No Smoking Ban

Car exhaust doesn't cause cancer? Stress from dealing with idiots (cell phoners) is healthy?

I have to use the roads (unless I want to hop through peoples backyards to get everywhere).

Nobody has to go to a resturaunt or bar (is that so hard to understand?)

 

We've been over the cars. Stress is basically your problem, *you* decide to get stressed out by hearing the person talking on the cell phone, it's not a direct cause-and-effect. Someone who doesn't care, doesn't have a problem. Someone who doesn't care about smoke is still inhaling it & at risk, whether they get upset about it or not.

And I know I don't *have* to go to a restaurant, but I *want* to. Even if that means someone else can't smoke there. Tough on them.

 

Sorry but that's too idiotic a comparrison to respond to.

 

I did not ignore it, take a look at page 6 of this thread (you even replied to a couple of my posts about it -and btw, I usually see selective quoting/selective memory as a low class form of concession ); I said in my opinion cars are different because cars are also needed. Not all driving is necessary, but a good part is, while smoking isn't. The only part of it I ignored is the % of driving that is needed/isn't needed; I honestly don't care, it's not relevant. You couldn't really check on that anyways -what should we do, pull over everyone and ask what they're driving to, and how far they have to go?
Second, there's a difference in driving *or* smoking outside (where it may not be healthy but the concentration is a lot lower, I honestly don't care about people smoking outside any more than I care about people driving) or inside (especially in smaller places of business, it doesn't take long before there's a *lot* of smoke in a *very* small space).

The *whole* basis? I like it how you KEEP ignoring how secondary smoke has proven to cause cancer... How many times do I have to keep repeating myself that all those things I like/don't like doesn't matter UNLESS it is a DIRECT & SERIOUS threat to people's health? You're really funny to argue with you know, you read/quote only those bits of the posts that suit you.

 

mummy, mummy! The bad men are affecting my delicate lungs! Make them stop!

GROW UP! Some people smoke; others don't like it. THAT'S LIFE! Stop trying to ban anything you don't like. It's stupid.

 

It's already happened in all public enclosed spaces where i live, and as a smoker I have adjusted. It's a good concept as long as it's not overdone (there has been talks in canadian parliment of making it illegal everywhere except your house). Now before anyone jumps on me for protecting my ability to smoke outdoors, if you own a car that gets driven even semi-frequently, your alreday polluting more in a week then I do in a year with ciggaretes.

 

No, I only read/quote those bits that actually have something to do with what were talking about.

So basically you're saying you answered my question before I asked it?

I'm "ignoring" the second hand smoke causes cancer issue becuase it's besides the point and becuase I already answered it.
(Selective memorey? Funny how you keep accusing me of doing the things that you're doing. funny, sad, and typical).
I already said (several times) it's only an issue if you're around it and nobodies saying you have to be.

Here; YES, second hand smoke causes cancer.
Now lets get back to the topic, that being; should one person have to give up their rights to accomadate someone elses personal preferences.

I don't think so, you obviously do, becuase obviously to you convienace means more than freedom. That being the case I'm wasting my time even talking to you.

 

You mentioned the car thing, I replied to it, and those same arguments apply to the question you asked later. It'd be a waste of time and bandwidth to re-post them.

That's where we can't agree; I think the cancer issue IS the point. The ONLY IMPORTANT POINT! I don't want to ban anything or limit anyones freedom for my convenience, not because I 'like' or 'don't like' something; but ONLY because it is so unhealthy. That has nothing to do with my convenience; if you want to talk on your cell phone all night long, and smell horribly of strong perfume, I don't care. Well, okay, obviously I would care, but I wouldn't want you to be asked to leave and I definitely wouldn't want cell phones or perfume banned. My HEALTH means more than your freedom; my convenience does not. Understand? Yes, no, maybe?

 

I smoke because I like to kill other people, i admit it.


I especially like to kill anti-smoking people when I'm out at bars and clubs, I just blow a puff thier way and hope they die

 

Last time I'm going to say this, if this doesn't get through, I give up, you win, whatever:

1) I'm not talking about my rights I'm talking about the business owners rights.
2) Yes, if you're talking about an unhealthy atmosphere in a place you don't have to be but would like to be you're talking about your preferences and convienance vs somebody elses rights.

 

There should be opportunities for everyone to go out (or go shopping, or do any regular stuff like eating in a restaurant) without being exposed to anything that is really unhealthy and/or dangerous. Business owners shouldn't have 100% freedom in deciding what they allow or not, and don't; just like they have to keep their kitchen clean so you can eat there without having to worry about getting food poisoning. If I cook at home I can do anything I like and the risks are my own; I can wipe my hands on my jeans, wipe the counter with an old rag, and start cooking. A cook in a restaurant is required to wash his/her hands, and keep the counter much cleaner. Is that a limitation of his/her rights, his/her freedom? I can have my hair hanging loose; a cook is required to wear a cap or tie it back. Infringement of his/her rights? You don't *have* to eat in a restaurant, as you pointed out... (usually -I'm not even going into anything like being on the road while traveling for work or, indeed, the people who work there).

 

as a non smoker, I couldnt give a fuck if smokers could smoke in there own homes. HOWEVER, I spent most my life in california, and was very happy when I could come home from a club or bar and not have my room stink of a product I dont even use. However, before they outlawed smoking in public places I still chose to go to those same bars knowing full well I would reak of ashtray after.....so i guess I am saying yeah, I support these bans but simply for selfish reasons. I mean its not like a single fucking smoker gave a rat fuck how I felt on the subject.

 

This isn't the same thing. What you're talking about is doing their job well, which every cook will agree with since they don't want amateurs to give a bad name to their activity. What you want is adjusting the laws to your personal convenience through control. You want to be able to go at every place without asking yourself whether smokers are allowed or not, instead of choosing a specific restaurant. And for that you want everything to be standardized for you by the govt forgetting a big part of the population smokes.
...But it all boils to to the business owners rights and don't compare apples with oranges. Normal people won't be bothered too much if their host smoke indoor. But nobody will go a 2nd time eating at someone's house if they know the hygiene is bad, a lot will be very pissed off.
Nazi.

 

blah blah blah, I hate smelling like cigarettte smoke, and no smoker ever took that into consideration before they lit up. the carelessness towards others personal prerogatives they all demonstrate make me not even care if they are forced to go outside in a blizzard in order to feed thier addiction. at least my jacket dont stink anymore.