2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

did you not notice your link says 1 billion people THIS CENTURY .... while you were spouting off about a billion people THIS YEAR?

look at the math I did, 2 holocausts a year...thats a billion a century

my mind and calculations were in the right place, I just typed "year" instead of "century" during one part...there's no need to be petty

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because of the libertarian flooding of this board, people have an odd conception...like there was a "Bill of Property Rights" that the founding fathers wrote and protects your "property rights"

as soon as you start a business, you are subject to a ton of new laws that dramatically affect your "ownership status" I wouldn't even use the word "rights"

When you own a home you're opening yourself up to a ton of new laws that dramatically affect you. Whether you're libertarian or not, it doesn't make your home public property.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When you own a home you're opening yourself up to a ton of new laws that dramatically affect you. Whether you're libertarian or not, it doesn't make your home public property.

that'd make for an interesting new topic, as I've pointed out, if you don't visit your summer house for say about 8 years, you can lose the entire thing, even if you've paid taxes on it, to a hipppy who parked his trailer on your lawn

How would you like that, you purchase some real estate you want to use down the road, and you're very busy for work and you don't see it for a few years, and bam some punk now has the property rights and he didn't pay one cent, you just lost all your property...and he didn't even file one legal paper, all he had to do was park his trailer there and it was his because you stopped visisting for a few years

How about that for property rights...and this is housing property, your home, where you wanted you family to live eventually...how pissed would you be?

US Law my friend...thats what our "property rights" are

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Private businesses aren't public places though.

NJ banned smoking except for casinos. I have to say, I'm enjoying it...

I'm torn on this issue because I enjoy having it banned so much. But it's really like saying "You own the land and you own the business, but you can't smoke there. Sorry." That's no different than saying "You own the land, you own the home, but you can't smoke there. Sorry."

Before you know it nanny's and maid's will be suing for lung cancer.

I'm going to agree with this post 100%. I worked in NY a few months ago and some coworkers took me to a bar to eat/drink afterwards. We are sitting at the bar and I'm trying to figure out why it seems so pleasant. It's not any nicer worse then the average bar anyplace else. Then I realize it's because there was no smoke in it! It was nice.

But then the reality sets in that the government can come into your place of business and tell you that you and your patrons are not allowed to partake in a 100% legal (and taxed) activity. I think that's pretty fucked up.

[thomez]

I'm allergic to cig smoke but I still do not support the stupid smoking bans, they are straight up idiotic.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thomez

I'm allergic to cig smoke but I still do not support the stupid smoking bans, they are straight up idiotic.

I disagree. I think it should be banned in public because I do not want to breath it. If you want to smoke in your car or in your house, fine but not in public. If an eating establishment is to have a smoking and a non smoking section they need to be completely seperate and filter the air.

if it is just smoking then I can choose not to eat there.

[thomez]

Public does not include privately owned establishments of business.

[Ardentfrost]

Yeah, let's ban smoking! Then when we're done with that, let's make everyone practice Christianity!


Same fucking thing

btw, welcome back Thor

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thomez

Public does not include privately owned establishments of business.

If the business is going to say they have a "non somking" section it needs to be SMOKE free. If htey choose to offer totally smokeless or 100% smoking i'm ok with that, but if they're going ot offer both they NEED to be seperate.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If the business is going to say they have a "non somking" section it needs to be SMOKE free. If htey choose to offer totally smokeless or 100% smoking i'm ok with that, but if they're going ot offer both they NEED to be seperate.

If you go into a restaurant and you don't like the smoke or their non-smoking section isn't smoke-free enough for you, don't fucking go there.

Problem solved.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that have no problem with the situation you just outlined.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If the business is going to say they have a "non somking" section it needs to be SMOKE free. If htey choose to offer totally smokeless or 100% smoking i'm ok with that, but if they're going ot offer both they NEED to be seperate.

If they aren't separate enough for your tastes, spend your money somewhere else. Problem solved.

[Thorgrim]

Not every town in America has smoking and non-smoking facilities, and remember the old phrase "you can't fight city hall"

Do you guys review your statements and really think they are the cornerstone of logic?

Do you guys really think "yes, I believe smokers have the right to walk into anywhere in the country there is not a ban by the owner himself, and inflict cancer-causing second hand smoke on people who are uninformed about every medical fact or have nowhere else reasonable to go for whatever activity"

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not every town in America has smoking and non-smoking facilities, and remember the old phrase "you can't fight city hall"

Do you guys review your statements and really think they are the cornerstone of logic?

Do you guys really think "yes, I believe smokers have the right to walk into anywhere in the country there is not a ban by the owner himself, and inflict cancer-causing second hand smoke on people who are uninformed about every medical fact or have nowhere else reasonable to go for whatever activity"

1) people can do a number of things - they can not go to the smoking establishments, they can start non-smoking establishments, they can travel further, they can move away

2) yes, they are logical statements

3) yes, property owners should have the right to decide what legal activities take place on their property, common sense tells you that second hand smoke is bad for you, and see 1)

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by thomez

1) people can do a number of things - they can not go to the smoking establishments, they can start non-smoking establishments, they can travel further, they can move away

2) yes, they are logical statements

3) yes, property owners should have the right to decide what legal activities take place on their property, common sense tells you that second hand smoke is bad for you, and see 1)

I don't know. It's pretty obvious to me Freedom of choice. It made America great.

[Thorgrim]

again, who honestly thinks the average joe in small town america can start up a strictly non-smoking business, not only will he lose frequent smoker business, but when a casual smoker lights up by habit he's going to piss him off by telling him to put it out

"common sense" common sense would stay any job that involves staring at an object that radiates intense artifiical light at certain frequencies (and we all know light at many frequencies is lethal), or hooking up a machine to mix chemicals with the air you breathe so you can have a cool room or a cold beer...yet we all think its also common sense to take computer jobs, buy an AC, and use a fridge

I love the "they can move away" line...really that sums up the arguments here

What about all those black people complaining about Jim Crow, they all could have moved North! Why did businesses have to be regulated, some customers LIKED not having blacks around, why should a business be made to have unhappy customers and go against the owners wishes, because of some silly movement and some dumb laws?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

again, who honestly thinks the average joe in small town america can start up a strictly non-smoking business, not only will he lose frequent smoker business, but when a casual smoker lights up by habit he's going to piss him off by telling him to put it out

If the demand is so low for a non-smoking establishment, then why do we need laws proving for them and kicking all smokers into the street?

If people want to talk about doing something like that, at least talk about banning tobacco outright. Taxes would have to be raised and/or programs would have to be cut.
Smokers contribute a large percentage of the tax money. The least they can have is someplace where they are allowed to smoke. Instead, whole counties are told they have to ban smoking regardless of what they want.

[kinggovernor]

brb I am going to intentionally blow smoke in some one's face

[Thorgrim]

There's demand, industries that are given this "regulation" to save lives are not struggling

What there is a little demand for is for a few owners to run around a bar full of 200 people and politely asking everyone not to smoke...owners make money at popular bars, why institute a new rule?

In NYC all these bars owners had no incentive to change their rules, many of them didn't even go to their own bars, who cares if all their customers die of cancer, people will never stop drinking and he'll make money

Strangely enough, in private, the owners generally pushed for banning laws, because the more pro-active owners don't see a need for their bars to be smoke filled, but they don't want to rock the boat

However, the laws get passed, the bars stop being cancerous to your lungs, and low and behold bars do fine, and owners are not clamoring "oh we want smoking in our bars back so bad!"

really, you can argue that almost all owners across the country want smoke-free bars but would rather cite law than be a nanny

Bloomberg pushed through public health meaures and his approval rating is through the roof...this is what people want

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There's demand, industries that are given this "regulation" to save lives are not struggling

really?

the local bowling alley recently went out of business, just a few months after the smoking ban was passed.... nobody was going there anymore, the leagues fell apart, and the bar was empty

the bowling alley had been open continuously since I was born, so much for helping small business owners

in Ohio the smoking ban was passed but in the legislation the state was given 6 months to come up with a way to enforce it... during that 6 months of limbo, when a private establishment could either enforce or not enforce the smoking ban... I do not know of a single place that enforced it - if the business owners and bar owners were so enthusiastic about such a law you would think a few would have used the law as an excuse to ban smoking, but Zero did such .... in fact many posted signs that smoking would still be allowed there until the date that marked 6 months after passage.. they all know it hurts their businesses, and I from talking to a few small business owners, it has