[©öñFü$íóÑ]

to France!

to college campuses that are supposed to have students and faculty who are supposed to know better by default.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

There's no current ban on smoking in public places where I live. So it's surprising then that I'm not allowed to smoke in certain pubs/bars/theatres/airports/planes.

Imagine that... ...the people who own these facilities have managed to stop people from smoking in them without requiring government legislation. And other places don't ban smoking because they don't want to. So you're already catered for and I'm already catered for.

Yet you want it all. Are you really not getting it that what someone does in a bar hundreds/thousands of miles away from you which you don't even know exists has got absolutely bugger all to do with you? Are you really that removed from the principles of freedom that you don't understand that?

Like I said, this is how fascism starts - by people not realising that what they're supporting is fascism.

Um it is not me. It is the non-smoking public that collectively want that. As was pointed out by others we outnumber you right now by quite a bit. And even though you ignore the common sense of it, our collective right to breathe clean air trumps your right to smoke. That is because it is not just an annoyance, but a real and measured risk to our health. That is unacceptable in a fair society.

Do you really think it is fair to allow smoking on a bus, train or airplane? Those places are privately owned

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Strange. You're commenting about that in the past tense... ...like you've since gotten another job. I thought your side of the argument had already ascertained that people don't have a choice in where they work (and therefore can't change jobs). Why aren't you still there? You're not telling me that they let you leave to go and work somewhere more suitable for your delicate constitution?

So if it's so easy for a non-smoker to find another job, restaurant etc. Why is it so hard for a smoker to just smoke at home or in their car? Why do you just HAVE to do it around non-smokers?

Oh, I know.....you really don't give a damn

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber

Um it is not me. It is the non-smoking public that collectively want that.

You can assume that the "you" applies to both you yourself and "you, those of you who support this ban".

Originally Posted by climber

As was pointed out by others we outnumber you right now by quite a bit.

Yes, and the people who voted Hitler into power outnumbered those who voted for "the other guy". Like I said, fascism creeps in without you noticing it. Most folks find it disguised as "righteousness".

Originally Posted by climber

And even though you ignore the common sense of it, our collective right to breathe clean air trumps your right to smoke. That is because it is not just an annoyance, but a real and measured risk to our health.

Give me one good reason why you have to ban it in all public places and don't wish to leave smokers with "smoking bars". You know, smoking bars which you don't have to go into.

Originally Posted by climber

That is unacceptable in a fair society.

You haven't got a clue what a "fair society" entails. If you did, you'd be saying "OK, well we'll let the smokers have their own little licensed bars so they can kill themselves if they want to". But you're not saying that, is it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber

So if it's so easy for a non-smoker to find another job, restaurant etc. Why is it so hard for a smoker to just smoke at home or in their car? Why do you just HAVE to do it around non-smokers?

Why is it so hard for non-smokers to just breathe fresh air at home or in their car? Why do you just HAVE to do it around smokers?

Listen. I want smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Then people have a choice as to where they go. You want to ban smoking everywhere but the smoker's own home. That makes you an anti-choice fascist. Period.

You're aware that your ilk has tried to ban people from smoking in their own cars in one Australian state and tried to ban folks from smoking in their own homes in one Scottish district, right? Don't say I didn't warn you when one day you find yourself having to phone the government to ask if it's OK to go make yourself a bacon butty in your own kitchen.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You can assume that the "you" applies to both you yourself and "you, those of you who support this ban".

Yes, and the people who voted Hitler into power outnumbered those who voted for "the other guy". Like I said, fascism creeps in without you noticing it. Most folks find it disguised as "righteousness".

Give me one good reason why you have to ban it in all public places and don't wish to leave smokers with "smoking bars". You know, smoking bars which you don't have to go into.

You haven't got a clue what a "fair society" entails. If you did, you'd be saying "OK, well we'll let the smokers have their own little licensed bars so they can kill themselves if they want to". But you're not saying that, is it?

I guess it is news to you that a LOT of people don't want smoking in public? Boy are you clueless today.

OMFG, I better not vote in any more elections. Thats how HITLER got into power. More clueless on your part. That is the worst argument of the century! Smokers used to outnumber the non-smokers, maybe they are the real fascist majority.

I am saying exactly that! if you and the rest of the smoking public want to smoke fifty packs a day I am all for your right to do so. I would even vote to repeal the stupid taxes that try and punish you. I even think the States trying to sue the tobacco companies to get money is flat out wrong. It is just another attempt to stop or unfairly limit the abilies of smokers to do thier thing.

I just want to be able to live the rest of my life with MY CHOICE NOT TO SMOKE! As long as smokers respect that I am fine.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Why is it so hard for non-smokers to just breathe fresh air at home or in their car? Why do you just HAVE to do it around smokers?

Listen. I want smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Then people have a choice as to where they go. You want to ban smoking everywhere but the smoker's own home. That makes you an anti-choice fascist. Period.

You're aware that your ilk has tried to ban people from smoking in their own cars in one Australian state and tried to ban folks from smoking in their own homes in one Scottish district, right? Don't say I didn't warn you when one day you find yourself having to phone the government to ask if it's OK to go make yourself a bacon butty in your own kitchen.

Because that same argument is why we used to have smoking allowed on planes.

I don't want or believe that a flat out prohibition should be made against smoking, and you know it. I also said all drugs should be decriminalized. I have absolutely no problem with what people want to do to themselves. I just draw a line where it affects other people. Especially when it serves no purpose. That is why even though driving affects other people, at least it serves a purpose. What common good does smoking provide? NONE, that is why we should not allow people to smoke in public areas.

I think you do have a point that banning smoking at home is pretty fascist. But the US started that concept well before Hitler Germany. It wasn't' until I think 1911 that an American could eat, inject, snort, or smoke anything they wanted. Before then it was considered one of our constitutional rights.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Why is it so hard for non-smokers to just breathe fresh air at home or in their car? Why do you just HAVE to do it around smokers?

Listen. I want smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Then people have a choice as to where they go. You want to ban smoking everywhere but the smoker's own home. That makes you an anti-choice fascist. Period.

You're aware that your ilk has tried to ban people from smoking in their own cars in one Australian state and tried to ban folks from smoking in their own homes in one Scottish district, right? Don't say I didn't warn you when one day you find yourself having to phone the government to ask if it's OK to go make yourself a bacon butty in your own kitchen.

You know, maybe if you quit smoking you wouldn't have these angry outbursts at total strangers. It's the additction talking!

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Nicko

You know, maybe if you quit smoking you wouldn't have these angry outbursts at total strangers. It's the additction talking!

Exactly

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Like I said, this is how fascism starts - by people not realising that what they're supporting is fascism.

I'm not sure I'm taking this out of context but you're equating smoking bans with facism?

No all legislation, regulation is bad even if it restricts so called freedoms, i.e., freedom to smoke in bars. Smoking is your personal choice and that's your business, but don't force your personal choice on me (or other non-smokers) and that is what happens when people smoke in public, or in bars and restaurants.

[Mastrap]

Doofy has a habit of equating everything n he doesn't like to Fascism.

The argument 'then don't go where smokers congregate' is laughable. Why should my freedom of movement be curtailed by other's bad habits?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I'm not sure I'm taking this out of context but you're equating smoking bans with facism?

No all legislation, regulation is bad even if it restricts so called freedoms, i.e., freedom to smoke in bars. Smoking is your personal choice and that's your business, but don't force your personal choice on me (or other non-smokers) and that is what happens when people smoke in public, or in bars and restaurants.

If I'm smoking/drinking in a smoking bar and you're drinking in your non-smoking bar down the road, how on earth is that affecting your choice? You choose to go into your smoke-free bar, I choose to go into my smoke-full bar. Everyone's happy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Doofy has a habit of equating everything n he doesn't like to Fascism.

No. I have a habit of pointing out fascism when I see it. I tend to notice it well before other people do, because that's what I do at the moment.

Don't worry Mas, you're not the first German to not notice fascism creeping in.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

The argument 'then don't go where smokers congregate' is laughable. Why should my freedom of movement be curtailed by other's bad habits?

If you don't like gays, don't go to a gay bar. If you don't like the smell of fish, don't go to a sushi bar. If you don't like sports, don't go to a sports bar. If you don't like techno, don't go to a rave.

I mean, how bleedin' hard is it to get that concept into your heads? Nobody is saying that you shouldn't have smoke free bars/restaurants. We're saying "just leave some for us where smoking is OK". If you want to ban smoking in all bars/restaurants (and private clubs, as per the forthcoming UK ban) then you are indeed a fascist. Period.

There's an old saying: Live and let live.

Try it.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If France was concerned with loss of life they would provide free airconditioners to the elderly.

How many thousands died due to heat?

This year, probably not as many as people died from murder in the US. Why?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by villalobos

This year, probably not as many as people died from murder in the US. Why?

Because the population of France is nowhere near the population of the US?

[TETENAL]

Do the US give free airconditioners to the elderly?

[NYCFarmboy]

Next comes banning of trans-fats, then meat.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Next comes banning of trans-fats, then meat.

Excellent - I can not wait.

[Monique]

I am kind of torn between the 2 point of views. In countries like the U.S. Canada and countries like that where being a waiter is the lowest of the lowest jobs, it is easy to find another waiter job, and it is not a big deal to work in a smoking environment; it will have no permanent damage on a non-smoker worker. But countries like France, where someone becomes a serveur as a profession, then it becomes a health hazard and smoking should be banned.

I know if I go to some of my friends who smoked like a chimney, that I will smell like **** and there won't be any damage; but if I like with them then it will be like smoking myself. You want to smoke, do drugs, eat like there is no tomorrow, have sex with people that have AIDS with no protection then it is your life and your business but do not impose your choice on other people.

As for food we already make people guilty of some sort of crime against the laws of the skinny; if we are overweight even by 10 pounds, everyone suddenly do not mind their own business and make them feel like **** and tell them, they should be anorexic.

As for the medical community your job is to take care of us, shut up and stop being so lazy and take care of us.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Next comes banning of trans-fats, then meat.

Neither of which affect the people around you. Knock yourself out.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Don't worry Mas, you're not the first German to not notice fascism creeping in.

Disagree with somebody, make a disparaging remark about their nationality. Nice.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by climber

Second hand cigarette smoke increases the risk of death for EVERYBODY.

No. You are wrong and dumb. Fortunately people can be wrong and still very smart. You're not. You're just pig headed, wrong and dumb.

V

[Dakar]

Classy.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sorry, no.

If you were to make a law which said that half the bars/pubs/restaurants had to be non-smoking and the other half could allow smoking, that'd be fair.

Making a law which prevents a 100% smoking clientele who're being served by 100% smoking bar staff in a building owned by a smoker from smoking on the off-chance that you might want to go in it sometime in 2034 is fascism.

And that's one of the other problems with fascism... ...people don't tend to see it coming until it's too late. Any of you who want all bars/pubs/restaurants to be 100% non-smoking are leaning towards fascism. Period. Your (plural) mindset is like that of a bloke who wants to ban gays from kissing each other in a gay club because you might one day walk in there and you don't like to see that kind of thing.

Live and let live. Open your own bleedin' non-smoking bars if you want somewhere to go where you've got clean air. Petition your local non-smoking landlord. Whatever. Just don't try for a 100% blanket ban sponsored by the government - because every time you do so you give the government more power to interfere in your lives, and one day they'll use that power against you, not for you. Ask anyone living under the Blair regime about that.

Oh. And I speak from experience. I can't go into the majority of restaurants because the mere smell of cooked fish/beef/chicken makes me throw up. Violently. Should I try to ban you all from eating those things in restaurants which I'll probably never go into anyway? No. Because that'd be fascism.

The smell of cooked meat just makes you throw up violently-which I think is a bit of an exaggeration but whatever. A governement has a right to protect the public health with laws on sanitation, food preparation--no one complains about these laws. Yet here is a practice that clearly endangers public health and you're up in arms about it because you somehow perceive you have a "right" to endanger other people's health so you can have a cigarette at the bar.

The smoking ban here in restaurants, bars and workplaces has worked great. Nightlife did not fall off the cliff and people go out in greater number than they ever have. If someone wants to smoke all they have to do is step outside--which is where they belong.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No. You are wrong and dumb. Fortunately people can be wrong and still very smart. You're not. You're just pig headed, wrong and dumb.

V

How is he wrong? Many studies have proven second hand smoke to lead to various causes of death in non smokers, and certainly can't be any better for the actual smoker to be inhaling first and second hand smoke at the same time either.

[climber]

I think I am beginning to understand this seemingly pathological need for smokers to go around and stink up every cab, bus, airplane, restaurant, bar, etc.

It came to me watching the Dog Whisperer, they are simply marking their territory. I guess we should be glad they aren't peeing on everything.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Doofy has a habit of equating everything n he doesn't like to Fascism.

The argument 'then don't go where smokers congregate' is laughable. Why should my freedom of movement be curtailed by other's bad habits?

No he's right and your freedom of movement is not curtailed by people smoking. Stop the whining already!

Secondhand smoke smells bad but is non-toxic. Doofy is also right about this being fascistic. Anti-smoking zealots and organizations use lies, deceptions and repitions of these to make their case.

People who don't know better, like you and others, want to believe them and do. It is no problem believeing what you want. What is much harder is believing the truth.

Second-hand smoking is safe and singling out people because of their choices is fascistic. The lie is, that they're harming others. The truth is they're only harming themselves.. but they're annoying others. End of story.

V

[climber]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

How is he wrong? Many studies have proven second hand smoke to lead to various causes of death in non smokers, and certainly can't be any better for the actual smoker to be inhaling first and second hand smoke at the same time either.

No he is actually quite correct. I overstated the facts. In order to have a health problems with second hand cigarette smoke you have to be around smokers smoking. It's a good thing smokers don't have a pathological need to smoke anywhere they damn well please.

/sarcasm off/

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If I'm smoking/drinking in a smoking bar and you're drinking in your non-smoking bar down the road, how on earth is that affecting your choice? You choose to go into your smoke-free bar, I choose to go into my smoke-full bar. Everyone's happy.

I'm not talking about that and I wasn't even questioning that. How the heck did you come up with smoking bars vs. nonsmoking bars from my post. I was commenting on your facism comment, so please fill me in, do you believe having a smoking ban for public spaces like regular bars and restaruants is facism?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

How is he wrong? Many studies have proven second hand smoke to lead to various causes of death in non smokers, and certainly can't be any better for the actual smoker to be inhaling first and second hand smoke at the same time either.

For the smoker, inhaling the tobacco smoke is carcenogenic and deteriorates the alviolae.

As for second hand smoking, I've seen many studies. I'm a biologist myself. There is no indication of increased rate of lung cancer with people who inhale second hand smoke and those who don't.

I am sorry. Much money has been spent on making studies to prove any correlation. There isn't any.

V

[climber]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No he's right and your freedom of movement is not curtailed by people smoking. Stop the whining already!

Secondhand smoke smells bad but is non-toxic. Doofy is also right about this being fascistic. Anti-smoking zealots and organizations use lies, deceptions and repitions of these to make their case.

People who don't know better, like you and others, want to believe them and do. It is no problem believeing what you want. What is much harder is believing the truth.

Second-hand smoking is safe and singling out people because of their choices is fascistic. The lie is, that they're harming others. The truth is they're only harming themselves.. but they're annoying others. End of story.

V

Second hand smoke is toxic AND IS NOT SAFE, and is a health risk for the rest of us. But I suppose maybe you can find a study funded by the tobacco companies that says otherwise?

There have been numerous pier reviewed cohort and case controlled studies on the subject that have shown a very strong and statistically significant correlation.

We are not singling out anyone, just smoke away from the rest of us and you will be fine

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by voodoo

As for second hand smoking, I've seen many studies. I'm a biologist myself. There is no indication of increased rate of lung cancer with people who inhale second hand smoke and those who don't.

Oh really?
Source: California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

2 Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

3 Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

4 A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.

5 Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

6 Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.

7 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.

8 Currently, 14 states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have already passed strong smoke-free air laws.

9 As of 2005, nine smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).

10 Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

11 Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year.

12 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.

13 In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.

14 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.

15 New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.

16 The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.

And what's with the aggression? Calm down already. Have a cigarette or something.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Oh really?
Source: California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.

And what's with the aggression? Calm down already. Have a cigarette or something.

Thanks Mastrap, I was going to do a Medline search later today, but I don't have the time right now.

[ambush]

Such a ban has been successfully implemented here.

But I just CANNOT imagine a smokeless France. It just seems to me that they're the biggest smokers I've seen. I've seen a lot of french chain smoking.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

The smell of cooked meat just makes you throw up violently-which I think is a bit of an exaggeration but whatever.

Nope, no exaggeration. I will literally instantly throw up at the merest whiff of cooked fish and certain meats.

The point was - I have a worse reaction to fish/meats than any of you guys do to second-hand smoke. Yet for some reason I haven't seen the need to get the government involved in reclaiming my "fresh air freedom". I seem to have the intelligence to be able to choose where I go at night.

And no, you can't pull the "majority rule" thing here, otherwise we descend into true mob rule and it's "hey, let's execute all the gays!"

Originally Posted by Zeeb

A governement has a right to protect the public health with laws on sanitation, food preparation--no one complains about these laws. Yet here is a practice that clearly endangers public health and you're up in arms about it because you somehow perceive you have a "right" to endanger other people's health so you can have a cigarette at the bar.

Are you guys simply thick or just not getting it for some other reason? Why can't there be special smoker's bars? Give me one good reason why a 100% smoking patronage drinking in a bar staffed 100% with smokers and owned by a landlord who smokes have to step outside.

Banning most bars/restaurants from allowing smoking is good sense. Banning all bars/restaurants from allowing smoking is fascism.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I'm not talking about that and I wasn't even questioning that. How the heck did you come up with smoking bars vs. nonsmoking bars from my post. I was commenting on your facism comment, so please fill me in, do you believe having a smoking ban for public spaces like regular bars and restaruants is facism?

See above. You don't have to ban it in all bars/restaurants - you could leave some outside the scope of the ban.

[climber]

Doofy

How about we exclude any bar that does not have employees? The point is to create smoke free work environments.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber

Doofy

How about we exclude any bar that does not have employees? The point is to create smoke free work environments.

So, you've asked all the bar employees whether they want to be in a smoke free zone or not?

Because all the ones I've asked don't particularly give a monkeys either way.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because all the ones I've asked don't particularly give a monkeys either way.

Funny thing is I know some who do care, how would you account for them. Say it's one waitress or bartender out of the whole crew. Yet because of the economy he or she cannot find another job. Does that mean you force them to inhale second hand smoke.

you see by allowing "some" bars or places to smoke you invariably force the workers to work in a unhealthy place.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, you've asked all the bar employees whether they want to be in a smoke free zone or not?

Because all the ones I've asked don't particularly give a monkeys either way.

When you have a comprehensive census of every single waiter, bartender, DJ, etc that works in a place that serves alcohol that they would PREFER to have smoking allowed where they work, please let us know.

Hell, I would settle for a formalized survey of employees in those environments. You care to provide one for us?

[olePigeon]

Awesome. This all started in California, by the way. Italy is moving that direction too, there's no smoking inside.

[Doofy]

Whatever. Bring it on, I'll figure out a way around it and a way to make money off it.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Strange. You're commenting about that in the past tense... ...like you've since gotten another job. I thought your side of the argument had already ascertained that people don't have a choice in where they work (and therefore can't change jobs). Why aren't you still there? You're not telling me that they let you leave to go and work somewhere more suitable for your delicate constitution?

My side of the argument has NEVER been that people don't have choice [even if some don't].

MY argument is that all work environments should be safe (as safe as possible). From the paper pusher to the guy down in the coal mine. There is no need to unnecessarily INCREASE the level of danger.

There is LITTLE difference in my mind between a smoking environment and an asbestos filled environment.

[climber]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Funny thing is I know some who do care, how would you account for them. Say it's one waitress or bartender out of the whole crew. Yet because of the economy he or she cannot find another job. Does that mean you force them to inhale second hand smoke.

you see by allowing "some" bars or places to smoke you invariably force the workers to work in a unhealthy place.

Thats the part he just refuses to get. Even if the vast majority of employees in that environment actually preferred to have smoke around them, then what about the ones that don't. More than likely employees in a bar (at least in the US) would reflect the attitudes of the whole population in not wanting cigarette smoke around them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber

Thats the part he just refuses to get. Even if the vast majority of employees in that environment actually preferred to have smoke around them, then what about the ones that don't. More than likely employees in a bar (at least in the US) would reflect the attitudes of the whole population in not wanting cigarette smoke around them.

And the part *you* don't get is that the employees who don't want to work in the smoky environment are free to get another job. At one of your non-smoking bars, perhaps. That's how a free society works.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And the part *you* don't get is that the employees who don't want to work in the smoky environment are free to get another job. At one of your non-smoking bars, perhaps. That's how a free society works.

Thats the EXACT same argument that many big business have used to exploit their workers for generations. What you are really talking about is that you want to be able to do whatever you want regardless of the consequences to others around you. That, my friend is called anarchy.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And the part *you* don't get is that the employees who don't want to work in the smoky environment are free to get another job. At one of your non-smoking bars, perhaps. That's how a free society works.

That's the part your missing Doofy, what happens if he or she cannot. your forcing the person to work in an unhealthy environment.

Its pointless arguing because
A. it makes no difference what you (or I) say, governments are moving to restrict smoking more and more, mostly because its incredibly unhealthy

and B. you just don't see to get it or want to get the fact that people have the right not to be forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke. You want to smoke, great that's your business but just don't force me to breath that cancer causing smoke. Thankfully governments have seen the light and agree that having a nation of smokers is unhealthy and costly. Either way you lose by not smoking in bars and I and non smokers get to enjoy a night out on the town.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

That's the part your missing Doofy, what happens if he or she cannot. your forcing the person to work in an unhealthy environment.

And the part you're missing is that nobody is forced to work anywhere. Unless they've been a victim of the sex slave trade.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

and B. you just don't see to get it or want to get the fact that people have the right not to be forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke. You want to smoke, great that's your business but just don't force me to breath that cancer causing smoke.

You're missing the point. What about the smoker's rights to gather with fellow smokers and enjoy themselves without being bothered by you anti-smoking nazis?

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Either way you lose by not smoking in bars and I and non smokers get to enjoy a night out on the town.

Doof never loses. I'll find a way to win from this, I assure you. Maybe I'll just buy another house and have private parties every night... ...boring anti-smoking lefties (and ugly chicks/annoying blokes) not invited. I'll figure out how to make money out of it too. Just like I'm currently making a bundle off all the stringent health and safety practices recently introduced here.

I'm done here. You guys can kid yourselves that this kind of ban is good for your societies if you like. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nope, no exaggeration. I will literally instantly throw up at the merest whiff of cooked fish and certain meats.

The point was - I have a worse reaction to fish/meats than any of you guys do to second-hand smoke. Yet for some reason I haven't seen the need to get the government involved in reclaiming my "fresh air freedom". I seem to have the intelligence to be able to choose where I go at night.

And no, you can't pull the "majority rule" thing here, otherwise we descend into true mob rule and it's "hey, let's execute all the gays!"

So you think your gagging is worse than having lung cancer?

The smell of fish does not causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases.

While you may have an adverse reaction to the smell of fish, the fish smell itself is not dangerous... you simply have a bad reaction to it. Your fish analogy is on par with people being allergic to nuts or milk (neither of which are dangerous to your health [in moderation]).

That being said, it generally is "majority rules" in non-harmful things like "fish smell," milk, nuts, chocolate, etc. etc. because they don't harm everyone (or even a very small minority)

Smoke hurts EVERYONE.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Are you guys simply thick or just not getting it for some other reason? Why can't there be special smoker's bars? Give me one good reason why a 100% smoking patronage drinking in a bar staffed 100% with smokers and owned by a landlord who smokes have to step outside.

Banning most bars/restaurants from allowing smoking is good sense. Banning all bars/restaurants from allowing smoking is fascism.

You say "fascism" I say "public safety."

Also, you cry about your right to smoke... well, obviously non-smokers are crying about our right to be smoke-free in public!

If two groups are split over an issue, I generally agree with the side that does not cause cancer.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You're missing the point. What about the smoker's rights to gather with fellow smokers and enjoy themselves without being bothered by you anti-smoking nazis?

Smoknig is not an inalienable right so your argument doesn't hold water besides you don't have any "rights" to smoke in places - its outlawed. Call what you want, I rather enjoy the idea of going to any restaraunt and not worry about smokers.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Doof never loses.

Good but this wasn't a competition, you want to buy a house just to have "private smoking parties" great enjoy. Its your money and your lungs and by doing that you don't subject my lungs to 2nd hand smoke so We all win when smokers don't smoke in public.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And the part *you* don't get is that the employees who don't want to work in the smoky environment are free to get another job. At one of your non-smoking bars, perhaps. That's how a free society works.

"If you don't like my sexual advances, you can just find another job."
"If you wanted to keep the job, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant."
"If you wanted to keep your job, you wouldn't have gone to the hospital to see your son."
"If you wanted to keep your job, you wouldn't have gotten in that accident."

I could go on and on...