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

[Mrs. Tuberski]

D rose it shouldnt matter cause bieng gay is being thrown around here and not by me but by others BK doesnt agree with abortions and for that matter needs to adjust his ideas of where he can do some good. cause he has one way of thinking and that has nothing to do with we are discussing goes to prove what?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Now I see what Asher means.

MrsT, the question was directed at BK, who is unabashedly opposed to gay marriage but had the audacity to mention his support of civil liberties in the post I quoted. Please pay attention.

Why should civil liberties be favoured in one case and not another?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So would I, given your position on managing other people's lives. Purely out of spite and for equality, you understrand.

How am I managing your life?

I'm asking you to let other people live long lives by smoking outside. I'm not banning you from smoking or otherwise not granting you equality under the law.

Your habit hurts others, and it's not permitted in public places. Life goes on, people live longer, and you're so spiteful you'd be in favour of blatant discrimination against other people for "spite".

Classy Edmontonians in the hiz-ouse.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why should civil liberties be favoured in one case and not another?

You're honestly not going to put smoking in a restaurant in the same league as gay marriage, are you.

Get over yourself. Walk a few feet and smoke up...no one's stopping you.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Tuberski


So, I, being a smoker am responsible for the millions of people that don't have private healthcare coverage?

Or that all the millions without coverage are smokers?

ACK!

God, now you're doing it T. It was a response to NYE's post and you're just making sh*t out of straw in this post.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Speaking for NZ, that situation never existed. No bar voluntarily went smokefree.

Instead of banning smoking outright, give smoke free bars a tax break. But, at the same time, Give smoking only bars the same break.

ACK!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


And if more of you would just keel over already, more monies would be freed up to be spent taking care of people who DIDN'T choose to get sick.

yeah you keep on believing that cause just when ya think its over wait a new flood of aliens flood in and hey wait they might be smokers to god save us all. Its history dude it happens nothing you can do about it. the non smokers aint getting screwed anyworse then the smokers

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you support this? How's this for starters: you're anti-government in all cases that aren't pro-Christian. Everyone knows this.

Oh really? Anyone who doesn't support banning smoking in bars is anti-government. Isn't that the same thing as believing in individual liberty?

Christianity has nothing to do with this thread so why don't you quit bringing in irrelevant points.

MrsT is crazy because she's clearly not even reading the threads. She's making things up constantly, making up arguments that she claims I said that completely contradict what I've been saying this whole thread, then typing incoherently about it. She's crazy, man...she's crazy.

You've always been crazy.

Then why aren't we labelling you crazy?

I've yet to meet a smoker who isn't an addict/junkie for the nicotine.

Assuming this is true, does it mean that the reason they support smoking is because they are junkies in search of a fix? Why don't you try dealing with the arguments.

It's not my argument, it's an observation. Smoking was socially acceptable for decades, but it's falling out of favour. It's ALWAYS been bad, but because it takes public action to do something about it, it's now happening that it's not socially acceptable any more.

Edit: And again, knock it off with the strawmen. The only people here talking about banning smoking are you and MrsT. I've no idea why. Maybe you're both crazy.

What strawman? You said so yourself. The reason these laws are coming about is because smoking is no longer socially acceptable. Does that mean that when something is no longer socially acceptable that we ought to ban it?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs



God, now you're doing it T. It was a response to NYE's post and you're just making sh*t out of straw in this post.

Yeah, I misunderstood. Sorry.



ACK!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

How am I managing your life?

I'm asking you to let other people live long lives by smoking outside. I'm not banning you from smoking or otherwise not granting you equality under the law.

Your habit hurts others, and it's not permitted in public places. Life goes on, people live longer, and you're so spiteful you'd be in favour of blatant discrimination against other people for "spite".

Classy Edmontonians in the hiz-ouse.

I've already explained why.

A smokers club with zero employees would not be allowed to have smoking inside.

Are you that dense?

[Flip McWho]

If it's a harmful and addictive substance, why is it legal?

Wow.

You tell me. That's what I always ask myself when I sit down to a cone

If there is such a concern about health, why is it a legal substance? Why will these newborns be subjected to it?

Because we allow that 18 year olds can make their own decisions. This issue isn't about the harm to the individual who smokes, it's about the harm the smoker causes to people who have exercised their choice to not smoke.

Not really in your system.

So you agree with the ban in public health service systems?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
D rose it shouldnt matter cause bieng gay is being thrown around here and not by me but by others BK doesnt agree with abortions and for that matter needs to adjust his ideas of where he can do some good. cause he has one way of thinking and that has nothing to do with we are discussing goes to prove what?

Oh for f*ck's sake. Let me spell this out for you: You smokers are whining about your rights (civil liberties) to poison yourselves and everyone around you being trampled, BK (a non-smoker) indicates he supports civil liberties and the notion that the government should stay out of everyone's personal business, yet he supports efforts to trample the rights (civil liberties) of gays. It has just as much to do with this thread in that context.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're honestly not going to put smoking in a restaurant in the same league as gay marriage, are you.

I agree that this would be silly. Smoking in restaurants is a right that has been enjoyed by the public for as long as their has been both restaurants and things to smoke. It's certainly a much more serious blow to civil liberties to take away this long-standing right than it is to refuse to create a wholely new one like a right to gay marriage. Good point, Asher.

[Ben Kenobi]

MrsT, the question was directed at BK, who is unabashedly opposed to gay marriage but had the audacity to mention his support of civil liberties in the post I quoted. Please pay attention.

I have nothing more to add to what Mrs. T said.

Why should I care who Asher chooses to sleep with. He obviously wants us to know because he keeps making this a gay issue.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Oh really? Anyone who doesn't support banning smoking in bars is anti-government.

No, just you.

Christianity has nothing to do with this thread so why don't you quit bringing in irrelevant points.

Because it shows your hypocrisy. You're against gay marriage -- which harms no one -- but you revert to your I-hate-gov't ways when it's anything non-Christian.

I'm sorry you're not picking up on your own belief tendencies, but they're blatantly obvious to anyone with a clue.

Then why aren't we labelling you crazy?

I'm definitely crazy -- but the sensible, productive kind.

Assuming this is true, does it mean that the reason they support smoking is because they are junkies in search of a fix? Why don't you try dealing with the arguments.

The arguments have been dealt with over and over. They keep getting more obscure. The reason they support smoking is because it's necessary for them now, and this law inconveniences them. That's all. They're placing their convenience over public health. Which is selfish.

What strawman? You said so yourself. The reason these laws are coming about is because smoking is no longer socially acceptable. Does that mean that when something is no longer socially acceptable that we ought to ban it?

The only people talking about an outright ban are you and Mrs.T. Thus, this is a strawman.

Yes, smoking is becoming less popular, but your guess is as good as mine if it'll get banned outright. Banning doesn't do much -- just ask the marijuana users...