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.
Yet, you still have problems understanding no matter how much I dumb it down. I can't make it any more simple or "dumber" for you Urban. I do not know whether any smoking ban in the U.S. has ever been repealed or not. Either way, that's irreverent to what we're currently discussing. We're currently discussing whether current smoking bans should be repealed. It makes no difference, for the sake of this debate, if a ban has or has not been repealed before in the past.
You are trying to control other adults, smokers, and business owners, and to answer your question, if the people who were going to be eating the Cooks food knew about & were okay with the cook smoking, then YES, it should be okay only under those circumstances.
I was asking you specifically, if you walked into a restaurant and saw the cooks chain smoking while cooking your food, would you stay and eat it?
I was asking you specifically, if you walked into a restaurant and saw the cooks chain smoking while cooking your food, would you stay and eat it?
This is a reasonable enough question which is why I have decided to reply to you once again.
My answer to your question is NO, I would not eat at a place where the cook was smoking a cigarette over top my food, dropping ashes on it and blowing the smoke on to it.
That is the beauty of the free market place. I can choose not to eat there and it's likely that others wouldn't eat there either if that was going on, causing the loss of business. In that event, the owner would either ban smioking himself, or the place would go out of business. It would be my choice not to eat there, and I wouldmake that choice without forcing nmy view on to anyone else.
I don't like it?
I don't give them my business.
It's dumbfounding why such a simple concept eludes so many of you.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 02-15-2014 at 02:27 PM..
This is a reasonable enough question which is why I have decided to reply to you once again.
My answer to your question is NO, I would not eat at a place where the cook was smoking a cigarette over top my food, dropping ashes on it and blowing the smoke on to it.
That is the beauty of the free market place. I can choose not to eat there and it's likely that others wouldn't eat there either if that was going on, causing the loss of business. In that event, the owner would either ban smioking himself, or the place would go out of business. It would be my choice not to eat there, and I wouldmake that choice without forcing nmy view on to anyone else.
I don't like it?
I don't go in.
Simple.....
Well that restaurant would be shut down for a major health code violation, not left open for the patrons to decide if they want to go there or not.
Dehumanizing smokers makes it easier for government to pass bans which leads to more revenue from fines etc.
Dehumanizing smokers also places a stigma on smokers, which leads to them wanting to quit, which creates an entirely new market for the healthcare industry to exploit with the sale of gums, patches, and medications.
I have been to lots of bars since smoking bans went into effect and haven't heard of any smokers being fined, they tend to have no problem stepping outside to smoke. My bet is besides your whining on the internet, you comply with the law and step outside whenever you need to smoke.
That is something quantifiable. This is your rodeo so tell me how tobacco fines compares to tobacco revenues.
It's the best of both world for local governments. Pass bans and collect fines from violators, and get a steady income from taxes on tobacco.
Quote:
Well yes.... now since we know adverse health affects of smoking, I'm sure there would be more people quitting..... Cancer and smoking related illnesses are more costly than quitting smoking....
So I'm confused.... Healthcare would make a lot more money treating smokers.....
Yes, that is true. The fact is, even if the damaging effects of smoking are known, not everyone is going to quit, but some will, creating a large market for cessation drugs. Some will even buy the cessation drugs and return to smoking later. Am I saying it's one big conspiracy? I don't know, maybe not, but I find it awfuly paculair that the industry that is saying how deadly smoking is, is the same industry that makes a profit by selling you cessation drugs.
Quote:
I have. So now you are jumping to the govt wants you to die..... since you voluntarily choose to start using a highly addictive substance? Sucks you "whippersnappers" didn't have the knowledge to understand smoking's effects.
Lol, of course the government wants people to die. They rely on the fact that a large portion of society will pay in to the system, and die before they are ever able to collect. That is the only way the social security system can function properly. If you don't believe me or think I'm being dramatic, then go look up the studies outlining ratio between how much someone will contribute to the system during their working years verses how much they'll end up taking out during retirement. People end up taking out a lot more than they put in, so the only way the social security program works is if people put in but never take out or take out for far less time
Quote:
....well and healthcare costs. If no one smoked then healthcare costs would be lower.
I don't understand why people persist in believing this fallacy. The cost of treating smoking related illness has no effect on your health insurance. The government is compensated yearly by the tobacco companies for the cost to healthcare their prodicts cause. The government was given a 206 BILLION dollar settlement to be paid over a twenty-five year period of time. A cigarette smoker is taxes $1.01 by the federal government everytime they buy a pack of cigarettes, and that isn't even including state and local taxes that they are also charged. And, nowadays, smokers pay higher insurance premiums than non-smokers do because they smoke. So, give the whole "they're driving up the cost of my healthcare" schtick a rest. It's just another lie propagated by the anti-smoking movements to further turn the tide of public sentiment in their favor.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 02-15-2014 at 02:59 PM..
I have been to lots of bars since smoking bans went into effect and haven't heard of any smokers being fined, they tend to have no problem stepping outside to smoke. My bet is besides your whining on the internet, you comply with the law and step outside whenever you need to smoke.
You're bet would be wrong. I have a smoking ban in my state but there is still one bar in my area that allows it's patrons to smoke. When I asked the owner about it he told me that he had no choice because probably 95% of his clientele are smokers. He just pays the fines I guess, and that is the only bar I patronized out of the three others close by when I smoked. Again, I don't smoke.
And they aren't out to fine individuals who violate the ban so much as they are for the businesses. If I got caught smoking where I shouldn't it's a $100 dollar fine, small potatoes compared to the $2500 fine for businesses that allow it.
No, its not property rights. It's health and safety. Would you be allowed to run a bar where you sprayed some toxic chemical into the air your patrons had to breath?
I wonder how many other "toxic chemicals and substances" are wafting around through the air that you pay no attention to or give any thought of. Sure cigarette smoke is gone, but that says nothing of the other million substances you are probably exposed to on a daily basis. Hey, as long as you maintain your false sense of security, good on you for sticking it to the smokers.
That is why taking the anti-smokers seriously is so difficult. They are delusional.
Quote:
Cigarette smoke IS a poison and harms many times over. The employees of a business also have the right to be protected from harmful chemicals including smoke. The cost of the waitress's health matters as much as the desire of the customer to puff away.
Even conservative areas are drawing the line on smoking today.
Except you are missing one major point:
Waitresses and bartenders do not have to work there. They are not forced to work there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Actually, there is a mountain of evidence about the harmful effects of smoking. I cited a study in a previous post showing that even low levels of exposure to cigarette smoke cause damage to DNA. Of course, smokers deny the evidence in order to rationalize their continued wish to smoke.
There is no defined level of safe exposure to tobacco smoke.
Do you have a source for your statement that tobacco smoke is not an allergen? Since it contains over 4000 substances. I find that hard to believe.
It doesn't matter how harmful it is, that is not the point. The point is, you chose to walk in to that bar and expose yourself to second hand smoke which you kinow is dangerous. You chose to wait tables at that diner knowing how dangerous second hand smoke was, so it's on you.
If I want to jump in to a pool of nuclear waste, that is my perogative. If I don't want to, I'll stay away from it and I won't work around it. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
And I've told you that it's been decided by the courts that labor safety trumps that.
We know what the law says and we know what the courts have decided. It is our contention that the courts have over-reached and are wrong.
Something's not adding up in your 'sound' logic.... you just said how government and healthcare MAKES BANK from smokers.... did I miss something?
Obviously.
Dehumanizing smokers makes it easier for government to pass bans which leads to more revenue from fines etc.
Dehumanizing smokers also places a stigma on smokers, which leads to them wanting to quit, which creates an entirely new market for the healthcare industry to exploit with the sale of gums, patches, and medications.
I wonder how many other "toxic chemicals and substances" are wafting around through the air that you pay no attention to or give any thought of. Sure cigarette smoke is gone, but that says nothing of the other million substances you are probably exposed to on a daily basis. Hey, as long as you maintain your false sense of security, good on you for sticking it to the smokers.
That is why taking the anti-smokers seriously is so difficult. They are delusional.
Except you are missing one major point:
Waitresses and bartenders do not have to work there. They are not forced to work there.
It doesn't matter how harmful it is, that is not the point. The point is, you chose to walk in to that bar and expose yourself to second hand smoke which you kinow is dangerous. You chose to wait tables at that diner knowing how dangerous second hand smoke was, so it's on you.
If I want to jump in to a pool of nuclear waste, that is my perogative. If I don't want to, I'll stay away from it and I won't work around it.
Simple.
We know what the law says and we know what the courts have decided. It is our contention that the courts have over-reached and are wrong.
A huge part of the problem is smokers think they are normal people who just chose to, say, chew Juicy Fruit instead of Spearmint flavored gum. they are not. They are drug addicts who spend most of their waking hours on a drug-high, and regularly stoke that addiction. While being a pathetic, weak-wiledl narcissistic drug addict is bad, that in and of itself is not the real problem.
The problem is that their drug addiction stoking involves the discharge of massive amounts of vile, drug-effluent into the breathing air, normal people have a priority-order right to breath, and NOT have it polluted with a toxic, addicting, carcinogenic, lung, eye, throat and nasal irritant.
It is not the addicts air to pollute, no matter where it is, save, inside their own property, and they don't have any right to pollute it with their vile toxin, any more that anyone else has a right to soil the public drinking water supply with sewerage. The majority can't suffer for the craven addiction of a few.
Find a way to get your high on without harming others - Vape. e-cig or whatever, but stop assuming that the world is your ashtray, and the noses, lungs, etc., of the normal people are but air filters for your filth.
Until that happens, just think of your head as an anvil upon which the hammer of justice will repeatedly fall.
Dehumanizing smokers makes it easier for government to pass bans which leads to more revenue from fines etc.
Dehumanizing smokers also places a stigma on smokers, which leads to them wanting to quit, which creates an entirely nww market for the healthcare industry to exploit with the sale of gums, patches, and medications.
Smokers dehumanize themselves by their arrogant, narcissistic attiidudes and actions against normal people.
Don't want to reap, stop sowing. Until then, tattoo your head with "Anvil", and prepare for the repeated blows of Justice upon it.
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.
