Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[TheAdvocate]

BTW, cutting the idealogue crap out of the equation, for all those who say "don't go to restaurants that allow smoking", what happens when you and a friend have sat down and are halfway through a decent meal and 4 guys come in and start puffing away like smokestacks? You're supposed to get up and leave?

To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
BTW, cutting the idealogue crap out of the equation, for all those who say "don't go to restaurants that allow smoking", what happens when you and a friend have sat down and are halfway through a decent meal and 4 guys come in and start puffing away like smokestacks? You're supposed to get up and leave?

To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

great point. i would like to see a counter response to this by those who oppose the restaurant/bar smoking bans.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
BTW, cutting the idealogue crap out of the equation, for all those who say "don't go to restaurants that allow smoking", what happens when you and a friend have sat down and are halfway through a decent meal and 4 guys come in and start puffing away like smokestacks? You're supposed to get up and leave?

To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

great point. i would like to see a counter response to this by those who oppose the restaurant/bar smoking bans.

They'd do what they do now and have the smokers just step outside the building.

Also, if there's a sign posted at the entrance to the restaurant, is it their fault you didn't read it?

 

[ViviTheMage]

minnesota already has this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
private property owners that CHOOSE to allow smoking on their property.

There is no flaw in that logic whatsoever.

You never disappoint. I'm guessing you're a student, or some un or underemployed nobody who has identified with some idealogy because it makes you feel important... that's the only thing that explains your incessant windbag ranting.

But I digress.

There is no halfway on allowing cigarettes - if you allow it, it affects EVERYONE on the property, not just the somkers. If it was nicotine gum, that wouldn't be the case, and I'd be there with you fighting the power.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because I can replace "cigarette" with anything from toxic waste to dynamite to nuclear bombs, and it's the same logic.

And it's not like we dont already have well established laws limiting the bundle of rights of private property free ownership - from nuisance ordinances to zoning to rights to quiet enjoyment to attractive nuisance (actual liability), and all of these laws are on the books because there simply are some things that you can do that negatively impact your neighbors.

The idealogue tripe you constantly push across messageboards plays really well in the land of idealism amused because it's disassociated with reality. The truth is, most of the basic concepts of property were developed in a time when we didnt rub elblows with our neighbors on a constant basis. Your nearest neighbor in 1789 might have been 5 miles away. The world is vastly different now, and the foundations of those concepts are antiquated by sheer population, not dogma or some "liberal agenda".

It's called practicality, or common sense, or the real world. Take a step outside some time and engage in it.

First off, I'm a 38 year old business owner who owns a number of franchised sandwich shops. All of my shops are non-smoking while other shops around me allow smoking. It was my choice and my business does just fine.

In one paragraph, I killed your second post and much of this one.

And in the next, I shall destroy the rest of this one:

Allowing smoking on private property does nothing to annoy neighbors. This renders most of this post moot.

Finally, I know it makes you feel better about yourself to belittle others when you try vainly and ineffectively to debate. But just a hint: It's not helping.

I live and work in the real world. I understand perfectly what practicality is. Allowing business owners to make their own choices, and placing the responsibility upon those who wish to avoid tobacco smoke is VERY practical. You just don't like it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
BTW, cutting the idealogue crap out of the equation, for all those who say "don't go to restaurants that allow smoking", what happens when you and a friend have sat down and are halfway through a decent meal and 4 guys come in and start puffing away like smokestacks? You're supposed to get up and leave?

To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

great point. i would like to see a counter response to this by those who oppose the restaurant/bar smoking bans.

See my above post. I OWN restaurants in a state with no ban. I disallow smoking in my stores and do a fine business. So so two major steak house chains and a number of bars in this area. His post is moot.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
private property owners that CHOOSE to allow smoking on their property.

There is no flaw in that logic whatsoever.

You never disappoint. I'm guessing you're a student, or some un or underemployed nobody who has identified with some idealogy because it makes you feel important... that's the only thing that explains your incessant windbag ranting.

But I digress.

There is no halfway on allowing cigarettes - if you allow it, it affects EVERYONE on the property, not just the somkers. If it was nicotine gum, that wouldn't be the case, and I'd be there with you fighting the power.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because I can replace "cigarette" with anything from toxic waste to dynamite to nuclear bombs, and it's the same logic.

And it's not like we dont already have well established laws limiting the bundle of rights of private property free ownership - from nuisance ordinances to zoning to rights to quiet enjoyment to attractive nuisance (actual liability), and all of these laws are on the books because there simply are some things that you can do that negatively impact your neighbors.

The idealogue tripe you constantly push across messageboards plays really well in the land of idealism amused because it's disassociated with reality. The truth is, most of the basic concepts of property were developed in a time when we didnt rub elblows with our neighbors on a constant basis. Your nearest neighbor in 1789 might have been 5 miles away. The world is vastly different now, and the foundations of those concepts are antiquated by sheer population, not dogma or some "liberal agenda".

It's called practicality, or common sense, or the real world. Take a step outside some time and engage in it.

First off, I'm a 38 year old business owner who owns a number of franchised sandwich shops. All of my shops are non-smoking while other shops around me allow smoking. It was my choice and my business does just fine.

In one paragraph, I killed your second post and much of this one.

And in the next, I shall destroy the rest of this one:

Allowing smoking on private property does nothing to annoy neighbors. This renders most of this post moot.

Finally, I know it makes you feel better about yourself to belittle others when you try vainly and ineffectively to debate. But just a hint: It's not helping.

I live and work in the real world. I understand perfectly what practicality is. Allowing business owners to make their own choices, and placing the responsibility upon those who wish to avoid tobacco smoke is VERY practical. You just don't like it.

Yes, you don't invite a bit of criticism with your know it all posturing... wtf is that user name anyway? It screams insecurity.

You completely missed the boat on "neighbors" amused. Neighbors is a catch all for anyone we interact with on a daily basis, and the close proximity with which we all live and work these days. I was trying to avoid using business invitees and licensees because I really don't want to spend the next 10 pages of this thread having a torts lecture. You're also terribly misconstruing the basis of liability in something like attractive nuisance.

Congrats on going smoke free in your sub shops - you know, because that's what we're talking about here - freaking Subway. (/sarcasm). The allegedly disenfranchised that you are battling for are all those come one come all full service restaurants, you know the ones that cater to everyone they can find an excuse to bring in the door - from their menus (we got your steak/seafood/salad/mexican/soup/pasta/burger right here.. come on in, and oh yeah, try our kids menu), to the 50" plasma screens & cute teenage waitresses in tight shirts to the bar & drink specials to senior citizen discounts, these restaurants are about packing every paying customer they can get through the door. These are the places that would be at a major competitive disadvanatge if they disallowed smoking, and its not whether or not they can or should, but whether they would, and the answer is an emphatic no. Market share and repeat business are the lifeblood of these places, so they will only exlcude smoking if the playing field is level (i.e. everyone bound by the rule).

I'm sorry, but your idealogue rant doesn't play in the real world.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
private property owners that CHOOSE to allow smoking on their property.

There is no flaw in that logic whatsoever.

You never disappoint. I'm guessing you're a student, or some un or underemployed nobody who has identified with some idealogy because it makes you feel important... that's the only thing that explains your incessant windbag ranting.

But I digress.

There is no halfway on allowing cigarettes - if you allow it, it affects EVERYONE on the property, not just the somkers. If it was nicotine gum, that wouldn't be the case, and I'd be there with you fighting the power.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because I can replace "cigarette" with anything from toxic waste to dynamite to nuclear bombs, and it's the same logic.

And it's not like we dont already have well established laws limiting the bundle of rights of private property free ownership - from nuisance ordinances to zoning to rights to quiet enjoyment to attractive nuisance (actual liability), and all of these laws are on the books because there simply are some things that you can do that negatively impact your neighbors.

The idealogue tripe you constantly push across messageboards plays really well in the land of idealism amused because it's disassociated with reality. The truth is, most of the basic concepts of property were developed in a time when we didnt rub elblows with our neighbors on a constant basis. Your nearest neighbor in 1789 might have been 5 miles away. The world is vastly different now, and the foundations of those concepts are antiquated by sheer population, not dogma or some "liberal agenda".

It's called practicality, or common sense, or the real world. Take a step outside some time and engage in it.

First off, I'm a 38 year old business owner who owns a number of franchised sandwich shops. All of my shops are non-smoking while other shops around me allow smoking. It was my choice and my business does just fine.

In one paragraph, I killed your second post and much of this one.

And in the next, I shall destroy the rest of this one:

Allowing smoking on private property does nothing to annoy neighbors. This renders most of this post moot.

Finally, I know it makes you feel better about yourself to belittle others when you try vainly and ineffectively to debate. But just a hint: It's not helping.

I live and work in the real world. I understand perfectly what practicality is. Allowing business owners to make their own choices, and placing the responsibility upon those who wish to avoid tobacco smoke is VERY practical. You just don't like it.

Yes, you don't invite a bit of criticsm with your know it all posturing... wtf is that user name anyway? It screams insceurity.

Youc ompletely missed the boat on "neighbors" amused. I was trying to avoid using business invitees and licensees because I really don't want to spend the next 10 pages of this thread having a torts lecture. You're also terribly misconstruing the basis of liability in something like attractive nuisance.

Congrats on going smoke free in your sub shops - you know, because that's what we;re talking about here - freaking subway. (sarcasm). The allegedly disenfranchised that you are battling for all those come one come all full service restaurants, you know the ones that cater to everyone they can find an excuse to bring in the door - from their menus (we got your steak/seafood/salad/mexican/soup/pasta/burger right here.. come on in, and oh yeah, try our kids menu and senior citizens discount), to the 50" plasma screens & cute teenage waitresses in tight shirts to the bar & drink specials to senior citizen discounts, these restaurants are about packing every paying customer they can get through the door. These are the places that would be at a major competitive disadvanatge if they disallowed smoking, and its not where or not they can or should, but whether they would, and the answer is an emphatic know. Market share and repeat business are the lifeblood of these places, so they will only exlcude smoking if the playing field is level.

I'm sorry, but your idealogue rant doesn't play in the real world.

Um, yes it does. Again, you just don't like it, but it works fine. 2 out of the 5 steakhouse chains in this town have gone non-smoking and are doing just fine. About half of the fast food joints have. I'd say about 30% of the locally owned fine dining restaurants in the downtown area have gone NS as well. And ALL Starbucks are non-smoking. A risky move since so many coffee drinkers are chain smokers.

You are pulling this out of your ass with NO experience in the business whatsoever.

Finally, now you insult my user name? Come on... This is simply pathetic.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

Um, yes it does. Again, you just don't like it, but it works fine.

No it doesn't. I've detailed why and youve blown it off with ad hoc bs and trying to discredit by syntax.

2 out of the 5 steakhouse chains in this town have gone non-smoking and are doing just fine. About half of the fast food joints have. I'd say about 30% of the locally owned fine dining restaurants in the downtown area have gone NS as well. And ALL Starbucks are non-smoking. A risky move since so many coffee drinkers are chain smokers.

Says a lot about the demand for non-smoking. Oh wait, we're supposed to want them to allow smoking because the slippery slope of personal rights is being infringed on by big brother...

You are pulling this out of your ass with NO experience in the business whatsoever.

That's funny, cause it's just your word against mine and any of this could be made up. the fact is though, Im part owner in the two chicago area restaraunts my father owns, and I worked in them for a couple of years growing up. I'm quite satisfied with my personal knowledge, thanks anyway for impugning.

Finally, now you insult my user name? Come on... This is simply pathetic.

Says the guy with your signature. Your life pretty much revolves preaching to the unwashed heathens who cant comprehend your near limitless intellect, doesn't it?

At the end of the day, idealogues like you aren't worth the air you breathe and the water you drink. You add nothing to society.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

Around here, that is absolutely untrue. The restaurants here that allow smoking are outnumbered by those that don't.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused

Um, yes it does. Again, you just don't like it, but it works fine.

No it doesn't. I've detailed why and youve blown it off with ad hoc bs and trying to discredit by syntax.

2 out of the 5 steakhouse chains in this town have gone non-smoking and are doing just fine. About half of the fast food joints have. I'd say about 30% of the locally owned fine dining restaurants in the downtown area have gone NS as well. And ALL Starbucks are non-smoking. A risky move since so many coffee drinkers are chain smokers.

Says a lot about the demand for non-smoking. Oh wait, we're supposed to want them to allow smoking because the slippery slope of personal rights is being infringed on by big brother...

You are pulling this out of your ass with NO experience in the business whatsoever.

That's funny, cause it's just your word against mine and any of this could be made up. the fact is though, Im part owner in the two chicago area restaraunts my father owns, and I worked in them for a couple of years growing up. I'm quite satisfied with my personal knowledge, thanks anyway for impugning.

Finally, now you insult my user name? Come on... This is simply pathetic.

Says the guy with your signature. Your life pretty much revolves preaching to the unwashed heathens who cant comprehend your near limitless intellect, doesn't it?

At the end of the day, idealogues like you aren't worth the air you breathe and the water you drink. You add nothing to society.

Through all your insults we find very little in the way of valid argument.

We find that your daddy supposedly owns some restaurants, but you have little to no experience in them other than what he has told you or you have guessed. I built my business from nothing.

We see that when you find out many businesses in states without smoking bans choose to go non-smoking and survive, you turn that around and claim that alone is reason enough to violate private property rights... when you claimed the opposite was the case. Please, make up your mind.

At the end of the day, we find you are incapable of making a valid argument, much less one not filled with insults. We find that when proven wrong, you vainly attempt to turn the point around and claim it proves your argument.

Any time you feel like making a valid argument, and are willing to do so without near constant insults... let me know.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

Around here, that is absolutely untrue. The restaurants here that allow smoking are outnumbered by those that don't.

SHHHH! When you prove him wrong, he will try and take that fact and say it proves his point that smoking should be banned in all private businesses by the nanny-state.

 

[AMDZen]

I'd just like to state that in these last few pages, Amused has pwned you all.

More and more of our freedom is taken away every day in this country, but the sad part is that people are actually asking for it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

Around here, that is absolutely untrue. The restaurants here that allow smoking are outnumbered by those that don't.

SHHHH! When you prove him wrong, he will try and take that fact and say it proves his point that smoking should be banned in all private businesses by the nanny-state.

good gawd amused, you use this same argument against everyone who doesn't agree with you on anything.

i had to look and make sure you weren't responding to me again. :roll:


question: are you ever going to let this go? or are you going for a world's record in repeating yourself?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Shawn
woohoo! It has been this way in FL for a while now. I love how all the smokers come out of the woodwork and get their panties in a bunch.

Who says all the people against these bans are smokers? That would be no different than saying that everyone against the drug laws is a drug addict, now wouldn't it? And just as false. Maybe... just maybe... we're people who think it's pretty damned hypocritical to outlaw smoking on private property specifically designated for the consumption of another poison just as bad, i.e. alcohol. Maybe... just maybe... we think you whining nanny-staters suck with the way you want to run everyone's lives. Ever consider that? And if they can outlaw smoking, then obviously the next step is to bring back prohibition and outlaw alcohol again. It's only a matter of time. As for me, I just hate moral crusaders of all stripes, religious and secular. Nastiest, least agreeable people on earth.

whiney nanny-staters
please keep P&N attitude out of this Vic. is it that hard for you to just stick to debating and not be condescending?

oh and call me when we have Prohibition enacted. :roll:
THE END IS NEAR! RUN!!! RUN!!! All of our rights are going to vanish one by one because toxic chemicals have been eliminated from restaurants and bars.


doom and gloom, yeh that's the ticket.

Really? And Shawn's argument wasn't condescending? It didn't gleefully promote separation? "Yeah, we passed a law to fsck other people!" Are you saying that wasn't the tone? Because it was.

"Toxic chemicals have been eliminated from restaurants and bars"???? Excuse me, is that a glass of alcohol in your hand? FYI: 100,000 people in the US die every year from alcohol abuse. This entire smoking ban in bars argument is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen.

And even more so because you don't want people to know that voluntary no-smoking bars work. The same argument you used that the bans don't hurt bars financially also means that many bars would be happy to switch on their own, without the need for any draconian ban. In fact, such voluntary no-smoking bars have been quite successful here in Oregon for the past 15 years, and more keep switching over all the time. But oh no, you gotta have your little law... :roll:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
I'd just like to state that in these last few pages, Amused has pwned you all.

More and more of our freedom is taken away every day in this country, but the sad part is that people are actually asking for it.

i'd like to state that i don't agree with you. TheAdvocate had some great points, but Amused is just more seasoned at arguing.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Shawn
woohoo! It has been this way in FL for a while now. I love how all the smokers come out of the woodwork and get their panties in a bunch.

Who says all the people against these bans are smokers? That would be no different than saying that everyone against the drug laws is a drug addict, now wouldn't it? And just as false. Maybe... just maybe... we're people who think it's pretty damned hypocritical to outlaw smoking on private property specifically designated for the consumption of another poison just as bad, i.e. alcohol. Maybe... just maybe... we think you whining nanny-staters suck with the way you want to run everyone's lives. Ever consider that? And if they can outlaw smoking, then obviously the next step is to bring back prohibition and outlaw alcohol again. It's only a matter of time. As for me, I just hate moral crusaders of all stripes, religious and secular. Nastiest, least agreeable people on earth.

whiney nanny-staters
please keep P&N attitude out of this Vic. is it that hard for you to just stick to debating and not be condescending?

oh and call me when we have Prohibition enacted. :roll:
THE END IS NEAR! RUN!!! RUN!!! All of our rights are going to vanish one by one because toxic chemicals have been eliminated from restaurants and bars.


doom and gloom, yeh that's the ticket.

Really? And Shawn's argument wasn't condescending? It didn't gleefully promote separation? "Yeah, we passed a law to fsck other people!" Are you saying that wasn't the tone? Because it was.

"Toxic chemicals have been eliminated from restaurants and bars"???? Excuse me, is that a glass of alcohol in your hand? FYI: 100,000 people in the US die every year from alcohol abuse. This entire smoking ban in bars argument is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen.

And even more so because you don't want people to know that voluntary no-smoking bars work. The same argument you used that the bans don't hurt bars financially also means that many bars would be happy to switch on their own, without the need for any draconian ban. In fact, such voluntary no-smoking bars have been quite successful here in Oregon for the past 15 years, and more keep switching over all the time. But oh no, you gotta have your little law... :roll:

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

somebody call the waaaaaaaambulance. :laugh:

 

[Starbuck1975]

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

SHHHH! When you prove him wrong, he will try and take that fact and say it proves his point that smoking should be banned in all private businesses by the nanny-state.

... says ATOT's self congratulory omniscient jackass.

So Mr Know it all - explain how you dont have any duty to your licencees and invitees. I'm still waiting for an answer to that plus a half dozen other questions and you're still blabbering about "nanny staters".

The minute you shelve the ad hominem attacks and idealogue blatherings that I've been mocking since my first post will be the first time youve made a post without them.

In other words, look in the mirror pal.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
To go where? there is no way that any restaurant is going to remove smoking sections when all the other places nearby allow them. It's too much of a competitive disadvantage. You might have some boutique success here and there, and maybe some success with smoke free hours of operation (e.g. weekday or weekend lunchtime), but by and large, restaurants are in the business of (marketing) inclusion, not exclusion.

Around here, that is absolutely untrue. The restaurants here that allow smoking are outnumbered by those that don't.

SHHHH! When you prove him wrong, he will try and take that fact and say it proves his point that smoking should be banned in all private businesses by the nanny-state.

good gawd amused, you use this same argument against everyone who doesn't agree with you on anything.

i had to look and make sure you weren't responding to me again. :roll:


question: are you ever going to let this go? or are you going for a world's record in repeating yourself?

WTF are you talking about? This point has NEVER been discussed by me in this thread, much less have I talked about a poster trying to claim one thing is reality, only to find the converse is the reality and THEN try to claim that it supports his argument.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
I'd just like to state that in these last few pages, Amused has pwned you all.

More and more of our freedom is taken away every day in this country, but the sad part is that people are actually asking for it.

The laws passed in your state and this country are amended (or new ones created) all the time.
If you don't like it, move to another state or country

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

 

[Starbuck1975]

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

Too lazy to search for one...I just grow weary of this discussion...smokers are easy targets, and that is the only fact we need to concern ourselves with...imagine if the government decided to put legislation in place to prevent or otherwise eliminate all forms of dangerous behavior for the benefit of society...I choose not to live in that Brave New World.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen
I'd just like to state that in these last few pages, Amused has pwned you all.

More and more of our freedom is taken away every day in this country, but the sad part is that people are actually asking for it.

i'd like to state that i don't agree with you. TheAdvocate had some great points, but Amused is just more seasoned at arguing.

Nah, I just have a job, and a lack of contemptf or my fellow human beings, unlike Mr Nanny Stater.

I do plan on buying a sailboat one day, so I think I'll invite amused along for the ride in case the wind dies down. He could power it across the globe in one mindless rant.