Smoking Bans

[keepngoal]

I should be free to go to whatever establishment I please as long as it is public and is not specifically catering to smokers.

Honestly... where do you get idea that Outback restruantis are public or any other business is a public place? That is the problem, you seem like you are entitled to go there because they are open .... WOW :sad:. that is the fundamental difference between us; entitlement versus choice of personal freedom. That, imo, is where you are flawed in your logic.

Smoking should be illegal period

Now we get to the root of the matter you want ALL smoking illegal ...
so..... you are here to protect me. :wacko: Give me a break.

This post outlines the fundamentalism difference between conservatism and liberalism.

I am fine that you don't agree with me on this... I just try to make sure you are in the minority when it comes to who serves the public in elections on personal choices versus entitlement and protectionism.

-keep.

 

[cmoneyr]

I agree that it should be made illegal, but it's far to late for that to happen. There's too much money flowing in every which direction from cigarettes, taxes and whatnot. So, since it will probably never be made illegal, I would just say that smokers should be made to smoke around others who share their desire.

If hand creme was a multi-billion dollar industry, and if people could become addicted to hand creme it would be very difficult to ban, even if it made people's hands fall off. But that doesn't mean I should have to pick and choose where I go just so people don't rub their creepy hands all over me.

 

[keepngoal]

If hand creme was a multi-billion dollar industry, and if people could become addicted to hand creme it would be very difficult to ban, even if it made people's hands fall off. But that doesn't mean I should have to pick and choose where I go just so people don't rub their creepy hands all over me.

now THAT made me laugh. thanks!

Go Cyclones!!

- keep.

 

[cmoneyr]

keepngoal, Trust me when I say I'm not here to protect you. I could care less about you or your family. It's mine I'm worried about. You're the preacher of freedom and now your telling me I'm not free to dine at Outback? But it's my freedom as an American! What you're talking about is semantics. Everyone else here is talking about "public places" meaning restaurants and the like, nobody here has been arguing the legality of smoking in a courthouse or whatever. This was the whole point of this argument, I'm beginning to think you haven't read this thread very well. It's a matter of semantics that everyone else seemed able to understand just fine.

Cyclone62, I never brought up any facts saying 53,000 deaths caused by secondhand smoke. I linked to a report by the surgeon general that said smoke contained over 250 known toxins and carcinogens. Since I agree it's hard if not impossible to say secondhand smoke CAUSED a death, I will settle to say that at the VERY least it's bad for my health, and that's good enough for me. And yes, I understand that restaurants do cater to both smokers and non-smokers, that would be why it is my position that that should be changed.

That's quite the bold statement. So, you have no contact with any other person whatsoever? If that's the case, I don't see why you are so upset about smokers

That's why I said "as far as I know", if you can think of something I might do that causes harm to other people then by all means. But as far as I know, I don't do anything like that. I don't have to live in a bubble to not harm others, I just have to make good choices.


Now, who is going to start the "Hand Creme Ban" thread?

 

[keepngoal]

Is the Outback a public place? Is that how you see a business?

and thank you for not caring about me or my family. :huh::shocked::sad::skeptical:

- keep.

 

[cmoneyr]

I think you either can't comprehend what you read or just can't be bothered to read my entire posts. Everyone in this thread but you has been fine talking about restaurants as public places, meaning places where the public goes to congregate. Obviously we know that they are not public in the sense that they are not publicly funded. Everyone but you seems to be ok with that and can look past it to further the discussion. Apparently you cannot. Considering that is the entire point of this thread you may want to work on that before you continue to post.

 

[Cyclone62]

But it's my freedom as an American!

It's your freedom to choose to dine there. I can choose to stand next to a smoker. You have a freedom of choice, I don't recall anything ever being said that you have a "freedom" to do whatever you want, regardless of everyone else. If you choose to dine at a restaraunt that allows smoking, accept the consequences. Just like I would accept the consequences of choosing to drive on an icy road.

Cyclone62, I never brought up any facts saying 53,000 deaths caused by secondhand smoke. I linked to a report by the surgeon general that said smoke contained over 250 known toxins and carcinogens. Since I agree it's hard if not impossible to say secondhand smoke CAUSED a death, I will settle to say that at the VERY least it's bad for my health, and that's good enough for me. And yes, I understand that restaurants do cater to both smokers and non-smokers, that would be why it is my position that that should be changed.

I said that cyclonepride, not you, brought up that number. But why should your wants dictate the freedom of choice of someone else?

That's why I said "as far as I know", if you can think of something I might do that causes harm to other people then by all means. But as far as I know, I don't do anything like that. I don't have to live in a bubble to not harm others, I just have to make good choices.

That was a joke, I honestly hope you didn't believe I was serious.

 

[cmoneyr]

Eh, this argument has obviously run it's course, I can only say how I feel so often before I'm just bored with it. Not that I'm trying to change anyone's mind here, but atleast I can admit I understand your point of view, apparently most of you aren't capable of the same.

Smokers hurt people, it shouldn't be the victims obligation to go out of their way to avoid smokers, it should be the other way around, that's my basic point.

 

[Cyclone62]

atleast I can admit I understand your point of view, apparently most of you aren't capable of the same.

I can see your point of view, and if you would read all of my posts in this thread, you would see that I actually wouldn't be against an all-out ban on smoking indoors (besides your own property)

 

[cyclonenum1]

Having lived in Las Vegas from 1991 through 2004 and hanging out in casinos far more than what I would care to admit, I'm curious as to where you found places to sit down where you were not in close proximity to someone else that was smoking? And before you found such a location, how did you manage to walk to the spot without getting your lungs congested with second hand smoke? Geeze my 13 year experience in Las Vegas casinos sure was different than your experiences.

You must have been frequenting the dumps...only the finest establishments for me!

 

[cyclonenum1]

But that's not the point I'm making. Sure, we can avoid it, I can choose to only go places that ban smoking. But why and I the one that has to go out of my way. I don't think you've really answered that for me. They make the choice to smoke, they choose to harm others, why is it the rest of us that have to avoid them? I have rights to, my choices don't hurt others, and if they did then I wouldn't expect others to have to make an effort to avoid me. I would understand that what I do hurts others, so I can't do it around other people.

Herbie, where in my post did you gather that I thought gambling was dumb? Did you read the post or you just slapped at the keys for awhile until it looked like a sentence?

The answer is simple...even smokers have rights and personal liberties in the US!

You cannot seriously believe that when someone decides to smoke they are "choosing to harm others"...can you??

 

[alaskaguy]

I agree that it is a person's right to smoke, but we must recognize that smoking is an activity that affects others, whether by spraying smoke into their faces or by, arguably, the effects of second hand smoke.

The government exists to protect citizens' rights and the right to be seated in a restaurant or public place without smoke being blown into my face is one worth protecting by the government. Actions that inherently negatively affect the people who are around when they are performed - such as smoking - need to be regulated by the government.

Before anyone starts off again arguing from the civil liberties perspective, realize that your rights are limited. You do not have the right to assault me nor do you have the right to blow smoke into my or anyones face. Infringing on others' rights is not your right, or my right, or anyone else's right.

 

[alaskaguy]

Absolutely. They all have a vested interest in seeing their particular budgets increased and hence they need to provide evidence as to how important their work is. Frankly, I believe these bureaucracies are totally unnecessary.

Why would the government want to paint smoking as bad? What profit would they get? If anything, they would lose tax dollars from cigarettes. They would alienate smoking voters while not necessarily courting the support of non-smokers.

 

[cmoneyr]

The answer is simple...even smokers have rights and personal liberties in the US!

You cannot seriously believe that when someone decides to smoke they are "choosing to harm others"...can you??

I don't think anyone chooses to smoke in order to harm others, but you'd have to be completely naive to think that doing it won't affect others. So by making this decision to smoke, it has the added effect of harming others, kind of an extra little perk.

 

[alaskaguy]

I have a question for those that insist that there should be no governmental ban on smoking in restaurants, taverns, and casinos; what limits should there be on smoking if any?

Most of the arguments that do not support a ban seem to be connected with erosion of personal liberties. If that is your position do you support the legalization of marijuana or for that matter should the government make any drug illegal? After all why should the government be infringing on our liberties and choices. Anybody believing that smoking should not be banned in restaurants, taverns, and casinos due to personal liberty reasons but doesn't support the legalization of drugs is not demonstrating consistant logic and reasoning.

 

[iceclone]

Hey, as long as nobody takes my shisha away, I’m ok.

 

[Cyclone62]

So by making this decision to smoke, it has the added effect of harming others, kind of an extra little perk.

Alright, this has been bugging me for a while now.

cmoneyr, your tone and word choices suggest that being exposed to second hand smoke at all, for any length of time (1 minute to 6 years) are of equivalence in their danger. Is this how you feel, or just the way it's comming across?

 

[cmoneyr]

No of course not, I don't mean it to sound that way. But if you were to ban smoking from restaurants and places like that you would have to do a complete ban. You can't just say, well you can smoke, but only for 5 minutes, that would be infinitely harder to enforce.

So because of that you would have to treat them the same, but yes I do obviously understand the difference.

 

[dmclone]

I guess it's just me but I think the business should be able to decide on their own. Maybe I don't like when people get drunk and cuss in front of kids. Should we ban alcohol from restaurants?

Unless you work at one of these places (your choice) the amount of smoke your exposed to on a daily basis isn't going to hurt you. The 5 seconds it takes you to walk through a group of smokers isn't going to hurt you. Hell hold your breath.

 

[alaskaguy]

I guess it's just me but I think the business should be able to decide on their own. Maybe I don't like when people get drunk and cuss in front of kids. Should we ban alcohol from restaurants?

Unless you work at one of these places (your choice) the amount of smoke your exposed to on a daily basis isn't going to hurt you. The 5 seconds it takes you to walk through a group of smokers isn't going to hurt you. Hell hold your breath.

This thread goes on and on.

Responses to the argument you have made have been provided. Nevertheless, I'll recap the responses....

Someone drinking in a restaurant does not harm me. The same can't be said for smoking.

Employees have the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. Employees should not have to choose between their health and their job.

The government exists to protect citizens' rights and the right to be seated in a restaurant or public place without smoke being blown into my face is one worth protecting by the government. Actions that inherently negatively affect the people who are around when they are performed - such as smoking - need to be regulated by the government.