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.
There is no law against owning dogs, and there shouldn't be.
Some cities like Miami have restrictions. For example, you cannot own a pit bull in Miami-Dade County.
Many gated communities have restrictions too. To tell you the truth, if there was a city just for smokers, it would make my life a lot easier. Then I'd know never to go there. Let me put it this way..since the non-smoking area of a restaurant and non-smoking rooms in hotels are always the first to book, smokers must be the minority. So they could have their own little town and most people wouldn't care. In 2002 over 70% of Florida voters voted yes on Amendment 6. Florida's not exactly a liberal state either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The same rules should apply to secondhand smoke. As long as you keep it on a leash, don't allow it to molest the public, and take it home with you instead of leaving the mess in areas that the public may frequent, smoking should be allowed anywhere.
I love dogs. but when I worked in a furniture store, I didn't like it when people would walk in with their pets. One dog peed on the carpet. Another left a spot on $1,000 white sofa. But when it comes to pets, people will argue to the death that their dogs don't smell, have fleas, bite, etc. Still, it's better than leaving them in a hot car to suffer. However, it would make more sense to leave your pet at home when you shop.
In any case, smoking is not the same, since there is no way to contain it in one area and the odor lingers and gets into fabrics. I've walked into a restroom many times after someone just had a cigarette. She probably broke the law, but obviously that didn't matter. She also didn't stop to think that someone allergic or highly sensitive to smoke might need to use the facility. I once rented a smoking room in a hotel because it was booked and it was the only room available. I figured that it made no difference. After all, that person already checked out. WRONG! Everything stunk from smoke. That's probably why they have smoking and non-smoking rooms in most hotels! Ya think?
In any case, smoking is not the same, since there is no way to contain it in one area and the odor lingers and gets into fabrics. I've walked into a restroom where someone just had a cigarette. She probably broke the law, but obviously that didn't matter. She also didn't stop to think that someone allergic or highly sensitive to smoke might need to use the facility. I once rented a smoking room in a hotel because it was booked and it was the only room available. I figured that it made no difference. After all, that person already checked out. WRONG! Everything stunk from smoke. That's probably why they have smoking and non-smoking rooms in most hotels! Ya think?
Take this example as you will: When I travel to visit family, and stay in a dog-friendly hotel, dog-owners are relegated to the same floor as smokers. The hotel certainly sees them as the same in terms of potential "molestation" of other patrons.
When I expressed my concern, the concierge said: "It doesn't matter in the end - smokers will smoke anywhere they please, even in nonsmoking rooms."
Fortunately, they do such a good cleaning job, I don't smell smoke in the room where I stay. Otherwise, I would have to stay elsewhere and board my pup.
FYI - The reason I stay in a hotel: MY OWN PARENTS can't refrain from smoking in the house when their asthmatic daughter visits.
Now that's just a cop-out criticism. It's not "fudging numbers" when a statistician tries to understand what is accounting for specific results - it's scientific inquiry.
I see - you have a problem with objectivity
Inconclusive.
But I guess in your dictionary that means fact? As for objective, is it objective to obtain inconclusive results, then pass those on as conclusive? I guess if the researchers are pretty sure, its good enough though right? /boggle
But I guess in your dictionary that means fact? As for objective, is it objective to obtain inconclusive results, then pass those on as conclusive? I guess if the researchers are pretty sure, its good enough though right? /boggle
By your logic, EVERY STUDY EVER is inconclusive.
Which means we're still on an even playing field. I've shown you my "inconclusive" studies (that nonetheless point STRONGLY to harm from SHS) - you show me yours.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed WHO on this thread has been more belligerent?
The smokers use that word to describe us anti-smokers. But whose posts have been removed? Whose posts have been edited by mods for violating the TOS? Not us
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You can't move? You can't choose a place to live where they cater to your needs? Maybe a non-smoking apartment complex, buying a house on enough land where neighbors wouldn't be an issue? So you are being forced to live in that apartment? I would seriously call the police, because I believe there is a law against enslavement.
It's not always feasible or economical to break a lease. I'm here until my lease expires later this year. By the way, I've lived here for so long that moving would automatically raise my rent by several hundred dollars due to the fact that I'm paying under market value. By the way, I don't know of any non-smoking apartment complexes so there's really no guarantees that I won't experience this again.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
There is quantifiable and verifiable evidence of dogs killing people who were not on a leash. There is no evidence of kind for SHS. Lots of assumptions though, and of course people who dislike it supporting those assumptions. Good old fashion witch hunt science at its best.
What is funny, is that people today think they are much more evolved and intelligent than those backward fear mongering fools of our past. The real joke is that they were no different than people today. There will always be fools using personal agenda and self interest to promote, harass and expel those they disagree with. Stupid is timeless.
What about the laws that require doggie owners to clean up after little FuFu? What's a little poop on the ground here and there ... It's not going to kill anybody?
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.
