Basically smoking kills, end of^^
Basically smoking kills, end of^^
"To believe in one's dreams is to spend all of one's life asleep"
What if you are a 65-year old lady that has been working in a diner or a bar for many years? When you took on the job, the effects of smoking weren't known like they are now. Also, you didn't really expect to keep the job as long as you did, but money has worn thin, and you must keep working through your old age in order to pay your bills and such.Originally Posted by hiredgoonz
That's a pretty specious argument... Even at 65, there are jobs available to you that do not require exposure to second-hand smoke.Originally Posted by Tacos
I'm against legislating away personal freedoms when there are pre-existing conditions that will correct the problem. It's supposed to be a free-market economy and smokers are a minority. There should be plenty of demand for non-smoking clubs/bars.
It should be left up to the individual bar owners as to whether or not smoking will be allowed on the premises. Don't like smoke? Don't go to a bar where smoking is allowed and don't work there...
Yeah, with all of that great experience they have gotten at their job for the past 40 years. Do you know how hard it would be for someone of that age to find a job working at a non-smoking bar or diner? Their competition is young attractive people who are energetic. Not to mention the fact that after all of that time, the person probably has generated a 'customer base'. They have maintained this job for years, and are loosing it because they decided that they don't want people blowing smoke in their face. What if I wanted to consume harmful acid when I was at the bar, and when I was doing that, some splashed onto the people around me, and the waiter?Originally Posted by hiredgoonz
Oh yeah, this 'specious argument' describes my aunt to a T.
So by all means, let's change the entire bar industry to accomodate your aunt...and this customer base she has established, I imagine some of them smoke? Your aunt wants their tips, but wants their personal habits legislated?Originally Posted by Tacos
Smoking is still a legal activity, a bar is private property; ergo, it falls to the business owner whether smoking is allowed on the premises.
It's a shame that your aunt has to decide whether or not to be around smoke or try to find a new smoke-free job. It's also a shame that homeless people freeze to death on the streets every winter and that kids starve to death and that people die because they can't afford life-saving medical treatment, so let's abandon our democratic Republic and move to socialism...
The consumption of harmful acid does not violate any specific law I know of...handling it in public would probably constitute reckless endangerment and probably a few other statutes...so your metaphor does not hold up...
First of all, we are talking about places where smoking is NOT a legal activity. Mopping the floor is a legal activity. So, if someone can slip and fall in a restaurant, they can sue for personal damages, why can't they sue for damage done by smoke?Originally Posted by hiredgoonz
Unless you are in a county that doesn't allow smoking in public places. And my point was that handling cigs/smoke in public places could be seen as reckless endangerment, just as much as handling acid could. If you get it on you, it won't hurt right away. But if you get it on the same spot over and over again, the skin will die.The consumption of harmful acid does not violate any specific law I know of...handling it in public would probably constitute reckless endangerment and probably a few other statutes...so your metaphor does not hold up...
And, oh yeah, I'll tell my aunt what you think.
And, are you correlating peoples decision to smoke with people going hungry????
Last edited by Tacos; 02-27-2007 at 11:30 AM.
Actually, I'm taking issue with the passing of smoking bans in the first place. Once it is banned, then there's not much to talk about...I disagree with forcing bar owners to not allow a legal activity among consenting adults (if you're in a bar where smoking is allowed, you are consenting) on private property.Originally Posted by Tacos
If they could prove damages caused by exposure to second-hand smoke, they could sue as well. The thing is, there's no evidence about what concentration of second-hand smoke causes health issues...I won't attempt to argue that it's good for you at any concentration, but not everyone exposed to second-hand smoke gets lung cancer or even suffers ANY measurable health effects...
Yeah, because splashing acid on people is EXACTLY the same thing as smoking. Your example of "harmful acid" implied that this acid would injure those exposed to it, without all the caveats you have now seen fit to apply to it: "If you get it on you, it won't hurt right away. But if you get it on the same spot over and over again, the skin will die."Originally Posted by Tacos
But I'll take your example and apply it in an applicable way...if a bar owner advertises his place as the "Acid Bar" and it is known that the patrons of this bar consume "harmful acid" then it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to patronize that establishment. It is also up to prospective employees whether or not to apply for a job there.
Next up: Dunkin Donuts forced out of business because those with severe peanut allergies can't eat there...
It's not the smokers' fault that your aunt works in a bar/diner where smoking is allowed. It's also not their fault that your aunt can't get a "better" job (read: where there's no smoke) somewhere else.
But how far do you want to go to protect people? No fatty foods? Mandated exercise programs? No cars that go over 65mph (or whatever the speed limit is on the road you're driving)?
After all, there's no reason for any non-emergency vehicle to speed and we could easily limit the speed of cars using RFID technology.
It's the same thing as seatbelt laws...if I don't want to wear a seatbelt and end up a smear on the highway after an accident, that should be my choice. I'm not hurting anyone else...
The thing that amazes me about this is that you can't see that the logic you're using to defend smoking bans can be used to limit a whole bunch of other activities that serve no legitimate purpose other than providing those who choose to engage in them with pleasure...
I hope my kids will enjoy living in the communist state everyone seems to want...
It's all based on personal politics in my opinion.
I smoke on occaision, I drink and I smoke weed.
I find no problems with it as long as it doesn't interfere with my academic and social life. Personally what people do on their own free time is up to them. I believe that no one has the right to tell someone what they can or can't do when it comes to Cigarettes, Alcohol and Narcotics.
But hey, that's just me.
Well do you?
i drink, when i drink i smoke cigs, but i dont blaze the chronic any more. i could careless what anyone else chooses to do, you wanna shoot herion or meth go ahead...
i drink beer and play wii
well , my brother drinks smokes and does pot but after awhile i told him to quit and he did im only 13 so he explained that when ever he was stressed he would do pot as a getaway as the loose cannon said to make him "happy" than hes like he shouldnt need to do pot to make himself happy the problems are still there he still smokes and drinks time to get him to stop smoking
plus my wee little lungs cant take smoke and im around ppl who smoke alot is this affecting me alot more than i think or should i just stay like 2 extra meters away from them lol
Last edited by striffest; 02-27-2007 at 09:42 PM.
Games: Excite Truck Zelda: The Twilight Princess Red Steel Wii Sports
Most Wanted: MP:Corruption Super Smash Bros Brawl