[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Socialism, right there.

Nah, just common sense.

Due to the nature of men, civilization cannot be based on the theory that maximized personal freedoms lead to a well regulated well organised society.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Are you forced at gunpoint to go to THAT restaurant ?

I was there first. The smoker is initiating the action against me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well, I have never said I supported that now did I?

No, I know. I'm just illustrating what a slippery slope this becomes.

Initially, they were going to allow private clubs and bars which don't serve food to escape the ban. Then some bright spark pointed out that those places have employees, so they were included.

What's missed their attention though, is that business taxes on the pub owner and general taxes on the customer recently have conspired to make a lot of pubs go out of business. Thus there's loads of huge ex-pubs now on the market at cheap prices. There's talk in the underworld of buying these properties and running them as private houses...
...Since there's no law which states that you can't have your friends around to your house, no law which says you can't serve them beer and no law which says they can't give you money, what's going to happen is that a lot of large "private houses" will suddenly become full of people drinking beers and smoking ciggies. And the local councils will only be able to charge them domestic service rates rather than business ones. Hilarious.

[Buckaroo]

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

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

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

And socialism is a good thing.

No, it's not.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I hope they require the cigarette companies to remove all these hazardous chemicals and nicotene from cigarettes. Or outlaw all cigarettes that don't comply with clean air requirements.

I suspect that within 40 years cigarettes will be outlawed. It will be sooo great.

Dude, you've already proved that you're a mental case. No need to carry on with doing so.

[Doofy]

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.

And what will you ban after that?

[hyteckit]

Banned hard liquor. Liquor destroy so many lives.

[Buckaroo]

Myth: Sure, smoking is unhealthy. But a lot of other things are just as bad for you. After all, practically everything seems to have a warning label.

Smoking is far, far worse than most other health hazards. Let's look at some of the numbers:

Smoking is the number one cause of avoidable deaths in the United States.
Every year, more than 400,000 Americans die as a result of smoking.
One out of every five deaths in the U.S. is due to smoking.
Worldwide, four million people a year die from smoking -- that's 11,000 people every day.
Smoking kills one-half of all people who smoke.
To put the impact of smoking into perspective, it may help to consider six other major causes of death in the United States: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, AIDS, motor vehicle crashes, homicide, and suicide. All of these are important problems. All of them kill substantial numbers of people every year. Yet all six of these causes combined account for only half as many deaths each year as smoking does.

Let's try another comparison. For the rest of your life, you will undoubtedly remember the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that occurred on September 11, 2001. About 3,000 people died in those attacks. But that number is small compared to the number of people killed by smoking every year. In fact, cigarette smoking kills that many Americans every three days.

Of course, cigarettes aren't the only products that carry warning labels. If you look around your home, you can probably find warning labels on a lot of other products. For example,

Your hair dryer has a warning label that tells you that you shouldn't use it while taking a bath because you could be electrocuted.
The plastic bags that you bring home from the grocery store have warning labels saying that they can suffocate small children.
The charcoal that your parents use in their barbecue grill has a warning label that says that it shouldn't be used indoors because it could cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
How do the hazards of these products compare to the hazards of cigarettes?

Each year, an average of 4 Americans are electrocuted by hair dryers.
Each year, approximately 25 U.S. children are suffocated by plastic bags.
Each year, roughly 20 Americans are killed by carbon monoxide poisoning due to the indoor burning of charcoal.
Each year, more than 400,000 Americans are killed by cigarette smoking.
In other words, the other three products aren't even in the same league with cigarettes.

There's another important difference between the other three products and cigarettes. Hair dryers, plastic bags, and charcoal are all safe if you use them correctly. They're only dangerous if you misuse them. Cigarettes are deadly when they're used in the way that they're supposed to be used. There is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette.

Cigarettes are harmful to everyone who uses them. This is different from the situation for some other products that carry warning labels. Let's consider a warning label that most people your age have seen many times -- the warning on video games that tells you that light flashes in the games can cause some people to have seizures. How does this hazard compare to the hazard of smoking cigarettes?

1 out of every 4,000 people is at risk of having a seizure from light flashes associated with video games.
4,000 out of every 4,000 people are at risk of damaging their health by smoking cigarettes.
Please don't misunderstand us here. We're not saying that warning labels on products such as hair dryers and video games aren't justified. Those labels give people useful information, and they may help to save lives. It's a good idea to have them. But don't let the proliferation of warning labels fool you into thinking that cigarettes are "just like everything else." They're not. Cigarettes are worse. Much worse.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What's missed their attention though, is that business taxes on the pub owner and general taxes on the customer recently have conspired to make a lot of pubs go out of business. Thus there's loads of huge ex-pubs now on the market at cheap prices. There's talk in the underworld of buying these properties and running them as private houses...
...Since there's no law which states that you can't have your friends around to your house, no law which says you can't serve them beer and no law which says they can't give you money, what's going to happen is that a lot of large "private houses" will suddenly become full of people drinking beers and smoking ciggies. And the local councils will only be able to charge them domestic service rates rather than business ones. Hilarious.

Sweet. Looks like a fun return to speakeasies. Of course modern day smokeasies already exist.

[itai195]

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.

There are zillions of regulations on what business owners can do on their own property, yet you're singling out the smoking ban? Are you saying the government has no place regulating business? In that case, who is the real extremist here?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Banned hard liquor. Liquor destroy so many lives.

Bzzzzz. The difference between smoking and drinking hard liquor is that drinking hard liquor DOES NOT hurt those around the person (unless they kill them because of drunk driving... but that's a different situation entirely)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itai195 

There are zillions of regulations on what business owners can do on their own property, yet you're singling out the smoking ban? Are you saying the government has no place regulating business?

The government only has a place regulating business if an activity is harming others against their will. Since nobody is forced into smoking bars, nobody is being harmed against their will.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And what will you ban after that?

Ummm... nothing... I can't think of anything else that YOU can do in public that hurts ME that isn't already addressed in the legal system.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The government only has a place regulating business if an activity is harming others against their will. Since nobody is forced into smoking bars, nobody is being harmed against their will.

You make it sound so absolute, and it just isn't. If there is even ONE person in the place that doesn't want to smoke, it's enough for me to think that banning smoking indoors is valid.

Even WANTING to quit smoking is enough in my book.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The government only has a place regulating business if an activity is harming others against their will. Since nobody is forced into smoking bars, nobody is being harmed against their will.

Willfully ignoring employees into your equation still?

And please don't make me use the words "workplace discrimination" to your predictable "they can choose to work there or not" argument.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The government only has a place regulating business if an activity is harming others against their will. Since nobody is forced into smoking bars, nobody is being harmed against their will.

Do you oppose bans on smoking in other businesses and public places, or just bars?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

Ummm... nothing... I can't think of anything else that YOU can do in public that hurts ME that isn't already addressed in the legal system.

I can think of a few things which YOU can do in public that hurt ME. So we'll go for those, eh?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can think of a few things which YOU can do in public that hurt ME. So we'll go for those, eh?

Please name one...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can think of a few things which YOU can do in public that hurt ME. So we'll go for those, eh?

Your feelings?

[hyteckit]

I'm still debating whether to vote for the increase in cigarette tax by $2.50 per pack here in California. Seem rather tempting.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm still debating whether to vote for the increase in cigarette tax by $2.50 per pack here in California. Seem rather tempting.

I was amazed at the price of cigarettes in the UK.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

You make it sound so absolute, and it just isn't. If there is even ONE person in the place that doesn't want to smoke, it's enough for me to think that banning smoking indoors is valid.

Nobody forced that one person in there. They walked in there of their own free will.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Willfully ignoring employees into your equation still?

Last time I looked, nobody was forced to work anywhere.

Originally Posted by itai195 

Do you oppose bans on smoking in other businesses and public places, or just bars?

Government owned: OK with a ban.
Privately owned: Up to the owner. Period.

If a government wants to tell me that I can't smoke in my own office, then as far as I'm concerned that government can start paying the mortgage on the place.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

Please name one...

I immediately vomit at the smell of cooked fish. Not just a little bit of vomit, but full on back-breaking action which puts me out of commission for 4+ hours.

Under your previously mentioned condition of "if there's just ONE person in there", I hereby demand that cooked fish is removed from restaurant menus world-wide.

I'm betting your condition somehow won't apply here.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Willfully ignoring employees into your equation still?

And please don't make me use the words "workplace discrimination" to your predictable "they can choose to work there or not" argument.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Last time I looked, nobody was forced to work anywhere.

Now you are just willfully ignoring my pre-emptions.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Now you are just willfully ignoring my pre-emptions.

No more than you're wilfully ignoring the facts of the matter.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No more than you're wilfully ignoring the facts of the matter.

Right back at you

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Right back at you

Name me one place you've worked where they've dragged you there kicking and screaming.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Name me one place you've worked where they've dragged you there kicking and screaming.

You mean how often have I been headhunted for a position?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I immediately vomit at the smell of cooked fish. Not just a little bit of vomit, but full on back-breaking action which puts me out of commission for 4+ hours.

Under your previously mentioned condition of "if there's just ONE person in there", I hereby demand that cooked fish is removed from restaurant menus world-wide.

I'm betting your condition somehow won't apply here.

Your argument is 100% INVALID.

The smell of fish is NOT dangerous to humans... being in a smoking environment IS dangerous dangerous to ALL humans (see the difference?).

If YOU have an allergic reaction to something that a VAST MAJORITY of humans do not, you must take it upon yourself not to come into contact with such items (think milk, nuts, bananas, etc.)

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can think of a few things which YOU can do in public that hurt ME. So we'll go for those, eh?

Still waiting...

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm still debating whether to vote for the increase in cigarette tax by $2.50 per pack here in California. Seem rather tempting.

Nah, vote against it. There is alot of extra bad junk in that bill/measure or whatever it is called.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Name me one place you've worked where they've dragged you there kicking and screaming.

Just after college, I took a job where the owner smoked. I didn't know this until day one. I was 100% broke at the time. My choices were:

1) Quit (and lose my car and destroy my credit)
2) Continue working until I could get out of there.

I took option 2 (granted, I could have moved home with my parents, but not everyone has such options). I also didn't have kids or a number of other situations I can think of.

I agree that they aren't forced to work in that environment, but someone must work in that environment, and NOBODY should be subjected to it regardless of weather or not they smoke.

In my opinion, it's a safety hazard.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Your argument is 100% INVALID.

The smell of fish is NOT dangerous to humans... being in a smoking environment IS dangerous dangerous to ALL humans (see the difference?).

Wrong. The argument is perfectly valid. Here, I'll remind you of its basis:

If there is even ONE person in the place that doesn't want to smoke, it's enough for me to think that banning smoking indoors is valid.

So, if there's even ONE person in the place who doesn't want to smell cooked fish, that's enough for me to think that banning cooked fish indoors is valid.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

If YOU have an allergic reaction to something that a VAST MAJORITY of humans do not, you must take it upon yourself not to come into contact with such items (think milk, nuts, bananas, etc.)

If YOU don't want to be in a smoky environment, go have a drink in the non-smoking bar, not the ****ing smoking one. YOU must take it upon yourself to not come into contact with said smoke.

Don't worry, I realise that supporting a ban on things you don't like whilst not seeing the harm in not banning things you like is a normal fascist trait.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Nah, vote against it. There is alot of extra bad junk in that bill/measure or whatever it is called.

Wow. Telling people how to vote now.

[climber]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Willfully ignoring employees into your equation still?

And please don't make me use the words "workplace discrimination" to your predictable "they can choose to work there or not" argument.

The conveniently forget this part. They are so preoccupied with their efforts to prevent any further restrictions of their "freedom to smoke" they completely forget the "freedom to breath clean air"

As I stated in the previous thread on this heated topic. Every single employee should have a right to clean air, period! Because a smoker can not smoke around others without directly affecting the health of others.

They also seem to have this distorted view that people can do whatever they want on their own property. They forget that there are entire government agencies that deal only with employee safety and create rules for all businesses to follow. This is nothing new. Now if Doofy really wants to argue that a property/business owner should be able to do what they want, then he should argue for all these rules to be thrown out as well. Until then STFU!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Just after college, I took a job where the owner smoked. I didn't know this until day one. I was 100% broke at the time. My choices were:

1) Quit (and lose my car and destroy my credit)
2) Continue working until I could get out of there.

I took option 2 (granted, I could have moved home with my parents, but not everyone has such options).

Bolded bit renders your point completely worthless. You had a choice, you took it.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I agree that they aren't forced to work in that environment, but someone must work in that environment, and NOBODY should be subjected to it regardless of weather or not they smoke.

And there's the difference between you and I. You (the fascists) propose to tell everyone else what they should or shouldn't be subjected to. I say they should choose for themselves.

[hyteckit]

I vote no public nudity and no public smoking, especially smoking while naked. That can be dangerous.

[- - e r i k - -]

YOU ARE TEH FACIST!!!11

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I vote no public nudity and no public smoking, especially smoking while naked. That can be dangerous.

As can shirtless bacon-cooking be.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber 

As I stated in the previous thread on this heated topic. Every single employee should have a right to clean air, period!

Right. So who's gonna take your trash away when the trashmen demand this right to "clean air"? Who's gonna operate on your gangrene-ridden leg when the surgeons demand their right to "clean air"? If I become a waiter*, will my right to "clean air" be observed and the sale of fish banned?

(* and obviously, I will be dragged kicking and screaming into that job because nobody has freedom of choice in which workplaces they attend)

Originally Posted by climber 

They also seem to have this distorted view that people can do whatever they want on their own property. They forget that there are entire government agencies that deal only with employee safety and create rules for all businesses to follow. This is nothing new. Now if Doofy really wants to argue that a property/business owner should be able to do what they want, then he should argue for all these rules to be thrown out as well. Until then STFU!

I've already stated my viewpoint on this. See above. Then STFU yourself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As can shirtless bacon-cooking be.

None of that - that makes me heave too. I demand my clean air.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wrong. The argument is perfectly valid. Here, I'll remind you of its basis:



So, if there's even ONE person in the place who doesn't want to smell cooked fish, that's enough for me to think that banning cooked fish indoors is valid.

Your fish smell argument is laughable at best. Smoking creates a dangerous environment, fish smell does NOT.

Keep trying to make your point, because it still doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If YOU don't want to be in a smoky environment, go have a drink in the non-smoking bar, not the ****ing smoking one. YOU must take it upon yourself to not come into contact with said smoke.

There aren't non-smoking bars where I live. Actually, there may be in a few months!

[/quote]Don't worry, I realise that supporting a ban on things you don't like whilst not seeing the harm in not banning things you like is a normal fascist trait.[/QUOTE]

Call it every dirty name in the book, but ultimately you are placing your right to smoke above my right to have clean air.

[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

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Your fish smell argument is laughable at best. Smoking creates a dangerous environment, fish smell does NOT.

For you. Not for me.
Your failure to see this is just another expected fascist trait.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

There aren't non-smoking bars where I live.

You live in the land of the free. Open one. Nobody's stopping you.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Call it every dirty name in the book, but ultimately you are placing your right to smoke above my right to have clean air.

No, I'm not. I'm all for you having your non-smoking bars. What I'm not for is making every bar a non-smoking bar. We could go 75% non-smoking, 25% smoking.

But you're not content with that - you want every bar to be non-smoking. That's where the fascism comes in.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bolded bit renders your point completely worthless. You had a choice, you took it.

So it's invalid because I had options? What about the people that wouldn't have had that option?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And there's the difference between you and I. You (the fascists) propose to tell everyone else what they should or shouldn't be subjected to. I say they should choose for themselves.

I (the realist) do not go around "tell[ing] everyone else what they should or shouldn't be subjected to." I'm looking out for the rights of those that prefer a safe environment. Notice I'm not saying anything about chewing, drinking beer, wine or hard alcohol, fatty foods, etc.

Again, you (the pro-smoking nazi) are placing your right to have a dangerous environment above anyone else's right to a clean environment.

[mitchell_pgh]

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

It's an avoidable hazard. I'm not going to quote all the ultri-anti smoking propaganda, but it's clearly not good for you.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I can think of a few things which YOU can do in public that hurt ME. So we'll go for those, eh?

So name one please...

Are you purposefully avoiding this question?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

So it's invalid because I had options?

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

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

What about the people that wouldn't have had that option?

They also have a choice.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I'm looking out for the rights of those that prefer a safe environment.

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.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Again, you (the pro-smoking nazi) are placing your right to have a dangerous environment above anyone else's right to a clean environment.

No. See above.

[- - e r i k - -]

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.

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!