Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Yelling fire is not inherently illegal. What made it illegal is the context -- a public place. Like smoking is illegal in a context -- a public place.

As I pointed out, the zealots go beyond that. Smoking is banned in private clubs here.

[MRT144]

asher, stfu about fuel economy. that is such a ****ing non sequitar to smoking that youre once again making yourself foolish by pursuing it. thats a fault of yours, you love snipe hunts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
but heres the rub nye, smoking is legal and can be regulated in the same way that any of the above are. and they are! no one is suggesting taking away the right to smoke, just regulating the areas, just like drinking, just like bodily functions, just like yelling something.

And preventing businesses from catering to smokers, and preventing smokers from congregating in businesses that might want to cater to them, and...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
asher, stfu about fuel economy. that is such a ****ing non sequitar to smoking that youre once again making yourself foolish by pursuing it. thats a fault of yours, you love snipe hunts.

No. He's never seen a post of mine that does not drive him quite irate.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by notyoueither


As I pointed out, the zealots go beyond that. Smoking is banned in private clubs here.

and what gives you the indication that asher or i are zealots that would want to go that far. on the other hand circumventing laws by mere semantics of your establishment is lame and should be punished.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
asher, stfu about fuel economy. that is such a ****ing non sequitar to smoking that youre once again making yourself foolish by pursuing it. thats a fault of yours, you love snipe hunts.

Just find it amusing that people taking the side-track about car pollution being bad all drive boats. Hypocrisy.

[notyoueither]

Actually, I wasn't campaigning for a ban on driving. I am questioning singling out smoking and smokers of all the health threats.

It's you who want to be free from any restraint, but it's fine that others are subject to arbitrary bans.

Hypocricy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I wasn;t campaigning for a ban on driving. I am question singling out smoking and smokers of all the health threats.

It's you who want to be free from any restraint, but it's fine that others are subject to arbitrary bans.

Hypocricy.

How is this arbitrary? It seems pretty well-reasoned, well-established to not economically have a big impact, and backed by facts that it's bad for public health. It seems pretty accurate.

And I don't want to be free from any restraint either.

And I'm not out for a ban on smoking either.

And smokers don't get blamed for all of the health threats, just the ones they cause.

Let's face facts, nye -- you're clearly a smoker. You're doing something stupid, you know it, but you don't got the balls to man up and quit it. You realize what you're doing hurts your lungs and you realize that it hurts the lungs of people around you, but you're so damn addicted that you just don't care.

This is why the pro-smokers couldn't come up with a real argument. All they're doing is trying to justify a stupid habit they can't quit.

[notyoueither]

And as Ming tried to point out, it is all the more amazing given your membership in other demographic groups.

What is it they say about people with no empathy?

[MRT144]

because its something that is easily seen and regulated and affects a small amount of people while creating a benefit to a large amount of people.

i am not above believing in bans, if the public wills them. we have to consider the merits of it though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And as Ming tried to point out, it is all the more amazing given your membership in other demographic groups.

What is it they say about people with no empathy?

And as I tried to point out, it's a completely different case.

I'm for regulating behaviour in public that affects the public health.

This doesn't have anything to do with membership in demographic groups at all, and everything to do with common sense. It also is apparent just how desperate you guys are for arguments that you want to compare gay rights (a private affair) to smokers right to pump smoke into the public's lungs. The issues are far removed if you look past the "oh we're so persecuted!!!" issues smokers are trying to pull.

You're not being persecuted, you're being stupid. Get over it.

[Ben Kenobi]

But the problem is it harms other people. In fact, they don't benefit from the filter that the smokers do, either.

If I shoot someone, they don't have a say. The only way you are going to breathe in the evil second hand smoke is to go to a bar. You know that there are going to be people smoking there yet you still choose to go to the bar.

If you really wanted to prevent yourself from breathing in second hand smoke you wouldn't go to the bar, or you would find one that caters to your proclivities.

Is this that hard to figure out Asher?

That's exactly the problem, and you just admitted to it. Smoking in a bar affects more than the smokers' liberty, it affects everyone around them. It's harming other people.

Where did I admit that? All I said is that smokers are permitted to smoke even if it harms themselves. I said nothing about other people.

If it was a truely private establishment it wouldn't need a license. They're public places.

So businesses are not private property? The government has the ability to seize businesses because they are public?

I suggest you try a different tack Asher.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher

So another polluter.

I rest my case...

If you drive at all, you are a polluter...

I rest my case

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So businesses are not private property? The government has the ability to seize businesses because they are public?

I suggest you try a different tack Asher.

they arent private property if their operation hinges on an agreement with the government to follow certain stipulations of business.

businesses arent property, they are entities.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If I shoot someone, they don't have a say. The only way you are going to breathe in the evil second hand smoke is to go to a bar.

So clearly if you want to make a healthy choice you are not permitted to socialize in bars and restaurants incase one person out of every 50 decides to smoke.

That is brilliant.

It is simply unacceptable that the MAJORITY of people should have to change their plans/move in public if a MINORITY of people decides he is too lazy to go outside to smoke. That's just courtesy that smokers don't have, and it needs to be regulated.

Where did I admit that? All I said is that smokers are permitted to smoke even if it harms themselves. I said nothing about other people.

That's exactly my point. You're ignoring the issue here, that smoking in public harms other people.

So businesses are not private property? The government has the ability to seize businesses because they are public?

Private property as being used in business are still subject to public regulations.

Look up some of the basics of how businesses work and come back and play.