[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

What I'm against is smoking in enclosed public spaces. When you open an establishment to the public, you agree to specific safety guidelines. I feel smoking should be banned in the same way asbestos, fire hazards, radon, low quality food, etc. are now illegal.

We have health inspectors that check to make sure that a hair doesn't fall in your french fries, but we permit smoking? It just doesn't make sense.

I'm all FOR regulation of private spaces that pose a threat to health AND (A-N-D) can't be easily detected or known by the consumer.

However, smoking is NOT a subtle thing, everyone knows it's a health hazard, and everybody can make a decision whether or not to expose oneself to it.

Therefore, we don't need no friggin regulation there.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I wouldn't care as long as the general public is not against it. I guess it would lead to trends like "Straight only", "Men Only", "Whites only", or "Straight White Smokers Only"

Wait, smoking is a choice.

Last time I checked, being gay is NOT a choice (according to many here), so you can't compare that.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Wait, smoking is a choice.

Last time I checked, being gay is NOT a choice (according to many here), so you can't compare that.

-t

I don't see your point? We are talking about segregation and discrimination here. What does that have to do with choice or born that way? Last time I check, you don't choose to be White.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I don't see your point? We are talking about segregation and discrimination here. What does that have to do with choice or born that way? Last time I check, you don't choose to be White.

Duh, that's my whole point. You can't discriminate on things that people HAVE A CHOICE !

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Duh, that's my whole point. You can't discriminate on things that people HAVE A CHOICE !

-t

What? I can't discriminate against who are Gothic looking, Punk looking, or Nerdy looking? You can discriminate against how they talk, how they look, and what they choose to wear.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What? I can't discriminate against who are Gothic looking, Punk looking, or Nerdy looking? You can discriminate against how they talk, how they look, and what they choose to wear.

I think we both mean the same thing.

Why would you allowed establish certain dresscodes, but not say "for smokers only" ?

Well, should you catch someone that doesn't smoke, the owner can either tolerate it or kick him out

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

I think we both mean the same thing.

Why would you allowed establish certain dresscodes, but not say "for smokers only" ?

Well, should you catch someone that doesn't smoke, the owner can either tolerate it or kick him out

-t

Like I said, I have no problems with "smoker only" places as long as the public is not against it.

When you live in a civilize society, you can't always have it your way. You need to live by society standards.

Maybe that's why conservatives have such high divorce rates. They can't compromise and always want their way.

Wife says "Please don't smoke in front of me or in the house."
Husband says "Don't encroach on my civil rights b*tch. I'll smoke if I want to."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Like I said, I have no problems with "smoker only" places as long as the public is not against it.

I hope you agree that designated "smokers only" places basically mean that the government has to back off and let the market regulate.

LOL, well, I could see the government putting out regulations of "smoke free" for NON-"smokers only" establishments.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

I hope you agree that designated "smokers only" places basically mean that the government has to back off and let the market regulate.

LOL, well, I could see the government putting out regulations of "smoke free" for NON-"smokers only" establishments.

-t

Well, stop bitching and get your local government to allow "smokers only" establishments.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Duh, that's my whole point. You can't discriminate on things that people HAVE A CHOICE !

-t

"No Jews!" (you have a choice... just stop being Jewish)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

"No Jews!" (you have a choice... just stop being Jewish)

Way to go to derail the discussion

Almost as bad as invoking Godwin's law, since calling on Jews is always a nice killer argument.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

No Jews!

Don't worry, you're not the first leftie who's written that.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Way to go to derail the discussion

Almost as bad as invoking Godwin's law, since calling on Jews is always a nice killer argument.

I'm not so sure about that. Judaism in and of itself may have been a poor example, but the idea stands that just because something is a choice doesn't mean that changing one's mind is viable. Smoking, of course, deals with physical addiction, but there are all sorts of psychological compulsions that people get themselves worked into, and they become just as dependent on the objects of their compulsions as they would be on chemicals. The most famous example is probably compulsive gambling, but there are others. The cause is different, but the effects are just as real.

What happens when a choice becomes so ingrained that changing becomes almost impossible? Is it still right to treat it as an easily-mutable habit, or is another approach needed? Does it make any difference that the compulsion is purely mental in nature, or that it corresponds to a behavior instead of a chemical? I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Almost as bad as invoking Godwin's law, since calling on Jews is always a nice killer argument.

I find that funny as the thread starter used Nazi in the original post and Doofy was the first to use "Hitler."

Anyway, my point was, you can have personal believes (choices) and still be discriminated against. Religion was the first to come to mind...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What happens when a choice becomes so ingrained that changing becomes almost impossible? Is it still right to treat it as an easily-mutable habit, or is another approach needed? Does it make any difference that the compulsion is purely mental in nature, or that it corresponds to a behavior instead of a chemical? I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this.

I agree, but how would a government ban of smoking in privatly held restaurants solve that problem ? It would NOT.

And I also don't want the government to interfere in every single instance where people show destructive behavior, as long as the general public is not affected.

Like I asked before (and not gotten any answer): Who are those people that force you at gunpoint to enter a restaurant that allows smoking ?

And WHAT RIGHT do you have as a non-smoker to demand the government to enforce YOUR point of view on everybody else ?

Why can't people make a choice, and don't complain that there are other choices available ? It seems like everytime, it's about imposing one's values and norms on others.

This discussion is a dead-beat horse.

-t

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Then don't enter a restaurant where smoking is permitted.

EVERY restaurant is NON smoking. YES, it is soo sweet. It's only a matter of time before it will be completely illegal to pollute the air with the over 4000 hazardous chemicals that cigarettes put out.

11 of those 4000 chemicals are known cancer causing chemicals.

69 of those 4000 chemicals causes cancer in humans and animals.

All 4000 chemicals are harmful to humans and animals.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

EVERY restaurant is NON smoking. YES, it is soo sweet. It's only a matter of time before it will be completely illegal to pollute the air with the over 4000 hazardous chemicals that cigarettes put out.

11 of those 4000 chemicals are known cancer causing chemicals.

69 of those 4000 chemicals causes cancer in humans and animals.

All 4000 chemicals are harmful to humans and animals.

Come the revolution, you're first against the wall matey.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I don't care if you "smoke in your home, pee in your poted plants or take dumps in your backyard" either. NOBODY is saying that smoking should be banned outright like alcohol during prohibition.

Actually, that's not true.

Both Maryland and North Carolina have had efforts to make smoke-free municipalities. That's right- no smoking in your homes.

And the people behind such movements believe that it's just one step from the enforcement in privately owned establishments like restaurants and bars to doing it in the home.

[turtle777]

Excatly, vmarks, that is my fear also.

I'm not a smoker, have never smoked a single cigarette in my life, but I believe the government has to be restricted. Remember that case in Colorado, where a Christian home fellowship group was forbidden to pray in their own home ? WTF ?

We have to be very careful with any kind of intrusion into the private sphere.

-t

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, that's not true.

Both Maryland and North Carolina have had efforts to make smoke-free municipalities. That's right- no smoking in your homes.

And the people behind such movements believe that it's just one step from the enforcement in privately owned establishments like restaurants and bars to doing it in the home.

I would be VERY against such a ban. It's completely unenforceable.

[hyteckit]

Well, anal sex is illegal in some states. How is that enforce?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, anal sex is illegal in some states. How is that enforce?

Selectively and badly.

[placebo1969]

Should I just into the fray with only reading the last page?

Hmm, why not.

Smoking is banned in personal homes such as foster homes and daycares in my state. And righly so, I believe.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, that's not true.

Both Maryland and North Carolina have had efforts to make smoke-free municipalities. That's right- no smoking in your homes.

And the people behind such movements believe that it's just one step from the enforcement in privately owned establishments like restaurants and bars to doing it in the home.

Wow, North Carolina? That's almost unbelieveable. They grow a lot of Tobaco in North Carolina. I can't see the farmers ever letting that law get passed.

I use to live in North Carolina, it is a very nice state. I liked it very much. That was back in the late 70's. The worst state that I remember was Arkansasa. I was there in the late 80's and they didn't have any non smoking locations at that time.

The best state for clean air that I know of is California. I go for months not having to smell any cigarette smoke.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Come the revolution, you're first against the wall matey.

V

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So now I'm an illiterate.

So people live in a place where there is no other way to access their private residence without passing through the bar?

Those people made a poor choice and I shouldn't have to pay for it, only they should.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

I agree, but how would a government ban of smoking in privatly held restaurants solve that problem ? It would NOT.

Indeed, it wouldn't. This is why I oppose such bans. They don't solve the problem.

[hyteckit]

cigarettes will be banned from home if they are made illegal, just like marijuana.

cigarettes by prescription only?

[spacefreak]

Public health? Check out the number of people killed or maimed on our nation's highways.

Ooooh... here's a good one for those so concerned about the public's health.

Maybe we should ban school buses. At least a non-smoker can decide not to go into a smoke-filled bar. Children on the other hand have practically no choice in deciding whether to get on a school bus.

The number of American kids injured in nonfatal school bus accidents each year is between double and triple previous estimates, a new study finds.

The research team found approximately 51,000 children had been treated during the study period, averaging about 17,000 per year.

"This number is huge," said study lead author Jennifer McGeehan, a researcher at the Center for Innovation in Pediatric Practice with the Columbus Children's Research Institute at Columbus Children's Hospital in Ohio. "And it means these injuries are occurring much more frequently than previously thought, and parents need to be aware of that."

The study tally far exceeds the 6,000 school bus injuries figure cited by the preeminent nonprofit independent federal advisory group, the Transportation Research Board (TRB). It's also twice as many as the 8,500 injuries cited by the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The authors emphasized that, since they focused only on patients who attended an ER after their accident, the high injury rate might still miss many incidents. Children who went untreated or were treated by their parents, school doctors or pediatricians were not incorporated into the final totals.

[climber]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, that's not true.

Both Maryland and North Carolina have had efforts to make smoke-free municipalities. That's right- no smoking in your homes.

And the people behind such movements believe that it's just one step from the enforcement in privately owned establishments like restaurants and bars to doing it in the home.

The problem is that without some restriction on smoking in many businesses non-smokers had no effective choice but to put up with the smoke or stay home forever. The logic that any restrictions will lead to a prohibition refuses to address this point. In other words your free market approach was not working.

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Should I just into the fray with only reading the last page?

Hmm, why not.

Smoking is banned in personal homes such as foster homes and daycares in my state. And righly so, I believe.

So if we follow the logic of some in this thread, daycares are private property. The owner should set the smoking policy, not the government. The children can just go someplace else! Nice logic Doofy!

Heck, we can even be in denial of the mounting scientific evidence against second hand smoke. Or better yet, find a journal article that tends to support an increased risk and try and pawn it off as "proving there is no risk", as Voodoo tried to do in the last thread (go brush up on those research skills dude!). Yes I did read the whole article.

It's a sure sign of defeat, when the best card they have left is the fascist one.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Public health? Check out the number of people killed or maimed on our nation's highways.

Ooooh... here's a good one for those so concerned about the public's health.

Maybe we should ban school buses. At least a non-smoker can decide not to go into a smoke-filled bar. Children on the other hand have practically no choice in deciding whether to get on a school bus.

That's a ridiculous argument. Stop it.

greg

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by climber 

The problem is that without some restriction on smoking in many businesses non-smokers had no effective choice but to put up with the smoke or stay home forever. The logic that any restrictions will lead to a prohibition refuses to address this point. In other words your free market approach was not working.

It works if there's a market. Start a non-smoking restaurant. No one is stopping you.

[climber]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It works if there's a market. Start a non-smoking restaurant. No one is stopping you.

Smokers lost that chance with the decades they lit up without thinking about others.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by climber 

Smokers lost that chance with the decades they lit up without thinking about others.

That's a ridiculous argument. Stop it.

greg
__________________
Keeping good things close

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It works if there's a market. Start a non-smoking restaurant. No one is stopping you.

You never really answered my question about the health code. If there's a market for restaurants that voluntarily adhere to the health code, then why even have a health code, the market will take care of it for us, right?

Last time, you implied that it's somehow connected to your desire for drugs to be legal but regulated. In that case, the proposed law is the same, cigarettes will still be legal, just regulated. You say no one is forcing non-smokers to go to restaurants. I say no one would force smokers to go to restaurants when they want to smoke. You can still smoke all you want, outside and in your house and in your car and a hundred other places.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

That's a ridiculous argument. Stop it.

greg
__________________
Keeping good things close

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You never really answered my question about the health code. If there's a market for restaurants that voluntarily adhere to the health code, then why even have a health code, the market will take care of it for us, right?

Last time, you implied that it's somehow connected to your desire for drugs to be legal but regulated. In that case, the proposed law is the same, cigarettes will still be legal, just regulated. You say no one is forcing non-smokers to go to restaurants. I say no one would force smokers to go to restaurants when they want to smoke. You can still smoke all you want, outside and in your house and in your car and a hundred other places.

I absolutely answered it last time. Go back to page 1 and start reading again.

I'm telling you that there are movements afoot to create smoke-free municipalities. Not in your car, not on the sidewalk, not in your home. These some-free eating establishments are the beginning according to them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm telling you that there are movements afoot to create smoke-free municipalities. Not in your car, not on the sidewalk, not in your home. These some-free eating establishments are the beginning according to them.

A slippery slope? How does that apply to health inspectors? Have health inspectors started coming to your house and fining you for having cockroaches?

Go back to page 1 and start reading again.

No need to get rude, fella. Don't worry if you feel confused and disoriented; it's natural to feel that way when you start to realize you've been wrong the whole time.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm telling you that there are movements afoot to create smoke-free municipalities. Not in your car, not on the sidewalk, not in your home. These some-free eating establishments are the beginning according to them.

I think most people here agree that banning smoking in a private home isn't going to happen.

That would be a slippery slope... and even most anti-smoking I know wouldn't go along with that. Like I said, I'll have a cigar from time to time.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I think most people here agree that banning smoking in a private home isn't going to happen.

Already happened. In certain areas of Scotland, if you're expecting a visit from someone working for the council they request that you don't smoke in your own home that day (until your council visitor has left, anyways).

The slope is slippier than you think it is.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Already happened. In certain areas of Scotland, if you're expecting a visit from someone working for the council they request that you don't smoke in your own home that day (until your council visitor has left, anyways).

The slope is slippier than you think it is.

The obvious answer is spend the day eating baked beans.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

A slippery slope? How does that apply to health inspectors? Have health inspectors started coming to your house and fining you for having cockroaches?




No need to get rude, fella. Don't worry if you feel confused and disoriented; it's natural to feel that way when you start to realize you've been wrong the whole time.

You really must go back and re-read from page 1, you'll see that I've answered you completely all along.

The note about the movement to require non-smoking in private homes is not related to health inspectors. That's why it was a separate paragraph. If you're confused, it's because I don't feel the need to answer you more than once when you insist on not going back to consult the original answer.

[turtle777]

This thread is starting to go in circles.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a convincing argument why PRIVATELY held and operated restaurants could be forced to enforce something that is purely a choice issue and can be avoided by anyone.

-t

[medicineman]

NYC even bans ashtrays in bars. The presence of an ashtry is punishable as evidence that at illegal activity has taken place. Some NY State establishments are complicent in a form of 'civil disobedience' by posting the required no smoking signs, informing those who light up that smoking is not permitted. They are not required, however, to enforce the law. They inform the patrons that they will be fined if caught.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You really must go back and re-read from page 1, you'll see that I've answered you completely all along.

Simply stating that you have answered something already does not constitute answering it. Maybe you're using this insulting tone as a method to distract from your lack of argument. It's not working.

The one and only time you addressed the health code, it was to imply you thought the same about drugs, to which you stated "Control it, regulate it, tax it." If that's the case, then controlling, regulating and taxing smoking in public places should be right up your alley. Why are you fighting it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

This thread is starting to go in circles.

Is that an ironic jab at yourself?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a convincing argument why PRIVATELY held and operated restaurants could be forced to enforce something that is purely a choice issue and can be avoided by anyone.

Are you reading and waiting, or just waiting and staring dumbly at the wall? It's been pointed out several times that the government already frequently forces privately held establishments to enforce things. Health codes, fire codes, building codes, noise ordinances, et cetera ad nauseum.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

This thread is starting to go in circles.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a convincing argument why PRIVATELY held and operated restaurants could be forced to enforce something that is purely a choice issue and can be avoided by anyone.

-t

Because it's a public health issue.

We must all share public spaces... and unfortunately your right to smoke conflicts with my right to a smoke free public environment.

While the bar you visit may be a private establishment, it is operating under a government issued license.

I see this also more as a public health issue. In the US, there are seat belt laws. Your argument sounds VERY similar to the anti-seat belt people. The reality of the situation is, seat belts save lives... and I'm guessing that making all bars/restaurants smoke free would do the same thing.

That being said, you can drive your car without a seat belt all you want on your own property. Go nuts in fact.

Smoking is the only item I know of... that if used as instructed... kills. [yes, stolen from a recent anti-smoking campaign]

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Because it's a public health issue.

We must all share public spaces... and unfortunately your right to smoke conflicts with my right to a smoke free public environment.

While the bar you visit may be a private establishment, it is operating under a government issued license.

I see this also more as a public health issue. In the US, there are seat belt laws. Your argument sounds VERY similar to the anti-seat belt people. The reality of the situation is, seat belts save lives... and I'm guessing that making all bars/restaurants smoke free would do the same thing.

That being said, you can drive your car without a seat belt all you want on your own property. Go nuts in fact.

Smoking is the only item I know of... that if used as instructed... kills. [yes, stolen from a recent anti-smoking campaign]

I 'm not so sure about that. We were raised in the 40s without seatbelts or carseats. We raised out kids in the 60s without seatbelts or carseats. Maybe you guys are just worse drivers.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I 'm not so sure about that. We were raised in the 40s without seatbelts or carseats. We raised out kids in the 60s without seatbelts or carseats. Maybe you guys are just worse drivers.

That's a ridiculous argument. Stop it.

greg
__________________
Keeping good things close

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I 'm not so sure about that. We were raised in the 40s without seatbelts or carseats. We raised out kids in the 60s without seatbelts or carseats. Maybe you guys are just worse drivers.

Luckily for you, us bad drivers didn't crash into your sorry @ss.