Smoking Bans

[Gregorio]

Lots of older people/parents hate video games and rap too. They've petitioned. Thank God the government wasn't stupid enough to put those to ballots though. But look at the FCC. 1,000 angry soccer moms and bible thumpers were upset that they saw an OMGNIPPLE during the super bowl. Should a minority of the population control what's allowed on TV just because they petition and complain?

Laws that restict individual freedoms for "the good of the public" are inherantly immoral.

We got the ESRB, we got the V-chip. Those came out of all that junk.

You think people should be able to play music as loud as they want on their property? Noise pollution is serious business. Mrs. Old lady rottencrotch lives next to some punk ass kids who play loud music all the time. I guess its her fault for moving there. Or maybe she should confront them? No.

The difference is that it isn't mandated that the V-chip must be in all TVs.

No, I don't think people should be able to play music as long as they want. In this case, the way they use their private property is interfering with the way in which I use mine...I can't sleep, do homework, or just relax because of their music.

This doesn't compare to smoking. If I smoke on my property (even if that property is a bar), then you can still use your private property however you wish and it doesn't have any effect on you. If you want to use MY property, however, then you deal with the things that take place on my property.

[Kenai]

Lots of older people/parents hate video games and rap too. They've petitioned. Thank God the government wasn't stupid enough to put those to ballots though. But look at the FCC. 1,000 angry soccer moms and bible thumpers were upset that they saw an OMGNIPPLE during the super bowl. Should a minority of the population control what's allowed on TV just because they petition and complain?

Laws that restict individual freedoms for "the good of the public" are inherantly immoral.

We got the ESRB, we got the V-chip. Those came out of all that junk.

You think people should be able to play music as loud as they want on their property? Noise pollution is serious business. Mrs. Old lady rottencrotch lives next to some punk ass kids who play loud music all the time. I guess its her fault for moving there. Or maybe she should confront them? No.

The difference is that it isn't mandated that the V-chip must be in all TVs.

No, I don't think people should be able to play music as long as they want. In this case, the way they use their private property is interfering with the way in which I use mine...I can't sleep, do homework, or just relax because of their music.

This doesn't compare to smoking. If I smoke on my property (even if that property is a bar), then you can still use your private property however you wish and it doesn't have any effect on you. If you want to use MY property, however, then you deal with the things that take place on my property.

I agree, which is why I think that bars should not be a part of this ban. The only thing. But, to be blunt, I don't go to bars, and I find the rest of the ban to be made of win. Maybe it can be worked so that bars are exempt, I don't see too many people disagreeing with that idea.../shrug.

[Janice]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

[Gregorio]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

The two are not so different as you would think. The licenses needed to run a business are there to make sure you aren't serving poisoned food or have rats chillin out in the fridge. Not so that someone isn't made uncomfortable by breathing second hand smoke.

[Janice]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

The two are not so different as you would think. The licenses needed to run a business are there to make sure you aren't serving poisoned food or have rats chillin out in the fridge. Not so that someone isn't made uncomfortable by breathing second hand smoke.

It is now.

[Anyway]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

The two are not so different as you would think. The licenses needed to run a business are there to make sure you aren't serving poisoned food or have rats chillin out in the fridge. Not so that someone isn't made uncomfortable by breathing second hand smoke.

Giving other people unwanted possible cancer while they eat is worse than poisoned food.

[Gregorio]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

The two are not so different as you would think. The licenses needed to run a business are there to make sure you aren't serving poisoned food or have rats chillin out in the fridge. Not so that someone isn't made uncomfortable by breathing second hand smoke.

Giving other people unwanted possible cancer while they eat is worse than poisoned food.

Right...I'd much rather get food poisoning, ecoli, hepititis or some fun disease like that then have the slight possibility that I could get cancer from breathing dilluted smoke from the opposite side of the resturaunt.

Oh, and the entire point I've been trying to make through the whole thread that nobody seems to get. You don't have to go be around smokers.

In my opinion the government has this pretty backwards. Instead of protecting people in public from unwanted smoke...they're protecting people who have the choice to be around the smoke or not.

It is now.

Cause the government says so. Gotcha. So I guess you're pretty happy with the Patriot Act and about emminent domain right? The people who you've elected (and you by default) have said they're just fine...so that must mean they're completely justified.

[Anyway]

A private property that runs a business is not the same as private living quarters. Stop comparing the two. You need a business licsense to run a business, and if you want to keep your liscense, you follow the rules. Hey! Here's another rule for you to follow.

The two are not so different as you would think. The licenses needed to run a business are there to make sure you aren't serving poisoned food or have rats chillin out in the fridge. Not so that someone isn't made uncomfortable by breathing second hand smoke.

Giving other people unwanted possible cancer while they eat is worse than poisoned food.

Right...I'd much rather get food poisoning, ecoli, hepititis or some fun disease like that then have the slight possibility that I could get cancer from breathing dilluted smoke from the opposite side of the resturaunt.

Oh, and the entire point I've been trying to make through the whole thread that nobody seems to get. You don't have to go be around smokers.

In my opinion the government has this pretty backwards. Instead of protecting people in public from unwanted smoke...they're protecting people who have the choice to be around the smoke or not.

It is now.

Cause the government says so. Gotcha. So I guess you're pretty happy with the Patriot Act and about emminent domain right? The people who you've elected (and you by default) have said they're just fine...so that must mean they're completely justified.

So according to you, I should not go to a restaurant simply because people there smoke. You're not very smart. While you're at it, stop driving because there's people that like to drink and drive.

[Gregorio]

People have to drive. People don't have to go to resturaunts. And there are non-smoking resturaunts that are non-smoking completely on their own without government intervention.

If you're so worried about getting cancer from second hand smoke (which you must be pretty damn worried since you'd rather eat poisoned food), why would you want to go to a resturaunt in the first place?

[Anyway]

People have to drive. People don't have to go to resturaunts. And there are non-smoking resturaunts that are non-smoking completely on their own without government intervention.

If you're so worried about getting cancer from second hand smoke (which you must be pretty damn worried since you'd rather eat poisoned food), why would you want to go to a resturaunt in the first place?

Some people do have to go restaurants. Some people are unable to cook for themselves.

Your arguement is plain awful. Restaurants ARE NOT a place you go to fucking smoke. They're a place you go TO EAT. If you want a place to smoke, go to a cigar store or tobacco shop.

[Gregorio]

Some people do have to go restaurants. Some people are unable to cook for themselves.

Your arguement is plain awful. Restaurants ARE NOT a place you go to fucking smoke. They're a place you go TO EAT. If you want a place to smoke, go to a cigar store or tobacco shop.

So they should get take-out.

My arguement isn't that restaurants are a place where people go to smoke. My argument is that it shouldn't be your decision on what the point of SOMEONE ELSES property should be used for. You don't own it. You don't directly pay their electric bill or mortgage. You don't decide what food they serve. You don't tell them what legal activities they can do in there.

[Lordthom]

My argument isn't about the carcinogens people that smoke around me are forcing on me. My argument is that they stink. By not smoking around people I am not having any kind of negative effect on them at all. People that smoke around me are having a negative effect on me. By smoking around me, the smoker is effectively taking away my option not to smoke.

[Anyway]

Some people do have to go restaurants. Some people are unable to cook for themselves.

Your arguement is plain awful. Restaurants ARE NOT a place you go to fucking smoke. They're a place you go TO EAT. If you want a place to smoke, go to a cigar store or tobacco shop.

So they should get take-out.

My arguement isn't that restaurants are a place where people go to smoke. My argument is that it shouldn't be your decision on what the point of SOMEONE ELSES property should be used for. You don't own it. You don't directly pay their electric bill or mortgage. You don't decide what food they serve. You don't tell them what legal activities they can do in there.

Um the same can be said for smokers, dumbass. You don't get to choose whether or not you can smoke there. You don't own it. You don't directly pay their bill or mortgage.

Smoking prevents people from doing what you're supposed to do in restaurants, eat. I know I can't eat when people smoke around me.

If you want to smoke so bad, YOU GET TAKE OUT. Then you aren't affecting anyone else, you can eat and smoke all you want.

[Gregorio]

Um the same can be said for smokers, dumbass. You don't get to choose whether or not you can smoke there. You don't own it. You don't directly pay their bill or mortgage.

Smoking prevents people from doing what you're supposed to do in restaurants, eat. I know I can't eat when people smoke around me.

If you want to smoke so bad, YOU GET TAKE OUT. Then you aren't affecting anyone else, you can eat and smoke all you want.

I'm a dumbass? I'm wondering why someone so dumb (me) has to explain to you that it's NOT the same with smokers. Here's the difference since you fail to grasp it. Business owners aren't being forced to accept smokers. I know it may be a little tough to understand, so I'll word it differently.

A business owner can choose to say "we don't allow smoking here" and all the votes in the world won't change that. You're right, smokers don't own it or pay the mortgage. But the person who DOES own the property and pay the mortgage is allowing them in there.

[Xavier]

Cause the government says so. Gotcha. So I guess you're pretty happy with the Patriot Act and about emminent domain right? The people who you've elected (and you by default) have said they're just fine...so that must mean they're completely justified.

Those are not under the same terms of enactment.

The Patriot Act was passed in Congress by elected officals.

Smoking bans were passed by the majority of all active eligible voters.

The goverment didn't randomly decide to enforce a fictional law that banned smoking in public places. An issue was raised on the ballot, it was voted on, and it won. The government has no choice but to enact the issue into law.

You can't blame the government for being ruled by the people, we're a god damn democracy. I'd hate to imagine us being a country where the people voted on and passed an issue and then the government said "too bad" and ignored it.

But mainly, you're entire argument can be applied in the reverse to all smokers. What right do they have to smoke around non-smokers? The fact of the matter is that I can't eat resturaunt food without going to a resturaunt, while a smoker can eat resturaunt food and then smoke 30 minutes later at home.

Why should a smoker have more rights than I do? You can't ignore the individual rights of non-smokers just to make a case for smokers.

But the person who DOES own the property and pay the mortgage is allowing them in there.

He's allowing them in there because he has no real reason not to. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't a crime.

When you pass a bill that says otherwise, the owner is more than likely going to change his policy or be shut down.

[Gregorio]

Cause the government says so. Gotcha. So I guess you're pretty happy with the Patriot Act and about emminent domain right? The people who you've elected (and you by default) have said they're just fine...so that must mean they're completely justified.

Those are not under the same terms of enactment.

The Patriot Act was passed in Congress by elected officals.

Smoking bans were passed by the majority of all active eligible voters.

The goverment didn't randomly decide to enforce a fictional law that banned smoking in public places. An issue was raised on the ballot, it was voted on, and it won. The government has no choice but to enact the issue into law.

You can't blame the government for being ruled by the people, we're a god damn democracy. I'd hate to imagine us being a country where the people voted on and passed n issue and then the government said "too bad" and ignored it.

While they were not enacted in exactly the same fashion, it's not much different. Someone in a government building drafted up this bill, and someone else said "lets put to to ballot". There is still government action on the part of drafting and enfocring the law, and they did have the choice whether or not to put it on the ballot.

Just to go back to an earlier analogy, the gay marriage issue on the ballot. Do you fault the government at all for putting that on the ballot and then enfocring the law once the people affirmed it? Note that I'm not talking about the merits of the bill itself or who is harmed by it, I'm just questioning (by your own words) if you can fault the government at all for the bill being passed.

Think of this too...if it were in a swing state which had a democrat governor/congress there, do you think it would have even been on the ballot? Bottom line is that the buck stops at the government.

But mainly, you're entire argument can be applied in the reverse to all smokers. What right do they have to smoke around non-smokers? The fact of the matter is that I can't eat resturaunt food without going to a resturaunt, while a smoker can eat resturaunt food and then smoke 30 minutes later at home.

Why should a smoker have more rights than I do? You can't ignore the individual rights of non-smokers just to make a case for smokers.

The question of the right to smoke around non-smokers isn't really the issue on the smoke-bans. They aren't banning it in public, which would be the logical place to ban something harmful, they are banning it in private.

But even in considering your point, that smokers would have more rights than you, it's still not completely true. You don't have the right to eat in a restaurant on your own terms. Analogizing again, why should you be allowed to eat in a restaurant if you're coughing and/or sneezing while I don't want to deal with sickness? Don't I have the right to not be sick? Even if you cover your mouth every time germs still travel through the air. The answer is that the owner of the building doesn't have a policy on sick people and I don't have the right to be in that building without sick people.

But the person who DOES own the property and pay the mortgage is allowing them in there.

He's allowing them in there because he has no real reason not to. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't a crime.

When you pass a bill that says otherwise, the owner is more than likely going to change his policy or be shut down.

The part about them having no reason to not allow smoking isn't exactly true. I know back at school there were a few bars that would have non-smoking nights at the bars (voulintarily), and they were big hits. Lots of restaurants I've seen have been completely non-smoking and there was no law saying they had to be. It's a good business move to change to non-smoking so you can get those people who absolutely hate smoke.

And obviously passing a law against smoking will make it illegal, but that's not what I'm trying to debate. I'm debating the merits of the bill on the whole, not the legality of it.

[Aodh]

Another thing, smokers tip better ask anyone who's worked in food service in a smoking / non-smoking place, working smoking side always fared better income to the cheap non-smokers.

Sorry I'm a little late responding to this comment.

Saph, you can tell Heather Crowe how much you get from smokers. Her tip was Lung Cancer, she died earlier this year and has never smoked a day in her life. Non-smoking isn't and shouldn't be done for the patrons, we come and go for it to affect us. It's done for the people trying to earn a meager living, just doing their job. They shouldn't have to risk their life to serve you food.

[Anyway]

The question of the right to smoke around non-smokers isn't really the issue on the smoke-bans. They aren't banning it in public, which would be the logical place to ban something harmful, they are banning it in private.

yet

[Gafgarionn]

Another thing, smokers tip better ask anyone who's worked in food service in a smoking / non-smoking place, working smoking side always fared better income to the cheap non-smokers.

Sorry I'm a little late responding to this comment.

Saph, you can tell Heather Crowe how much you get from smokers. Her tip was Lung Cancer, she died earlier this year and has never smoked a day in her life. Non-smoking isn't and shouldn't be done for the patrons, we come and go for it to affect us. It's done for the people trying to earn a meager living, just doing their job. They shouldn't have to risk their life to serve you food.

You know that not all lung cancer is related to smoking, right? There are plenty of other causes for it. And for the person above who commented on the smell being a factor... I think Indian people smell like shit. All that curry really gets to me. I think we should have a curry ban. Now, I'm obviously joking, but the premise makes sense. You can't ban something just because it smells offensive to some people. Oh, and before I started smoking, I liked the smell of tobacco. Go figure.

[Anyway]

Another thing, smokers tip better ask anyone who's worked in food service in a smoking / non-smoking place, working smoking side always fared better income to the cheap non-smokers.

Sorry I'm a little late responding to this comment.

Saph, you can tell Heather Crowe how much you get from smokers. Her tip was Lung Cancer, she died earlier this year and has never smoked a day in her life. Non-smoking isn't and shouldn't be done for the patrons, we come and go for it to affect us. It's done for the people trying to earn a meager living, just doing their job. They shouldn't have to risk their life to serve you food.

You know that not all lung cancer is related to smoking, right? There are plenty of other causes for it. And for the person above who commented on the smell being a factor... I think Indian people smell like shit. All that curry really gets to me. I think we should have a curry ban. Now, I'm obviously joking, but the premise makes sense. You can't ban something just because it smells offensive to some people. Oh, and before I started smoking, I liked the smell of tobacco. Go figure.

Curry doesnt give nearby people asthma attacks, go figure.