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.
I guess that the 20% of the population that smokes must all either live in Vegas or visit it regularly. However, let me assure the good people of Las Vegas that I will not eat in a restaurant where people are smoking or play in a casino where there is smoke. So that 20% better have plenty of money.
It is illegal to smoke in standard restaurants in Nevada, even ones in casinos. The partial repeal of the smoking ban allowed bars with a kitchen that ban minors to allow smoking. It was likely the intent of the original smoking ban, to allow bars to allow smoking, since bars were specifically excluded but another paragraph made it a health code violation if there was a kitchen. Bars widely ignored the smoking ban, and there was little or no enforcement.
In 2011, the state legislature repealed that small portion of the smoking ban, leaving the rest of it intact. I do not think anyone even fought it. Bars were exempted from the smoking ban if they did not have a kitchen, the law was just poorly worded and it was fixed so that those bars could serve food (or in reality make what the bars were doing anyway legal).
You can't pee in the punch in the bowl at the party because;
Other People are DRINKING it.
You can (if it is your punch bowl at your party), you just can't do it and not tell anyone as you take away their ability to choose to drink it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
You can't spit tobacco juice on the food on the serving trays because;
Other people are EATING it.
Again, you can do this depending on if the food is yours and it is in your establishment and you specifically inform everyone that you will be doing this. Again, the issue with health laws as well as issues with serving food is that people are not aware of all the things you are doing to the food, so basic laws establish health and safety regulations so people can expect a certain minimum level of care in the food they may consume somewhere.
The problem is... doing this without anyone knowing, there by taking away their choice (ie you are essentially forcing someone to eat spit if you spit on their food and do not tell them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
You can't spew your tobacco smoke into the air in public because;
Other people are BREATHING it.
This is an issue again of informing others. Though the previous examples you used are a direct action upon someone else (spitting or urinating in their food and drink), this one is not a directed action of maliciousness.
The air depending on where it is (private or public) is free air. That is, in private space, it is not free as it is under the discretion of the owner as to what they will allow in that air. The contingency is that the owner inform those that the air will not be normal and why that is. Again, allowing people to choose (if the owner provides them with admission) if they will accept those conditions or not.
In public space, it is free to all, however it is under the position that the air will be shared with others and so one can not expect a certain condition of air (other than that of requiring it to not be harmful or dangerous). Because we understand we will be sharing such, our decisions to avoid/remove ourselves from encounters must not be infringed. As long as a person in public can avoid this (not going to specific areas where they may encounter it) or remove themselves when they do encounter it, then there is no infringement. In public, we do not have the luxury of dictating our own personal preferences as that would be an infringement on to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
It really doesn't get any more complicated or confusing than that (Unless you are excessively "simple" or easily "confused")
You are right, it is not a confusing issue, but it becomes confusing when people fail to understand the key component of the issue, which is what their freedoms are and how that freedom interacts with others.
You can (if it is your punch bowl at your party), you just can't do it and not tell anyone as you take away their ability to choose to drink it or not.
Again, you can do this depending on if the food is yours and it is in your establishment and you specifically inform everyone that you will be doing this. Again, the issue with health laws as well as issues with serving food is that people are not aware of all the things you are doing to the food, so basic laws establish health and safety regulations so people can expect a certain minimum level of care in the food they may consume somewhere.
The problem is... doing this without anyone knowing, there by taking away their choice (ie you are essentially forcing someone to eat spit if you spit on their food and do not tell them).
This is an issue again of informing others. Though the previous examples you used are a direct action upon someone else (spitting or urinating in their food and drink), this one is not a directed action of maliciousness.
The air depending on where it is (private or public) is free air. That is, in private space, it is not free as it is under the discretion of the owner as to what they will allow in that air. The contingency is that the owner inform those that the air will not be normal and why that is. Again, allowing people to choose (if the owner provides them with admission) if they will accept those conditions or not.
In public space, it is free to all, however it is under the position that the air will be shared with others and so one can not expect a certain condition of air (other than that of requiring it to not be harmful or dangerous). Because we understand we will be sharing such, our decisions to avoid/remove ourselves from encounters must not be infringed. As long as a person in public can avoid this (not going to specific areas where they may encounter it) or remove themselves when they do encounter it, then there is no infringement. In public, we do not have the luxury of dictating our own personal preferences as that would be an infringement on to another.
You are right, it is not a confusing issue, but it becomes confusing when people fail to understand the key component of the issue, which is what their freedoms are and how that freedom interacts with others.
I am quite impressed by the ability you have at contorting and twisting your "logic" into a pretzel in an attempt (largely, if not wholly failed) at bolstering your position and/or weakening mine.
The concept that you are OK violating somebody's rights as long as you TELL them you are violating their rights, past, present or future, is Novel, while at the same time, INSANE.
Another of your "points" seems to exist in a Universe of its own - and one detached from all rationality. I quote you here for convenient reference.
Though the previous examples you used are a direct action upon someone else (spitting or urinating in their food and drink), this one is not a directed action of maliciousness.
Incorrect. Spitting or urinating on THEM would be direct actions against them. The examples, all three, are INDIRECT actions against the non-offenders, and it is easy for an open mind, aided by open eyes to see that all all virtually identical in import and impact. In all three cases, the tiny minority is fouling things bodily taken-in (food, drink or air) by others.
All you have to do is connect the dots. There are, after all, only three of them and they are very close to each others, so the task is NOT monumental for any OPEN, UNBIASED mind. A nicotine-clouded mind might have some difficulty in the connecting, I suspect.
In any case, I offer that you might want to give it a whirl and see what you come up with.
I am quite impressed by the ability you have at contorting and twisting your "logic" into a pretzel in an attempt (largely, if not wholly failed) at bolstering your position and/or weakening mine.
The concept that you are OK violating somebody's rights as long as you TELL them you are violating their rights, past, present or future, is Novel, while at the same time, INSANE.
Again, your confusion here is your subjective definition of what rights are. This is why you seem to have issues with my points. you don't understand what your rights are and so you subjectively manipulated what a right is based on any given emotional position you encounter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
Another of your "points" seems to exist in a Universe of its own - and one detached from all rationality. I quote you here for convenient reference.
Though the previous examples you used are a direct action upon someone else (spitting or urinating in their food and drink), this one is not a directed action of maliciousness.
Incorrect. Spitting or urinating on THEM would be direct actions against them. The examples, all three, are INDIRECT actions against the non-offenders, and it is easy for an open mind, aided by open eyes to see that all all virtually identical in import and impact. In all three cases, the tiny minority is fouling things bodily taken-in (food, drink or air) by others.
You fail to understand the point of my mention. I am not talking about a physical direct action. I am talking about a direct action of intent to subvert choice and specifically effect another person.
When you urinate or spit in someones food/drink (knowing others are going to eat/drink it), the intent is obvious in that it is maliciously set on violating that of another. There is no other logical reason for doing so. In those examples, one is not told of this action as for obvious reasons the purpose is to get another to eat/drink the contaminated product without first knowing. The result is forcing someone to partake in an action without being given the choice.
In the example of someone smoking, there may or may not be such an intent, though the action is not a subverted one as the above examples because of the nature of the action. It is not a direct intent to subvert choice as someone can choose to leave or avoid such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
All you have to do is connect the dots. There are, after all, only three of them and they are very close to each others, so the task is NOT monumental for any OPEN, UNBIASED mind. A nicotine-clouded mind might have some difficulty in the connecting, I suspect.
In any case, I offer that you might want to give it a whirl and see what you come up with
Your examples are poorly construed and narrowly established to serve your own specific needs. It is an illogical example because you fail to properly evaluate the issue to any relevant means. I explained why they are not the same in the manner you use them and you have failed to attend to those points. Your comparison is invalid. /shrug
Location: In a place with little freedom (aka USA)
712 posts, read 1,366,878 times
Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasdrubal
If you watch films that predate the 90's, you can see that smoking was virtually allowed anyplace in America: planes, restaurants, bars, public buildings, offices, etc. Now this is almost impossible to find, except for some particular places. I think smoking gives men that macho attiude and makes women sexy. What do you think? If America doesn't have socialized healthcare, why should the Government (stateside, county, local) prevent its citziens to smoke wherever they want?
Because we dont want to have trashy smokers polluting the air and sidewalks with butts and trash. Plus smoking is not only unhealthy, but its unattractive.
Who wants to kiss a filthy woman (or man) with cigarette breath?
Because we dont want to have trashy smokers polluting the air and sidewalks with butts and trash. Plus smoking is not only unhealthy, but its unattractive.
Who wants to kiss a filthy woman (or man) with cigarette breath?
Smoking bans have increased smoking related litter exponentially.
And demonizing smoking has made it sexier and more attractive as it's given it an "outlaw" image.
i've met some hot chicks who smoke, i'd kiss them (then again I smoke too so it's all good!)
Agreed on the increase in litter after smoking bans. My uni recently increased its smoking ban from not allowing smoking within 10 feet of windows and doors to 25 feet. They eventually got rid of some of the public ashtrays, including the ones in front of the library. Now, there's always been some litter from butts in front of the library, but when the ashtrays were available MOST SMOKERS PUT THEIR BUTTS IN THE ASHTRAYS. Now there's nothing to put them in except on the ground. There aren't even any trashcans available. It's a completely idiotic move on the administration's part.
Again, your confusion here is your subjective definition of what rights are. This is why you seem to have issues with my points. you don't understand what your rights are and so you subjectively manipulated what a right is based on any given emotional position you encounter.
You fail to understand the point of my mention. I am not talking about a physical direct action. I am talking about a direct action of intent to subvert choice and specifically effect another person.
When you urinate or spit in someones food/drink (knowing others are going to eat/drink it), the intent is obvious in that it is maliciously set on violating that of another. There is no other logical reason for doing so. In those examples, one is not told of this action as for obvious reasons the purpose is to get another to eat/drink the contaminated product without first knowing. The result is forcing someone to partake in an action without being given the choice.
In the example of someone smoking, there may or may not be such an intent, though the action is not a subverted one as the above examples because of the nature of the action. It is not a direct intent to subvert choice as someone can choose to leave or avoid such.
Your examples are poorly construed and narrowly established to serve your own specific needs. It is an illogical example because you fail to properly evaluate the issue to any relevant means. I explained why they are not the same in the manner you use them and you have failed to attend to those points. Your comparison is invalid. /shrug
And by the way. I don't smoke.
More pretzel-logic, I see. You are a real pro, I must admit. Words and sentences streaming all around in all directions like a run-away roller-coaster, all in desperate and failing attempt to convey or even construct a single valid point.
I am glad you don't smoke, but I must say that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. My examples, my logic, my rational are perfect. You refuse to connect the dots, only through stubborn refusal, not flaws in the dots.
BTW, biology itself forces people to breath. It is not optional or recreational in nature.
Smoking, OTOH, is NOT necessary to life, and its exercise (like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) is subordinate to the apex right to life that breathing supports.
If you don't believe me, hold your breath for, say, about 2 hours, and see how much worse your day gets.
In the conflict of rights between the right to breath and the right to use recreational drugs, the right to breath trumps the day, each and every day.
The wisdom is at your doorstep. Cast off your ignorance and soak in that wisdom.
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.
Isn't Obama a smoker?
