[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So name one please...

Are you purposefully avoiding this question?

Ummm. I did.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And becoming one of the "you are fascist"-namecallers doesn't help your argument.

Don't care. I call it like I see it.

[- - e r i k - -]

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I am not anti-smoking at all, just pro-clean air in public and working space.

Ugh, thank you!

I'm not against smoking. I enjoy cigars while hiking. My mother and sisters smoke and I would NEVER ask them to stop smoking in their own homes. That being said, there is no smoking my my home.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I am not anti-smoking at all, just pro-clean air in public and working space.

And becoming one of the "you are fascist"-namecallers doesn't help your argument. Nazi!

I don't have an argument here - I can't be bothered to argue with fascists, nor was I referring to you. Unless you feel that description applies to you.

V

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

My mother and sisters smoke and I would NEVER ask them to stop smoking in their own homes.

Most UK pubs are someone's home. How does that fit into your equation?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's invalid because it shows that you had a choice.

They also have a choice.

You sound like the old school owner that thinks it's OK to slap the girls on the behind with the "if ye' don't like er'... find yinz a new job!"

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, and Hitler was just looking out for the German people. That, my fascist friend, is how fascism starts in the first place - looking out for the rights of others according to your own perception.

So our government is also fascist for not permitting smoking in government buildings and on airplanes... and most insurance companies are fascist because they require businesses to be smoke free for reduced insurance fees...

Fascist!!!!

I think you are just upset because the majority is starting to demand clean, smoke free, environments everywhere.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I don't have an argument here - I can't be bothered to argue with fascists, nor was I referring to you. Unless you feel that description applies to you.

V

No, you were just coming in to fling poo. That's all. You are correct, you added nothing. Thank you and come again.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Most UK pubs are someone's home. How does that fit into your equation?

I'm talking about the US. I would let the people of the UK choose weather or not they wanted smoking in their pubs.

Also, most pubs I visited in the UK were CLEARLY broken up into public and private areas (the owner lived upstairs. The owner can smoke in his/her house... and nobody (again, if that's what they choose) smokes in the pub.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I don't have an argument here - I can't be bothered to argue with fascists, nor was I referring to you. Unless you feel that description applies to you.

V

So were you calling me the fascist?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I'm talking about the US. I would let the people of the UK choose weather or not they wanted smoking in their pubs.

Would you? You'd have a referendum? Like you've had a referendum about it over there in the US?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Also, most pubs I visited in the UK were CLEARLY broken up into public and private areas (the owner lived upstairs. The owner can smoke in his/her house... and nobody (again, if that's what they choose) smokes in the pub.

Right, so you've just admitted that many bars could easily be broken up into smoking and non-smoking rooms. So why the total ban? And no, the staff working there thing doesn't work, since most pub staff have to go into the owner's private space on a regular basis.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Would you? You'd have a referendum? Like you've had a referendum about it over there in the US?

I'm not sure you know how the US works, but we have states' rights, so each state (or even town) can make its own decision.

I'm counting down the days until the smoking ban goes into effect here and at home. I hope it passes by the holiday so I can enjoy a dinner out with my family without having to leave my coat in the car.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

You sound like the old school owner that thinks it's OK to slap the girls on the behind with the "if ye' don't like er'... find yinz a new job!"

They'd be upset if I didn't.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So our government is also fascist for not permitting smoking in government buildings and on airplanes.

You generally don't get a choice on whether to go into government buildings, so that's acceptable. Airplanes should be up to the company.

Where it really gets fascist there is in things like Australia banning you from having a smoke in your own Gulfstream while you're over their air space. Now, I can understand them not wanting your pilots smoking, but why one earth do you, lounging around in the back, have to not smoke? There's no reason for it.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I think you are just upset because the majority is starting to demand clean, smoke free, environments everywhere.

Yep. You should be demanding clean, smoke free environments in 75% of pubs/bars/restaurants. Not all of them.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, so you've just admitted that many bars could easily be broken up into smoking and non-smoking rooms. So why the total ban? And no, the staff working there thing doesn't work, since most pub staff have to go into the owner's private space on a regular basis.

WRONG

I said that the owner could smoke in his/her house if he/she chose to do so.

In a public space, it should be smoke free for the various health reasons stated in this thread. I'm not advocating the banning of smoking in private homes, just all enclosed areas.

In the "but the staff must go into the private space on a regular basis" exception, I would grandfather that. I also would argue that it's not as wide spread as you make it sound. At least it wouldn't have been in the many places I visited.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I'm not sure you know how the US works, but we have states' rights, so each state (or even town) can make its own decision.

So every state or city which has banned smoking in public has actually asked its people in a referendum? And not packaged it with other, completely unrelated bills?

[turtle777]

I want the prohibition back. We all know how alcohol ruins lives

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

WRONG

I said that the owner could smoke in his/her house if he/she chose to do so.

In a public space, it should be smoke free for the various health reasons stated in this thread. I'm not advocating the banning of smoking in private homes, just all enclosed areas.

But the usual argument for not allowing a smoking room is that smoke travels from room to room. Does it somehow travel more efficiently between two "public" rooms than between a "public" room and a "private" room?

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

In the "but the staff must go into the private space on a regular basis" exception, I would grandfather that. I also would argue that it's not as wide spread as you make it sound. At least it wouldn't have been in the many places I visited.

My friends own seven pubs between them. I assure you that it is quite common.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So every state or city which has banned smoking in public has actually asked its people in a referendum? And not packaged it with other, completely unrelated bills?

Either they vote on it or the people they elect make that choice.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

I want the prohibition back. We all know how alcohol ruins lives

-t

Oooooooooo... good point. Because anyone here is trying to ban drinking.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Oooooooooo... good point. Because anyone here is trying to ban drinking.

Dude, is it really that hard to see how one could lead to the other ?
Especially with the American history in mind...

-t

[hyteckit]

Until marijuana is legalize for recreational use, cigarette needs to be banned too.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But the usual argument for not allowing a smoking room is that smoke travels from room to room. Does it somehow travel more efficiently between two "public" rooms than between a "public" room and a "private" room?

I'm not going to suggest a smoking ban in a private homes.

I DO support banning smoking in public places.

The difference between the two is perfectly clear.

My friends own seven pubs between them. I assure you that it is quite common.

Your friend lives in seven pubs!

or do you mean he rents them out?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Dude, is it really that hard to see how one could lead to the other ?
Especially with the American history in mind...

-t

Dude... it really isn't.

The act of drinking (or chewing tobacco) does not directly impact the health of those around the drinker.

History shows us that prohibition failed because a majority of people did not agree with the law. Also, prohibition banned ALL alcohol. Very different than what we are describing here.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It is amusing to see that all the people who are anti-smoking don't know anything about smoking, its hazards or effects.

They also seem to lean towards fascism and are very insecure and narcissistic.

They are also dumb enough to believe propaganda.

V

Voodoo isn't it a tad hypocritical to throw out generalizations regarding many individuals, including insulting their intelligence, and also call them narcissists?

The plain truth is that many Americans don't want to be around cigarette smoke and have made their voices heard. Equating a smoking ban with fascism is just plain ridiculous. Go ask some of the elders in your country about what real fascism is.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Privately owned: Up to the owner. Period.

Sure, until you either interact with the public in your office, or hire employees. Those people have rights too.

[hyteckit]

I privately own a business. I would like to talk dirty to my female employee and blow smoke up her ass. If she doesn't like it, she can quit.

[hyteckit]

Why do they shut down restaurants with Grade D or F? If I want to eat at a restaurant with grade D or F, I should be allow to. Damn government want to control my life. I love unhealthy food that can get me sick. I don't mind a few roaches.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I will be thrilled the day that all cigarettes are banned.

I'm alergic to cigarette smoke. It causes sever migrane headaches.

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

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I'm not going to suggest a smoking ban in a private homes.

why not?

but but... but what about the children of smoking parents...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Your friend lives in seven pubs!

or do you mean he rents them out?

Go and read it again. Until then there's no point in my arguing with an illiterate.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

- smokers got more easily laid being forced outside to chat with other smokers without the distraction of music, ie. smoking got even more social

confirmed (works in Stockholm as well)!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Dude... it really isn't.

The act of drinking (or chewing tobacco) does not directly impact the health of those around the drinker.

It's not this case, it's the principle that I detest.
The government has to be limited in the interference into the private realm.

People have a free choice where they dine, they can vote with their feet and money. There is no need for the government to regulate "health" concerns that are known to the people, and can be avoided.

The US is a free market economy, the market should take care of it, not the government.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

History shows us that prohibition failed because a majority of people did not agree with the law. Also, prohibition banned ALL alcohol. Very different than what we are describing here.

Whether the majority agrees or not should not be relevant. We have seen that in the Thrid Reich in Germany. The silent majority went along with it, which did not make it ok and right. Government action and intereference have to be limited, because there is a tendency for it to get out of control.

The lesson from prohibition should be that the government has no business in dictating what people do as long as it doesn't fundamentally violate the freedom of others. Designated smoking pubs and restaurants don't violate the freedom of others, because there is choice.

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go and read it again. Until then there's no point in my arguing with an illiterate.

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?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

People have a free choice where they dine, they can vote with their feet and money. There is no need for the government to regulate "health" concerns that are known to the people, and can be avoided.

Before the ban, there were hardly any restaurants here that were non-smoking. There are some things the market can't solve on its own.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

The lesson from prohibition should be that the government has no business in dictating what people do as long as it doesn't fundamentally violate the freedom of others. Designated smoking pubs and restaurants don't violate the freedom of others, because there is choice.

What about MY freedom to enter ANY public establishment without the worry of smoke?

You are once again placing your freedom above my freedom.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No, you were just coming in to fling poo. That's all. You are correct, you added nothing. Thank you and come again.

When you offer crap that's exactly what you get in return.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So were you calling me the fascist?

The fascist? Must there be only one?

Hm %62%75%63%6b%61%72%6f%6f%20%61%6e%64%20%63%6c%69%6 d%62%65%72

A bit narcissistic, but no I wasn't referring to you as a fascist.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Voodoo isn't it a tad hypocritical to throw out generalizations regarding many individuals, including insulting their intelligence, and also call them narcissists?

Perhaps, but it doesn't make what I wrote any less true.

The plain truth is that many Americans don't want to be around cigarette smoke and have made their voices heard.

That's fine, just don't go around spreading lies and propaganda to justify your preference. There are many bad things to say about tobacco.. why the lies?

Equating a smoking ban with fascism is just plain ridiculous. Go ask some of the elders in your country about what real fascism is.

Cute.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

What about MY freedom to enter ANY public establishment without the worry of smoke?

You are once again placing your freedom above my freedom.

Public establishment, yes.. that can be discussed. Private establishment.. not on your life.

V

[christ]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Before the ban, there were hardly any restaurants here that were non-smoking. There are some things the market can't solve on its own.

Now go ahead and think about why not.

If 'the majority' were so concerned about smoking places, enterprising resaurateurs would have opened up non-smoking restaurants, and 'the majority' would have frequented them, and if there were a commercial advantage in these non-smoking places, they would have driven the smoking places out of business.

The truth is that no such commercial advantage existed, and that the whole anti-smoking crusade has been driven by a virulent minority. They don't have the commercial muscle, so they have used health-nazi propaganda, and frivolous litigation, to bully the populace to get their own way.

If tobacco is legal, it's fair use should be legal - if it is medically impossible to allow smoking zones, then the use of the evil weed should be banned. I consider that such a ban would be as likely to succeed as America's last dalliance with such idiocies.

I don't advocate smoking in a fuel dump, and I am comfortable with the concept of smoke-free zones - I am uncomfortable with legislation that forbids all smoking even in a group of consenting adults. I believe that it should be possible to frame legislation that says that it is legal to have a non-smoking venue, or a smoking venue, without fear of litigation from 'anti-discrimination' idiots, and that such legislation is much preferable to blanket bans.

[christ]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

What about MY freedom to enter ANY public establishment without the worry of smoke?

You are once again placing your freedom above my freedom.

It should be possible to define a large enough slice of society so that you need never visit a place where smoking occurs, and I can always choose to go to a place where it is legal to smoke. We should both be able to have our freedom, without having to stamp out the other's.

The marketplace would pander to this demarcation, if it were allowed to. You should never be forced onto an aeroplane with smokers, but I should be free to travel on an aircraft where smoking is allowed.

As has been pointed out, the 'anti-smoking' section of society is not large enough to allow the market to operate unfettered, but this is no excuse for totalitarian bans.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So now I'm an illiterate.

Yes. Go re-read it.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

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

Yes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, the issue is the right for business owners to do what they want on their own property and the rights of customers and employees to have "dirty" air to breathe if they want it.

So you agree with me, that this issue is not about burdening the health care system, as was implied by the post I quoted.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you agree with me, that this issue is not about burdening the health care system, as was implied by the post I quoted.

I have no idea what you're on about. But if you want to start on about the health care system, we can do that. In the UK, smokers' taxes contribute 5x more cash into the NHS than they take out.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

What about MY freedom to enter ANY public establishment without the worry of smoke?
You are once again placing your freedom above my freedom.

Why don't you Commies understand: a privately held and operated restaurant is NOT a public establishment. WTF ?

I don't dictate what you can or cannot do in your private sphere. I don't care if you smoke in your home, pee in your poted plants or take dumps in your backyard.

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Why don't you Commies understand: a privately held and operated restaurant is NOT a public establishment. WTF ?

I don't dictate what you can or cannot do in your private sphere. I don't care if you smoke in your home, pee in your poted plants or take dumps in your backyard.

-t

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.

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.

[hyteckit]

Why don't you conservative nuts understand that public safety and health regulations in restaurants are not communistic or fascist.

If you operate a restaurant or have food in your establishment, you'll need to meet the cities health and safety guidelines, and the city decides what they are, which can include banning smoking. Smoke from cigarettes gets into other people lungs, clothes, and food. I don't want to be eating and breathing all these poisonous crap. Would you like if I spit on your food before you eat it?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why don't you conservative nuts understand that public safety and health regulations in restaurants are not communistic or fascist.

Again, you're not noticing which people are on which sides. From what I can tell, this topic is pretty evenly split. Some conservatives are for it, and some liberals are against it. This doesn't seem to be partisan at all.


Question for you anti-smoking zealots, what if an owner put up a sign at an establishment that said, "Smokers Only"? How would that make you feel? Companies have started all smoking int'l flights, and all smoking transportation (taxis), all smoking restaurants and bars are the next logical step. As a non-smoker, you'll just have to go elsewhere.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Again, you're not noticing which people are on which sides. From what I can tell, this topic is pretty evenly split. Some conservatives are for it, and some liberals are against it. This doesn't seem to be partisan at all.


Question for you anti-smoking zealots, what if an owner put up a sign at an establishment that said, "Smokers Only"? How would that make you feel? Companies have started all smoking int'l flights, and all smoking transportation (taxis), all smoking restaurants and bars are the next logical step. As a non-smoker, you'll just have to go elsewhere.

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"