Smoking at tourist locations
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:35 AM
#41
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Smoking had been banned in offices for years"
bgans: I assume you were referring to NY. Are you saying there's a law banning smoking in office buildings? I know a lot of places have a voluntary ban, but I wasn't aware that it was a law that's widespread.
bgans: I assume you were referring to NY. Are you saying there's a law banning smoking in office buildings? I know a lot of places have a voluntary ban, but I wasn't aware that it was a law that's widespread.
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:41 AM
#42
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
budget's got a thing about smoking (and semantics) but ...
Please don't tell me how the gov't is doing things for my own good. You'll never convince me with that argument.
And as for smokers, motorcyclists, etc., hitting us with their health bills, well, c'mon -- where does that end?
Shouldn't we make laws about overweight people and their associated health costs to treat heart ailments, diabetes, and so on? I'll bet those costs far outweigh the costs of injuries to motorcyclists.
Please don't tell me how the gov't is doing things for my own good. You'll never convince me with that argument.
And as for smokers, motorcyclists, etc., hitting us with their health bills, well, c'mon -- where does that end?
Shouldn't we make laws about overweight people and their associated health costs to treat heart ailments, diabetes, and so on? I'll bet those costs far outweigh the costs of injuries to motorcyclists.
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:05 AM
#43
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Author: j_999_9
Date: 11/28/2006, 10:35 am
"Smoking had been banned in offices for years"
bgans: I assume you were referring to NY. Are you saying there's a law banning smoking in office buildings? I know a lot of places have a voluntary ban, but I wasn't aware that it was a law that's widespread.
j 999, if you can put your cigarette down for a second, click this link:
http://mobile.usablenet.com/mt/www.n...moke/tc1.shtml
Smoking in NYC offices has been banned for more than 4 years now. It's not a suggestion; it's the law and has been since 2002. We are almost into 2007. Do try to keep up.
Date: 11/28/2006, 10:35 am
"Smoking had been banned in offices for years"
bgans: I assume you were referring to NY. Are you saying there's a law banning smoking in office buildings? I know a lot of places have a voluntary ban, but I wasn't aware that it was a law that's widespread.
j 999, if you can put your cigarette down for a second, click this link:
http://mobile.usablenet.com/mt/www.n...moke/tc1.shtml
Smoking in NYC offices has been banned for more than 4 years now. It's not a suggestion; it's the law and has been since 2002. We are almost into 2007. Do try to keep up.
Nov 29th, 2006, 05:00 AM
#44
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh please GROW UP. Smoking laws are passing everywhere. Entire countries are smokefree indoors. France, Italy, Scotland....geez. Take your disgusting habit outside and out of the faces of nonsmokers. Is it that much to ask?
Nov 29th, 2006, 09:11 AM
#45
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevada just passed a pretty comprehensive smoking ban - there were two ballot issues and the harsher one actually won. So - aside from bars not serving food, casino floors and private homes and hotel rooms (that are not designated as non-smoking) there is NO SMOKING in Nevada. The restaurant/bars are trying to see their way around it - many are taking the food out because they fear losing customers that want to smoke.
Nov 29th, 2006, 10:26 AM
#48
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does a fat person sitting next to you hurt you personally? No?
But sitting next to a smoker kills you too.
See the difference?
But, then again, if they ban fat people, maybe they can ban ugly people as well!
But sitting next to a smoker kills you too.
See the difference?
But, then again, if they ban fat people, maybe they can ban ugly people as well!
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:03 AM
#51
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh…Let’s go in order.
Budget4me wrote:
"… and the government is acting to protect the right of nonsmokers, especially employees in these establishments, from breathing carcinogenic tobacco smoke.”
Budget, you must have missed my point about people who willingly associate with each other. If I accept a job at a private establishment, I have entered that arrangement willingly.
By the way, the number of posts on your side relative to the number on mine, seems to indicate that there would be plenty of jobs at restaurants that chose to be smoke free, even if there were no bans.
…and then…
“People always are very insistent that they can make their own decisions on matters such as smoking, but then they are the first ones to put their hands out for government funding for their health related illnesses that inevitably follow”
You’re preaching to the choir on one citizen being forced to pay another citizen’s bills. The flaw in your argument though, is that you’re blaming the wrong entity. I can’t make you pay my healthcare bills, and you can’t make me pay your healthcare bills. Only the government can force this type of arrangement, so your frustration should be directed at the government, not the smokers.
...and then…
“j 999, if you can put your cigarette down for a second, click this link:…… Do try to keep up.”
Budget, I believe J999 mentioned in their first post that they were a non-smoker. Perhaps you should also try to keep up. By the way, I am also a non-smoker. Ban proponents often make the assumption that those who oppose bans are “pathetic” tobacco addicts. Often, that is not the case...although, I do admit to being a hopeless freedom addict.
Wyatt92 said
“Milford, you said, "We need laws to protect us from others." Exactly. We need the law to protect us from others who may expose us to deadly cigarette smoke.
Bet you didn't think you were arguing for the other side did you?”
Wyatt, not only didn’t I think I was arguing for the other side, but I wasn’t arguing for the other side. Again, the issue is consent. I have a choice about which restaurant to go to, so I don’t need the government to protect me from the smoking that might take place inside. On the other hand, if someone mugs me walking down the street, I didn’t have the choice to simply avoid the mugging. That is why we need laws to protect us from assault and robbery, but not from others smoking in a private business.
In response to the fact that some bars have stopped serving food in order to avoid the ban, Gekko said”
“Make the pathetic addicts happy but not the hungry people?
That makes sense.”
Gekko, you are once again missing the beauty of a free society. Some business owners (likely the vast majority), can make “the hungry people” who don’t want to be around smoke happy, while others make the “pathetic addicts happy”.
The problem is that some people want everyone to conform to their preferences, rather than allowing others to make a different choice.
Budget4me wrote:
"… and the government is acting to protect the right of nonsmokers, especially employees in these establishments, from breathing carcinogenic tobacco smoke.”
Budget, you must have missed my point about people who willingly associate with each other. If I accept a job at a private establishment, I have entered that arrangement willingly.
By the way, the number of posts on your side relative to the number on mine, seems to indicate that there would be plenty of jobs at restaurants that chose to be smoke free, even if there were no bans.
…and then…
“People always are very insistent that they can make their own decisions on matters such as smoking, but then they are the first ones to put their hands out for government funding for their health related illnesses that inevitably follow”
You’re preaching to the choir on one citizen being forced to pay another citizen’s bills. The flaw in your argument though, is that you’re blaming the wrong entity. I can’t make you pay my healthcare bills, and you can’t make me pay your healthcare bills. Only the government can force this type of arrangement, so your frustration should be directed at the government, not the smokers.
...and then…
“j 999, if you can put your cigarette down for a second, click this link:…… Do try to keep up.”
Budget, I believe J999 mentioned in their first post that they were a non-smoker. Perhaps you should also try to keep up. By the way, I am also a non-smoker. Ban proponents often make the assumption that those who oppose bans are “pathetic” tobacco addicts. Often, that is not the case...although, I do admit to being a hopeless freedom addict.
Wyatt92 said
“Milford, you said, "We need laws to protect us from others." Exactly. We need the law to protect us from others who may expose us to deadly cigarette smoke.
Bet you didn't think you were arguing for the other side did you?”
Wyatt, not only didn’t I think I was arguing for the other side, but I wasn’t arguing for the other side. Again, the issue is consent. I have a choice about which restaurant to go to, so I don’t need the government to protect me from the smoking that might take place inside. On the other hand, if someone mugs me walking down the street, I didn’t have the choice to simply avoid the mugging. That is why we need laws to protect us from assault and robbery, but not from others smoking in a private business.
In response to the fact that some bars have stopped serving food in order to avoid the ban, Gekko said”
“Make the pathetic addicts happy but not the hungry people?
That makes sense.”
Gekko, you are once again missing the beauty of a free society. Some business owners (likely the vast majority), can make “the hungry people” who don’t want to be around smoke happy, while others make the “pathetic addicts happy”.
The problem is that some people want everyone to conform to their preferences, rather than allowing others to make a different choice.
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:14 AM
#52
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Milford, I think you have said just about everything I wanted to say. I don't smoke and never have. I share your love of more freedom and less government.
(And why are these people so worried about what is going to happen to those who ride motorcycles and don't wear helmets? Aren't those who DO wear helmets more likely to survive an accident and 'cost society' bazillions of dollars in rehab. Those who don't wear helmets are more likely to be killed. That argument never did make sense to me.
And you know, I'm way over 21 - I think I can decide for myself if I prefer to be chafed by my seatbeat or take my chances of being expelled from a vehicle - I don't need the libs to make that decision for me.)
(And why are these people so worried about what is going to happen to those who ride motorcycles and don't wear helmets? Aren't those who DO wear helmets more likely to survive an accident and 'cost society' bazillions of dollars in rehab. Those who don't wear helmets are more likely to be killed. That argument never did make sense to me.
And you know, I'm way over 21 - I think I can decide for myself if I prefer to be chafed by my seatbeat or take my chances of being expelled from a vehicle - I don't need the libs to make that decision for me.)
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:52 AM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a former smoker, three and a half years thank you very much, smoking needs to be banned everywhere.
I love the smell but, let's face it, smokers are drug addicts and smoking kills.
Smokers don't have rights. You don't have the right to kill people from your second hand smoke and you don't have the right to kill yourself.
I helped my best friend nurse her father through death from lung cancer and he wouldn't quit up to the end. Her father could have prevented his death but didn't. Well he isn't around any longer but SHE STILL has to deal with the consequenses.
So, screw smokers rights.
I love the smell but, let's face it, smokers are drug addicts and smoking kills.
Smokers don't have rights. You don't have the right to kill people from your second hand smoke and you don't have the right to kill yourself.
I helped my best friend nurse her father through death from lung cancer and he wouldn't quit up to the end. Her father could have prevented his death but didn't. Well he isn't around any longer but SHE STILL has to deal with the consequenses.
So, screw smokers rights.
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:58 AM
#54
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milford & BJ,
In a perfect society common courtesy would prevail and if someone's smoke bothered someone they would put it out or go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most smokers don't give a rats a$$ about anyone but themselves and will light up where ever they feel like because they are "free" to do so. Since we do not live in a perfect society we need to Gov't to step in and regulate people's offensive behavior. Also in most cases (or at least in my state) the issue was put on the ballot and was overwhelmingly approved (over 70%). You talk about freedom being so precious, what about the "will of the people" and "majority rules".
In a perfect society common courtesy would prevail and if someone's smoke bothered someone they would put it out or go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most smokers don't give a rats a$$ about anyone but themselves and will light up where ever they feel like because they are "free" to do so. Since we do not live in a perfect society we need to Gov't to step in and regulate people's offensive behavior. Also in most cases (or at least in my state) the issue was put on the ballot and was overwhelmingly approved (over 70%). You talk about freedom being so precious, what about the "will of the people" and "majority rules".
Nov 29th, 2006, 03:47 PM
#55
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selfish addicts don't care about their health or the health of their families -- you think they give a damn about the will of the people?
Look at the stupid "arguments" made in this thread ... they're irrational morons blinded by addiction.
Look at the stupid "arguments" made in this thread ... they're irrational morons blinded by addiction.
Nov 29th, 2006, 03:53 PM
#56
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 19,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a law in San Francisco against urinating in the streets. Visiting? Bring a gas mask 
Doesn't work either.
It's much better in casinos these days - the ventilation is much better. See, the problem can be solved peacefully!
Doesn't work either. It's much better in casinos these days - the ventilation is much better. See, the problem can be solved peacefully!
Nov 29th, 2006, 07:19 PM
#57
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gmoney and Gekko both allude to selfishness among smokers. That seems like a strange way to view this issue to me. Absent any smoking bans, I suspect that the free market would still have the overwhelming majority of restaurants smoke free. I haven't heard one "selfish" smoker who wants the government to require that smoking sections be provided in restaurants that are smoke free by choice. Conversely, I've heard countless nonsmokers (including several on this thread), who want the government to ban smoking in places that would otherwise permit it. If the smokers are content to dine in a relatively small percentage of restaurants, but the ban proponents insist on being comfortable in every single restaurant, who are the selfish ones?
With respect to majority rule, I mentioned earlier that this is a Constitutional Republic and not a pure democracy for a reason. I'm sure that there is some activity that each of us engages in that most people don't. I doubt that we would want that activity banned just because we're in the minority.
Finally, I have a bit of advice for Gekko. When you start using perjorative descriptions and unsupported descriptions, it is difficult to sound credible when you accuse the opposing side of being irrational. Instead, it makes you sound irrational.
Also, I'm not going to bother reading through all the posts again to be sure, but I think that each of us "irrational morons" has already mentioned that we don't smoke, so it is unlikely that we are "blinded by addiction".
With respect to majority rule, I mentioned earlier that this is a Constitutional Republic and not a pure democracy for a reason. I'm sure that there is some activity that each of us engages in that most people don't. I doubt that we would want that activity banned just because we're in the minority.
Finally, I have a bit of advice for Gekko. When you start using perjorative descriptions and unsupported descriptions, it is difficult to sound credible when you accuse the opposing side of being irrational. Instead, it makes you sound irrational.
Also, I'm not going to bother reading through all the posts again to be sure, but I think that each of us "irrational morons" has already mentioned that we don't smoke, so it is unlikely that we are "blinded by addiction".
Nov 29th, 2006, 07:28 PM
#58
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm sure that there is some activity that each of us engages in that most people don't. I doubt that we would want that activity banned just because we're in the minority."
If I knew that my "minority" activity seriously affected the health and lives of other people, then I doubt I'd fight such bannings. In fact, I'm sure I'd support them. Why would I fight to allow me to cause other people harm?
If I knew that my "minority" activity seriously affected the health and lives of other people, then I doubt I'd fight such bannings. In fact, I'm sure I'd support them. Why would I fight to allow me to cause other people harm?
Nov 29th, 2006, 07:45 PM
#59
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newsflash: Being a smoker is not an immutable characteristic worthy of special protection from our legal system or Constitution.
And, yes, smokers are selfish morons who voluntarily poison themselves and those around them.
And, yes, smokers are selfish morons who voluntarily poison themselves and those around them.
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:00 AM
#60
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milford,
You use a lot of big words to say a lot of nothing. You are absolutely correct that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, and our lawmakers perform the will of their constituents. As you can see by the vast number of states passing these laws and by the vast majority of the views of the threads in this post, this is what the people want. Smoking has absolutly no positive merit (except to the tobacco companies). And will you please explain to me why you feel that me and my family should be forced to breathe poison just because someone has the "freedom" to smoke. Please explain your reasoning behind this. I believe that we should have the "freedom" to sit in a public place and breathe without fear for our lives. And as to letting the owners decide, please explain why before the ban in my state the overwhelming majority of restaurants had both smoking and non-smoking restaurants (an oxymoron in itself). My guess is it was because owners did not want to lose customers to their competitors. This in effect gave non-smokers nowhere to go to be completely smoke free. This is why the gov't. had to step in and once again protect us from ourselves. Self regulation did not work, and the minority (smokers) were in effect winning out over the majority (non-smokers).
You use a lot of big words to say a lot of nothing. You are absolutely correct that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, and our lawmakers perform the will of their constituents. As you can see by the vast number of states passing these laws and by the vast majority of the views of the threads in this post, this is what the people want. Smoking has absolutly no positive merit (except to the tobacco companies). And will you please explain to me why you feel that me and my family should be forced to breathe poison just because someone has the "freedom" to smoke. Please explain your reasoning behind this. I believe that we should have the "freedom" to sit in a public place and breathe without fear for our lives. And as to letting the owners decide, please explain why before the ban in my state the overwhelming majority of restaurants had both smoking and non-smoking restaurants (an oxymoron in itself). My guess is it was because owners did not want to lose customers to their competitors. This in effect gave non-smokers nowhere to go to be completely smoke free. This is why the gov't. had to step in and once again protect us from ourselves. Self regulation did not work, and the minority (smokers) were in effect winning out over the majority (non-smokers).
