOT of bars to choose from in MN.

You first make a comment about smokers being selfish then come off with comment like that? Have you considered the substantial investment of time and funds a proprietor of such a business has invested to make it successful?

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I forgot to mention this in my previous post and slightly off-topic. I've noticed you have proclivity to cite the wikipedia as a source of information, although its a very good source for a lot of information especially in articles that aren't political in nature the biases, inaccurate or outright falsehoods contained in many articles on that site are well documented. I'd warn anyone to make sure they have supporting information from elsewhere before citing it as a source.

I wouldn't cite it as authority for an academic paper (and certainly not as legal authority), but let's be realistic here. This is an internet forum. It's reasonably accurate enough for discussion purposes here on most issues.

Originally Posted by herefreeman

That is why none of the claims of anti smokers have been confirmed scientifically. Commish, I know you do not investigate but at least learn what the scientific method is.

I find it ironic that I'm being lectured about the scientific method from an anonymous internet poster who rejects the scientific consensus among every single major health organization.

As I said before, "it's a conspiracy!"