Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[MikeH]

That's not what the first post implied.

Recently, there were laws passed in most states in the US saying that you had to have your seat belt on or else you'd get a ticket. In Illinois, it was a law for a while, but it wasn't an offense that you could be pulled over for. Then, safety-nazis went out of control and said cops could pull you over for it.

If it is then good.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap
Which is an absurd arguement. Removing the "choice" of smoking in a restaurant is equally as injurious to "freedom" as doing it in a bar. To say you don;t mind one but disgaree with the other is nonsensical.

No it just shows your ignorance.

Liquer increases the urge to smoke in most smokers.
Many social smokers only smoke when they drink.
I don't go to resturants to smoke and most others don't either so it's not really injurious to my freedom, especially since i'm only going to be there 90 minutes. But when I go to a bar, i go with the intent to sit for a long period of time to drink and smoke. It's not my intent to decrease one's pleasure of eating. But if they're in a bar pounding down their own vice, they're fair game in my book, especially if they're anit smoking fanatics, what the heck are they doing in a smoke filled bar. There are enough bars that are smokefree for them to choose from. Just a few reasons why it's different.

But it's good to know that people that are ignorant about this type of thing are involved in regulating it.
It's what I've come to expect from government.

And you'll note that I don't argue about most of the anit-smoking regulations or the extra tax.
I'm just saying where I feel the line should be drawn.
I think resturants should be given a choice also but since smoking can easily ruin a dinning experience and not smoking for an hour is not an excessive burden, I'm willing to concede that one. As stated before, I know it's a bad habit and I try to be considerate. All I want is the same in return. But no matter how far I bend, there are those that want me to bend further. And it's usually people that don't really understand the situation.

[rah]

And another reason it's different. Back to choice.
You can only get a tonelli's pizza at tonelli's so there's no choice. If a non-smoke wants one, i don't want to ruin his experience so I won't smoke. But you can get an MGD almost anywhere so there is choice involved.
And that's the issue here.

[Odin]

[LIBERTARIAN TROLL]
ZOMFG! TEH EVIL GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO SWING MY FIST IN A PERSON'S FACE; THE EVIL COMMIE FASCISTS!!![/LIBERTARIAN TROLL]

Libertarians care so much about protecting thier own rights they don't care if they harm others in the process.

[rah]

Another ignorant person that hasn't read the thread shows up. All I'm asking is for the right of an bar owner to designate his bar as a smoking bar. You have the choice not to show up and be harmed. I have agreed to and cooperate with not smoking in other places where you might be. I wish people would read.

[Odin]

Originally posted by rah
Another ignorant person that hasn't read the thread shows up. All I'm asking is for the right of an bar owner to designate his bar as a smoking bar. You have the choice not to show up and be harmed. I have agreed to and cooperate with not smoking in other places where you might be. I wish people would read.

Because that would be no diferent than now, non-smokers whould still have to breath in 2nd-hand smoke because no bars will make themselves nonsmoking.

[Drake Tungsten]

God, the entire country will be controlled by whiny *****es by the time I get back...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin


Because that would be no diferent than now, non-smokers whould still have to breath in 2nd-hand smoke because no bars will make themselves nonsmoking.

If there are enough consumers that want it... they will.

[rah]

All these looney control freaks.
There could be 120 bars in a city that are non-smoking and 2 that are, but that won't satisfy them. It has to be 122 non-smoking bars. I don't even smoke in my own home. Is it too much to ask for a sanctuary where I can without standing in the cold and doing further harm my health to do something the goverment considers legal and subsidizes? I guess it is. Who are the inconsiderate bastards here? It looks pretty plain to me.

[Odin]

Originally posted by rah
a sanctuary where I can without standing in the cold and doing further harm my health to do something the goverment considers legal and subsidizes?

your home.

[rah]

As I said. I don't smoke there. You can't read obviouisly.
Just what is wrong to you to have a place where JUST smokers can smoke without harming anyone? It's because if you admit that, your whole arguement falls apart.

Your type is the most feared control freaks. There needs to be no logic, just your way. Just as bad as religious fanatics as far as i'm concerned.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin


your home.

good answer...

that's also the place YOU can stay and not be bothered by smokers

[rah]

Yes, I don't smoke there because I wish not to harm anybody with my habit. I don't want to do that anywhere. But to do that, there has to be a few sanctuaries for me to accomplish it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MikeH
Is anyone else stunned that the wearing of seatbelts isn't mandatory in the US?

The issue appears to be that, even when the wearing of seatbelts is mandatory, you can't be pulled over and given a ticket if you don't.

That's a bit strange.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
All I'm asking is for the right of an bar owner to designate his bar as a smoking bar

The thing is if bars can choose to permit smoking, there is a very real chance that no bars are non-smoking.