Repeal smoking bans in bars and restaurants (doctor, newspaper, city)
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.
Yes, but that is not callng anybody a name. That is describing a class of persons with a descriptive term. You might use the same term on people who where Heroin addicts, and properly so.
This is also BS as it is never going to happen. Not now not ever, even other countries in Asia are starting to see smoking tobacco for the health hazard it is. To whine about this is about as dumb as saying lets bring back slavery. LOL Stupid people wishing for stupid things.
Well, there are still those of us who still respect the individual freedoms of others regardless of whether we approve or not, and we're not going away. Perhaps since you anti-smoking folks want to play hard ball, I should start hammering on wanting to restrict the rights of gay people or whatever social issue that you liberals are always distracted by? I won't, because of course it is a conflict with my beliefs and ideology of individual liberties, and my motto of live and let live. And where in the hell do YOU get off saying a business can't do whatever it wants? What are you, a dictator? Statements like that are further proof that we really own nothing in this country. Why not turn all businesses over to the state?
Yes Mike.... it is about control. If it wasn't, you would support the choice of the business owner in making the decision to allow it or not, regardless if you like smoking or not. If it bothers you, then you could go elsewhere.
If you support the "right" of one group of people to foul the air other's are breathing with a toxic known carcinogen under some misguided logical perversion than such a position is standing for individual freedom, then you are beyond the pale.
I suppose you support the individual freedom to rape women too. Just a difference of scale.
I notice you haven't come out in favor of the individual liberty to breath unpolluted air. That one seems to have scooted right by your radar screen undetected.
the inescapable fact remains a the core. If smokers had a modicum of respect for the rights of regular people, and use their drug is a place/manner that doesn't render the air unfit for human consumption, none of this would be necessary, but you don't, so society has come to its own defense.
Even you, I suspect, well, at least hope, would place the right to breath over the right to use drugs - right?? On second thought, if is a choice between the right of someone ELSE to breath, and the right of YOURSELF to use drug, I suspect you are on the side of using drug.
Violating the rights of others NOT to be assaulted with toxins is neither the right of the individual or owner of a public accommodation. Your argument falls well short of the mark.
The right NOT to be harmed, to be assaulted with toxins is a high-order right, and no business owner has the right to waive a patrons right not to be assaulted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Nope in this country we have labor laws and made it so workers won't have to subjected to unnecessarily unsafe/non-healthy working conditions. It has been decided LEGALLY, in many states that second hand smoke provide is a health concern and not allowed.....
This isn't an issue of not liking so you can go somewhere else. Educate yourself and realize you lost as smokers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bridges
You, as a business owner, are, of course, free to allow smoking in your establishment - no arguments whatsoever, from me.
What you don't have is the right to waive my right NOT be assaulted by the toxins smokers generate. If you are going to allow a dangerous activity, it is on YOU to insure that the carrying out of that activity doesn't harm others.
Imagine I had a bb-gun range, and allowed people to shoot bb-guns. that is my right, but I don't have the right to authorize others to shoot other patrons. I can't waive your rights NOT To be harmed, even if the action that harms you is ancillary to the business.
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.
Quote:
In one of the most embarrassing setbacks for EPA in recent memory, a federal
judge has thrown out the agency’s landmark 1993 risk assessment linking
secondhand smoke to cancer
In his blistering 92-page decision, Judge William Osteen of the Middle
District of North Carolina essentially vindicated those who had accused EPA of
manipulating data in order to reach a preconceived conclusion. Osteen ruled that
EPA had violated provisions of the 1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Act,
under which the agency determined that exposure to ETS is hazardous.
“EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded
industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established
procedure and established scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public
conclusion; and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate
findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict
Plaintiff’s products and to influence public opinion,” Osteen wrote.
Tobacco companies argued that EPA cherry-picked data and ignored
standard scientific and statistical practices to reach its conclusions, an
opinion shared by a large number of independent scientists.
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.
One of the big problems with this debate is that a lot of these anti-smoking IDIOTS persist in believing that we as smokers think we have some sort of "right" to smoke wherever we want whenever we want, and nothing could be further from the truth. I don't have a "right" to smoke anywhere but on my own property. The real issue here, for the millionth time, is property rights and the free market, along with freedom of choice, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
We have said this many times, and it is continually ignored, probably because you don't want to acknowledge the larger issues at hand, which I described above.
Well, there are still those of us who still respect the individual freedoms of others regardless of whether we approve or not, and we're not going away. Perhaps since you anti-smoking folks want to play hard ball, I should start hammering on wanting to restrict the rights of gay people or whatever social issue that you liberals are always distracted by? I won't, because of course it is a conflict with my beliefs and ideology of individual liberties, and my motto of live and let live. And where in the hell do YOU get off saying a business can't do whatever it wants? What are you, a dictator? Statements like that are further proof that we really own nothing in this country. Why not turn all businesses over to the state?
Again. It's about worker safety.....
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?
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 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?
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?
One of the big problems with this debate is that a lot of these anti-smoking IDIOTS persist in believing that we as smokers think we have some sort of "right" to smoke wherever we want whenever we want, and nothing could be further from the truth. I don't have a "right" to smoke anywhere but on my own property. The real issue here, for the millionth time, is property rights and the free market, along with freedom of choice, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
We have said this many times, and it is continually ignored, probably because you don't want to acknowledge the larger issues at hand, which I described above.
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!!!!
One of the big problems with this debate is that a lot of these anti-smoking IDIOTS persist in believing that we as smokers think we have some sort of "right" to smoke wherever we want whenever we want, and nothing could be further from the truth. I don't have a "right" to smoke anywhere but on my own property. The real issue here, for the millionth time, is property rights and the free market, along with freedom of choice, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
We have said this many times, and it is continually ignored, probably because you don't want to acknowledge the larger issues at hand, which I described above.
Yo, Browns fan, if you want to see someone calling names, you might check out Snapper's post
One of the big problems with this debate is that a lot of these anti-smoking IDIOTS persist in believing that we as smokers think we have some sort of "right" to smoke wherever we want whenever we want, and nothing could be further from the truth. I don't have a "right" to smoke anywhere but on my own property. The real issue here, for the millionth time, is property rights and the free market, along with freedom of choice, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
We have said this many times, and it is continually ignored, probably because you don't want to acknowledge the larger issues at hand, which I described above.
No it's a worker safety issue. Get a lawyer and put your money where your mouth is. You complainers are all talk.
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.
