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.
He believes you're a drug addict who should not be allowed to choose what you want to do. He believes he and the government should step in and choose the place where you can do your drugs. Just like Bloomberg wanted force people to eat and drink what he thought everyone should be eating or drinking because everyone is addicted to junk foods and we need government to save us from us.
That is false, I don't care if he feeds his addiction, I just don't think I should have to cater to him and allow him to fire up wherever he needs because he can't control his own cravings. He is more than welcome to step outside to feed his addiction.
Private business rights only go so far. Its a very bad argument, and is a very slippery slope. You are on the edge of I don't want to serve Ni##ers, or Jews, or Indians, or some other idea that is not going to fly. If you want to only serve green eggs and ham I am sure its legal and no one is going to say a thing and you may even get the idiot Ted Cruze to come in. But to say your going to force someone to waft your crap carcinogenic garbage is totally a asinine idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxondale351
BS argument, first off for every 1 person out of 1000 who may be allergic to some perfume every one is at risk of Tobacco smoke. Its a very poor argument indeed. There are levels of bad, Tobacco smoke has now been proven to be dangerous to second hand smokers and this is why the idiots like Limbaugh have quietly shut up about it, Penn and Teller have apologized for the show BS where they said second hand smoke was not dangerous. Your argument is about as dumb as saying that if bars can have peanuts and someone could come in contact with them and are allergic therefore lets let people smoke. LOL That was great argument, NOT!!!
I think you need to work on your reading (not to mention spelling) skills, because I said MORE than once that I support the current smoking laws. I also support some government control over "private" business practices, and was only arguing against the reasons given by posters on this thread.
But I guess the concept of playing devil's advocate, or debating the whole issue as opposed to specifics, is lost on people here. And for the record, there are millions of people who suffer from fragrance allergies. Millions. You also can't get cancer from eating in a restaurant with a smoker inside, but now you'll probably say I'm trying to justify the habit - which I have never and will never do, considering I think it's as disgusting as you do. Can you understand that, or will I have to repeat myself again?
Then challenge the law if you feel it should be repealed. You smoking indoors affects everyone within the establishment. That is unfair of you as a smoker. But regardless, states with smoking bans are on my side, but you are free to try to challenge those laws if you want.
I do not smoke... SO what if it affects everyone in the establishment when everyone in the establishment knew and accepted that people would be smoking BEFORE they walked into the door? I know that we are free to challenge the law. That was the whole point of this thread. You do not have a valid reason other than "it's what you want" even though you or other non smokers would not be affected.
That is false, I don't care if he feeds his addiction, I just don't think I should have to cater to him and allow him to fire up wherever he needs because he can't control his own cravings. He is more than welcome to step outside to feed his addiction.
YOU do not have to cater to anyone. The owner of the business should be allowed to if he/she sees fit. I do not understand why it's so hard for you to understand this concept.
You are not forced to patronize a restaurant or bar. Thus, you are not forced to breathe smoke if a restaurant or bar owner allows it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I don't recall anyone suggesting we have a law making it mandatory a bar allows smoking, who is it again that is imposing?
So, since you are compelled to smoke due to nicotine addiction, you should have the right to consume a toxic substance in a public place for others to breathe?
So, since you are compelled to smoke due to nicotine addiction, you should have the right to consume a toxic substance in a public place for others to breathe?
Yes, if that toxic substance is legal to smoke and the others who are breathing it are consenting Adults, then they should be allowed to smoke in private establishments.
So, since you are compelled to smoke due to nicotine addiction, you should have the right to consume a toxic substance in a public place for others to breathe?
It wouldn't be the only toxic substance you're exposed to regularly, and might even be one of the least dangerous to bystanders - especially if we're talking about smoking outside in public spaces.
And no, this doesn't mean I personally want indoor establishments to allow smoking. Thought I'd add that yet again, since nobody else seems to understand one can debate an issue without actually taking a personal side.
You have the choice to smoke whenever you want, just step outside and fire up.
Unfortunately (and despite my desire to always do so), it's not even that easy these days - at least not in California! We now have entire TOWNS banning smoking, in addition to outdoor spaces likes parks, beaches, and college campuses. You also have to be a certain distance from any public window or door, which in a dense urban area like SF can be quite difficult to obey.
Seriously, they may as well just ban tobacco altogether at this point... not that it would keep people from smoking anyway, but at least then I wouldn't have to check the new laws daily to appease the whiners.
I do not smoke... SO what if it affects everyone in the establishment when everyone in the establishment knew and accepted that people would be smoking BEFORE they walked into the door? I know that we are free to challenge the law. That was the whole point of this thread. You do not have a valid reason other than "it's what you want" even though you or other non smokers would not be affected.
Why does everyone just have to accept that? Basically you are saying "it's what you want" just because people use to smoke indoors. People use to smoke on planes, but now they don't, times change, laws change.
I never gave you a any reason for the law because I don't care what you think what I think is valid or not, if you are interested in the reason for a smoking ban law, you can read the law, it will explain the purpose to you.
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.