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.
Why are you being so obtuse about this? What about hypothetical are you not understanding? People on here are simply posing a what if question....what if the bans were not in place, why not leave it up to the business owner to allow smoking or not. They can post a sign & it is up to the customer to decide if they wish to frequent that establishment. I don't know how anyone could have a problem with that, it's not even a political bias situation.
Yes, if we were playing in fiction, it would be up to the owner, like it was before the smoking ban.
And where is smoking where ever you a constitutionally protected right?
Stop being lazy and go put your money where your mouth is and get a lawyer and fight smoking bans..... Or you just a patriot online?
For the millionth time, IT'S NOT!!!! I defy you to find one post where someone has claimed that it is.
This is a red herring, a divergence, a moving of the goal posts. This is the way anti-smokers have to frame the debate in order to avoid the larger issues.
Ahh moving the goal posts I see. The government shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Again with the weak analogies. But hey, if the owner really wants to let people p*** all over his floor, then have at it. But p***ing on the floor I would think is much more of a health hazard, than allowing smoking.
Pee is sterile and can be used as an IV in an emergency. I comes right out of the bloodstream - no health hazard at all. Tobacco, OHO kills millions globally each year. Try to get something right for a change.
So am I to understand it is your position that
tobacoo smoke is NOT harmfull, that it not a gross nuisance, that it does NOT
create respiratory and olfactory distress. Is that your position?
No, that is NOT my position. My position is that the study confirming that second hand smoke is a major public health risk, the study in which all anti-smoking legislation is based on, has been determined by a federal court to be flawed. Therefore, the truth is yet unknown because an honest study has yet to be conducted.
Quote:
Is it your position that the right of the smoker is absolute, and the right
of regular people to engage in basic human activities such as breathing are
subservient, and fully limited?
Once again, people do not have a "right to smoke" wherever they want except on their own property. No one on this thread has said anything to the contrary. Quit lying. Your attempt to muddy the waters and re-shape the debate is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bridges
Once again, you have failed utterly to grasp the essence. Property rights are one thing, personal rights, rights related to such basic things as breathing, are quite another.
If you don't like basic regulation on the operation of your business - Move it somewhere else!!!!
Using your logic, I have the right to sue a city because they allowed toxic car exhaust to float through the air as I walked down the street.
You are assuming that you have a right to control the air wherever you go, and that is not true. That is a very arrogant assumption. Also using your logic, you should be able to walk in to my home, on my property and demand that I quit smoking in your presence as to not violate your personal right to breath clean air. Your "right" is assumed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bridges
Yo, Browns fan, if you want to see someone calling names, you might check out Snapper's post
I call them like I see them. In my experience, most anti-smokers are idiots who base their arguments not on fact, not on logic, but instead their festering hatred for smokers.
There are a few people who are just curious to see how someone might possibly defend repealing smoking bans. Their minds are still open and they can still be reached with sound, fact based arguments. Those are the people I post for.
No it's a worker safety issue. Get a lawyer and put your money where your mouth is. You complainers are all talk.
The worker safety issue can be solved with a warning on the application form. No workplace is inherently safe and every worker assumes certain risks when they agree to work somewhere.
As for fighting the bans in court? There have been several cases that have went to court over these laws. Some emerge victorious, most fail. You see, there is just too much money involved for the parties involved to repeal these laws. There is a LOT of money to be made by banning tobacco use in public, demonizing the act of smoking, dehumanizing smokers themselves, etc. Why do you think this is one of the very few issues that are non-partisan?
Anyone who believes the anti-smoking crusade has anything to do with "health" needs to pull their head out of the sand because they are being made to look like fools.
Pee is sterile and can be used as an IV in an emergency. I comes right out of the bloodstream - no health hazard at all. Tobacco, OHO kills millions globally each year. Try to get something right for a change.
Really? Show me one death certificate that lists the cause of death as "Tobacco"...
Let me save you some time... you won't find one.
Now you'll say that it will list a disease caused by tobacco, right? Prove that. The other night I was watching piers morgan and he had the guy from star-trek on talking about his COPD. His doctors blamed his tobacco use of course, never mind the fact that he had quit smoking over 30 years ago. That's 30 years of exposure to likely millions of toxic substances, any one of them could have potentially caused his COPD but were completely discounted by brainwashed doctors. It's important to note that I'm not saying his smoking 30 years ago didn't cause the COPD, it may well have, but the doctors blame smoking without considering any of the other possible variables that could have led to him having this illness. This is the standard in the healthcare industry, and thus, no real statistics exist on the yearly mortality rates of people who died from diseases caused by smoking.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 02-14-2014 at 05:03 PM..
Since this thread is getting so much attention I feel it is important to post again the fact the the study by the EPA confirming the "dangers" of second hand smoke, the study in which all health organizations base their statistics, was THROWN OUT by a federal court for unethical practices used by the EPA.
People are such sheep and believe everything they are TOLD to believe.
And also Mr. Mike, while I have you here, if you walk in to a bar and someone is smoking, YOUR rights are not being offended, because you have NO right to control your environment wherever you go. Only on your own property do you have the right to control whats in your environment.
So, a lawyer rejects one study, and that leads you to believe tobacco smoke is harmless? You do realize there are many studies from many countries which confirm 2nd hand smoke is harmful.
So, a lawyer rejects one study, and that leads you to believe tobacco smoke is harmless? You do realize there are many studies from many countries which confirm 2nd hand smoke is harmful.
I've already addressed your question several times in the last two pages.
Yes, you said all anti-smoking legislation is based one EPA study, which of course if not true.
It doesn't matter what it's based on. All that matters is that people are protected from being "forced" to inhale second hand smoke if they choose not too. That should not extend to preventing those that want to and/or do not mind from doing so.
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.
