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 agree that smoking should be banned in all public busildings, that is, buildings that are funded and maintained with tax payer dollars, or any building that the public has a legal right to be in. However, private businesses where the public is invited in are not public buildings by any means, and no one has a legal right to be there except the owner himself. Therefore, all private property rights should be reserved to the owner.
Except, if you are in MY business, it is not YOUR air, it is my air. Your air ends at your property line.
Then I hope you don't have any HVAC or filtration equipment in your business, because suddenly YOUR air is now MY air.
Consider this thread to have jumped the shark now that we are bickering over who owns the air.
Whilst I can understand the objection in terms of second hand smoke causing cancer, as a non-smoker myself. I can not however understand any objection to e - cigarettes which don't emit any cancer causing fumes.
It is purely about brainwashing the public. The city councils in NYC and in LA admitted as much when they enacted bans on e-cigs.
They said "they didn't want the sight of smoking to be normalised once again on subway cars and in train stations."
They "didn't want e-cigs to undo the years of effort it took to place a stigma on smoking and smokers themselves"
Ahhh yes... group think, and going along to get along. God forbid someone be able to think for themselves, and simply not patronize a place that allows it's patrons to smoke. Why do you and others feel that you need big nanny gubbermint to hold your hand for you, and make your decisions for you?
I don't know what to tell you except that the majority of people disagree with you. And we didn't arrive at this point overnight. Intentionally breathing carcinogens is bad, groupthink or no groupthink.
Quote:
God forbid someone be able to think for themselves,
Straw man.
Quote:
Why do you and others feel that you need big nanny gubbermint to hold your hand for you, and make your decisions for you?
Then I hope you don't have any HVAC or filtration equipment in your business, because suddenly YOUR air is now MY air.
Consider this thread to have jumped the shark now that we are bickering over who owns the air.
But that is exactly what this thread is all about....
Non-smokers think they have a "right" to control what is in the air wherever they go.... They think that because they are present, the air quality must be maintained in such a way as to accomodate their presence.
I don't know what to tell you except that the majority of people disagree with you. And we didn't arrive at this point overnight. Intentionally breathing carcinogens is bad, groupthink or no groupthink.
.
When the anti-smoking crowd starts calling for bans on public candle burning, which emits many caner causing toxins, and some are even as bad or worse than second hand smoke, then they may have a point. Until then, they are nothibng but hypocrites with selective outrage.
Non-smokers think they have a "right" to control what is in the air wherever they go.... They think that because they are present, the air quality must be maintained in such a way as to accomodate their presence.
You're teetering on the brink of a straw man. And like I said to the other guy, and it sort applies to the gay marriage threads too: your side lost. Society moved on.
I don't know what to tell you except that the majority of people disagree with you. And we didn't arrive at this point overnight. Breathing carcinogens is bad, groupthink or no groupthink.
Nevertheless, it should be up to the business owner to decide, as well as your decision as to whether or not to patronize the place. And if we're b***ing and moaning about breathing carcinogens, well then you'd better ban automobiles, or BBQs because they throw off more carcinogens than the occasional exposure to second hand smoke.
Straw man.
Translation= Truth hurts.
Straw man.
Translation= Again truth hurts. Funny how you fight for legalization of cannabis which I too support, yet you fight for restrictions against businesses when it comes tobacco. I guess the difference between you and I is that I truly believe that the government should not dictate what we eat, drink, or smoke, and I sure as hell don't believe that smoking bans against private establishments should be enacted via government force. You on the other hand are only for the freedom and liberty of others when it suits you. Again, you're free to go elsewhere.
When the anti-smoking crowd starts calling for bans on public candle burning, which emits many caner causing toxins, and some are even as bad or worse than second hand smoke, then they may have a point. Until then, they are nothibng but hypocrites with selective outrage.
When you can prove that someone contracted lung cancer FROM A BLEEPING CANDLE, then you might have a point. Until then, you have absolutely no point.
Honestly, I've been following the smoking ban debate for a good decade, and I haven't heard that one yet. Good one.
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.
