Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-18-2018, 09:45 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,881,794 times
Reputation: 15644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D View Post
Nobody (except you and your Red Herring) are talking about making them illegal. Just minor restrictions on where their effluent can be spewed. Simple, common-sense rules that respect the rights or non-addicts who don't want to assaulted with tobacco-filth spewed with utter disregard by the filthiest dung-heaps among us (that would be smokers, in case you're still in denial).
Minor? MINOR? Do you even read the crap you write? In a nutshell you've advocated that they can only smoke locked in a hermetically sealed environment. Minor my arse, a flat out lie if there ever was one.

It's just more dictatorial Nazism spew, where only your rights/opinions matter. There's no other description that's accurate.
What's comforting is YOUR spew has not and will NOT change anything. One bright note, I'll be thinking of you while shaking my head and chuckling whenever I see someone light up anything in public. Maybe even when I see a volcano erupt.

Continue on with your trolling, I've been quite clear on my thoughts, I'm done playing with you...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2018, 09:48 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,881,794 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by addakisson View Post
Smoking is not illegal.



However, until they can figure a way for the obnoxious cigarette stink not to waft thru the air effecting other people, please wait till you get outside to smoke.
I agree except as you see repeatedly here even that is too much for some of the weaker persuasion...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 10:23 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,443,956 times
Reputation: 15329
There is a citi bank call center close to my house, just recently Ive been seeing large crowds of people standing around smoking on the opposite side of the street (vacant lot for now). turns out Citi will no longer permit employees to smoke anywhere on the property, even in the employees cars, so they all cross the street and smoke there.

Im not sure how Citi can do that, if they choose to smoke in their cars, that is their private property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 02:25 PM
 
4,336 posts, read 1,532,471 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
There is a citi bank call center close to my house, just recently Ive been seeing large crowds of people standing around smoking on the opposite side of the street (vacant lot for now). turns out Citi will no longer permit employees to smoke anywhere on the property, even in the employees cars, so they all cross the street and smoke there.

Im not sure how Citi can do that, if they choose to smoke in their cars, that is their private property.
If I was Citi Bank, I would ban smoking on my property and my time. And, I would NOT let them bring the stench of tobacco back into the office. So, if you go out to smoke, you best be off the clock, off the property and don't both come back because you, like all smokers, will stink like a bucket of #2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 02:31 PM
 
4,336 posts, read 1,532,471 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Minor? MINOR? Do you even read the crap you write? In a nutshell you've advocated that they can only smoke locked in a hermetically sealed environment. Minor my arse, a flat out lie if there ever was one.

It's just more dictatorial Nazism spew, where only your rights/opinions matter. There's no other description that's accurate.
What's comforting is YOUR spew has not and will NOT change anything. One bright note, I'll be thinking of you while shaking my head and chuckling whenever I see someone light up anything in public. Maybe even when I see a volcano erupt.

Continue on with your trolling, I've been quite clear on my thoughts, I'm done playing with you...
Yes, minor. Go somewhere all by yourself, where normal people are NOT and spew your filth. Your hyperbolic reaction to a few minor restrictions shows that you are disingenuous in the extreme.

I never said people can't smoke in public. What I said is they can't pollute the air normal people, i.e. non-addicts, i.e. non-smokers, are breathing. In other words, keep your filthy stinking toxic, to your filthy, stinking toxic self.

Minor inconvenience. Less onerous than restrictions on drinking in public, and drinking in public, doesn't, per se, pollute the air others are breathing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 02:36 PM
 
4,336 posts, read 1,532,471 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Minor? MINOR? Do you even read the crap you write? In a nutshell you've advocated that they can only smoke locked in a hermetically sealed environment. Minor my arse, a flat out lie if there ever was one.

It's just more dictatorial Nazism spew, where only your rights/opinions matter. There's no other description that's accurate.
What's comforting is YOUR spew has not and will NOT change anything. One bright note, I'll be thinking of you while shaking my head and chuckling whenever I see someone light up anything in public. Maybe even when I see a volcano erupt.

Continue on with your trolling, I've been quite clear on my thoughts, I'm done playing with you...
Yes, minor. Go somewhere all by yourself, where normal people are NOT and spew your filth. Your hyperbolic reaction to a few minor restrictions shows that you are disingenuous in the extreme.

I never said people can't smoke in public. What I said is they can't pollute the air normal people, i.e. non-addicts, i.e. non-smokers, are breathing. In other words, keep your filthy stinking toxic, to your filthy, stinking toxic self.

Minor inconvenience. Less onerous than restrictions on drinking in public, and drinking in public, doesn't, per se, pollute the air others are breathing. In fact, you can't even tell the difference between somebody drinking a Coke, or a Coke spiked with Rum unless you taste it.

Do you also find restrictions on public drinking onerous as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 02:49 PM
Status: "Ephesians 6:12" (set 20 days ago)
 
45,021 posts, read 26,171,848 times
Reputation: 24765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D View Post
If I was Citi Bank, I would ban smoking on my property and my time. And, I would NOT let them bring the stench of tobacco back into the office. So, if you go out to smoke, you best be off the clock, off the property and don't both come back because you, like all smokers, will stink like a bucket of #2.
If you were Citi Bank I'd support your right to do all of the above.
If you were Citi Bank I'd also support your right to allow smoking on the premises, in offices, on the clock, etc. (none of which would I personally want to be near).
ain't consistency a b****?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 03:38 PM
 
4,336 posts, read 1,532,471 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
If you were Citi Bank I'd support your right to do all of the above.
If you were Citi Bank I'd also support your right to allow smoking on the premises, in offices, on the clock, etc. (none of which would I personally want to be near).
ain't consistency a b****?
Let me break it down to simpler terms.

Two people in an office, A and B

Both are human, so both are breathing and in an area they have a right to be.


Person A Loves to burn malodorous incense that stinks so bad, and is so laced with toxins, that it drives person B out of the area to seek refuge from the stench, and to find breathable air. Person A has just violated person B's fights.

Person B likes to play music so loud it hurts the ears of others (he is is a bit deaf) and causes person A to seek refuge elsewhere. Person B has just violated person A's rights.


Now both have a right to do what they like to do (burning incense/playing music), but neither has a right to do so in such a way as to violate the rights of others.

As my Dad used to say, "your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose".


Now, I hope you can get your mind around this concept that you don't have the right to exercise a right to and beyond the point where it violates other's rights.

For example, you have a right to walk down the sidewalk, but you don't have the right to do so in such a manner as to run into others thereby violating their rights.

In an era where almost everyone smoked, it wasn't an issue, but now, with only a tiny percentage of people need the crutch of tobacco to get through there day, the game has changed.

MJ is now legal in many places. Would you feel it is ok for a doper to light up a joint right next to you and your family? Of course not - no sane person would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 04:10 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,299 posts, read 18,450,072 times
Reputation: 22160
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Its very possible, its exactly what happened with cigarettes decades ago, some doctors were even promoting smoking as being healthy thing to do! Today, its cell phones, no one really takes the possible risks seriously, due to how popular they are, (just like smoking was years ago), it was too popular for people to start heeding the warning signs.

Just like people today look back to those years and ask how it was possible cigarettes were not seen as dangerous...well, in the decades to come, cell phones or something else that we use every day, may turn out the same way, people in the future will asking how it was possible no one saw the risk in those days!

Theres actually a number of products from the past that fit into this category (popular at one time, but no one thought them to be dangerous until many years later), if history is any indicator, there is probably alot of products being used right now that will eventually found to be dangerous.
Exactly. Good post. And it is generally the people that counter that claim the most who, just like an addicted smoker in the 60s, don't want to even fathom life without a cell phone. I look around me every day and see a smartphone in nearly every hand, just as when I was a little kid, I saw a cigarette in every hand. It's obvious to me that it cannot be healthy either physically or mentally. When EVERY person has a phone to their face... there is something wrong with this picture. It's addiction, plain and simple.

NOW... yeah, I do have a cell phone (a "dumbphone"). Don't use it much. Wouldn't have it at all if not for work. I don't even carry it most of the time. It sits at home like a landline (it's cheaper than a landline, I pay about 30 dollars every three or four months--it's a pre-paid).

Bottom line is, I have been around a lot of people addicted to one thing or another over the years. What's going on around me with smartphones is an addiction. And of course, the addicts aren't going to even consider the possibility that they are addicted or that their addiction is dangerous physically or mentally.


Watch this scene and pretend that each of these guys have cell phones in their hands (of COURSE cell phones are safe!):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOjEvc4DSLI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 09:53 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,881,794 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D View Post
Yes, minor. Go somewhere all by yourself, where normal people are NOT and spew your filth. Your hyperbolic reaction to a few minor restrictions shows that you are disingenuous in the extreme.

I never said people can't smoke in public. What I said is they can't pollute the air normal people, i.e. non-addicts, i.e. non-smokers, are breathing. In other words, keep your filthy stinking toxic, to your filthy, stinking toxic self.

Minor inconvenience. Less onerous than restrictions on drinking in public, and drinking in public, doesn't, per se, pollute the air others are breathing
So now you're "Normal"? Bwaaaaa haaaa haaa haaaaaa. ROFLMAO... You've got no idea...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top