Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

haha you're one to talk about flawed logic haha

you're notorious for having the worst logic skills in the anandtech forums

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

haha you're one to talk about flawed logic haha

you're notorious for having the worst logic skills in the anandtech forums

I agree with Vic on this one.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

haha you're one to talk about flawed logic haha

you're notorious for having the worst logic skills in the anandtech forums

I agree with Vic on this one.

what does a road or stretch of highway, which, by the way, can be bought/adopted, thereby making it NOT public, have anything to do with smoking?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

haha you're one to talk about flawed logic haha

you're notorious for having the worst logic skills in the anandtech forums

:roll:

Only in your opinion... and we all know what that's worth.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

cigarette smoke = hidden threat. thanks.

Thanks for what? Your silly attempt at obfuscating the obvious?

Cigarette smoke is readily detectable and hardly hidden.

Also, of all the airborne particulates you may face on a day to day basis, it's one of the LEAST harmful, if at all. Funny, I don't see you up in arms over diesel exhaust, which is universally PROVEN to cause cancer in people exposed to it on a daily basis unlike ETS, in which the majority of studies do not find harm outside the margin of error.

hahaha for one, i AM up in arms about deisel fumes... also, 2nd hand smoke in an establishment is way more direct than a diesel truck spewing o-zone carcinogens into the open air. if there were a mack truck in my local bar fuming up a storm, i'll be up in arms... until then, i think i'll let it slide for the sake of this thread :roll:.

also, smoking causes more carcinogens to be spewed into the environment than do diesel automobile.... why? sheer numbers. there are way more smokers, which yeild a larger number of carcinogenic material than do diesel automobiles, per capita, in your worthless argument.

On-road diesel vehicles appear to produce more carcinogens compared to cigarettes.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html#tables
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36319
The recent volatile organic chemicals produced is around 208,000 tons.

There are about 400 billion cigarettes sold each year. Regular ones have 20mg of TAR- the chief carcinogen AFAICT. This means about 9000 tons a year, if all of the TAR went into the air and not a smokers lungs.

Implicitly trusting the EPA numbers may be a mistake after the bogus ETS report they published though.

 

[Amused]

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.

Most of the people in this thread who oppose this law are non-smokers.

I love how I'm a smoker if I oppose smoking bans, a druggie if I oppose the war on drugs and a queer if I oppose gay bashing.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

haha you're one to talk about flawed logic haha

you're notorious for having the worst logic skills in the anandtech forums

I agree with Vic on this one.

what does a road or stretch of highway, which, by the way, can be bought/adopted, thereby making it NOT public, have anything to do with smoking?

Um... my gawd.

An "adopted" highway is still public. Tollways and bridges can be private, and the owner usually contracts with the city/state to maintain police presence and traffic laws on it.

At any rate, the vast, vast majority of streets/highways are public. Comparing roads to private property is absurd. That's like comparing a court house or city office to a home.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

actually, it makes sense because innocent people aren't being hurt. if those who want to hurt themselves WANT to hurt themselves without hurting others, they can.

that's called "making sense," regardless of whether or not i agree with it.

Again, it is quite simple. If you think tobacco smoke will harm you, do not go into private property that allows smoking. How hard is that?

worst logic ever... businessly speaking and socially speaking.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Because... it's not.

If I, as a business owner, want to sell alcohol (or any other good or service) and cater to smokers, how is allowing smoking on my property bad logic?

How is giving private property owners freedom to do as they wish so long as all risks are assumed bad logic "socially?"

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

it's not comparing apples to oranges. they aren't that non-related.

being that this ban only took effect on December 8th, 2005, in Washington i think it's premature to say what long term effect it will have on buisnesses there.

i would bet that it will parallel what has happened in New York. people will still come out and adapt.

Why should they have to adapt? Instead of passing a blanket, draconian law, why doesn't your selfish ass just go to a different bar?

it's not about being selfish, although i will note you resorted to name calling. once again we have to travel down this road and explain to you that it is about getting rid of carcinogens for patrons and for workers.

Why shouldn't I resort to name-calling? Your argument contains the direct implication that we are all slaves incapable of making our own decisions, so you (and those that think like you) will selfishly make our decisions for us. That in itself is extremely insulting. When legislated, it is unforgivable.

nah, the name calling doesn't help bring people together. it promotes separation.

this law has nothing to do with turning us into slaves. it has to do with cutting down on cancer related illnesses and deaths.

 

[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.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
this law has nothing to do with turning us into slaves. it has to do with cutting down on cancer related illnesses and deaths.

Any law that protects people from themselves is, in effect, slavery to appease busy body moralists.

And this law is nothing different because, in the end, non-smokers who fear ETS have NO obligation to enter private property that allows smoking. Anyone who exposes themselves to it does so voluntarily.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade
this law has nothing to do with turning us into slaves. it has to do with cutting down on cancer related illnesses and deaths.

Any law that protects people from themselves is, in effect, slavery to appease busy body moralists.

And this law is nothing different because, in the end, non-smokers who fear ETS have NO obligation to enter private property that allows smoking. Anyone who exposes themselves to it does so voluntarily.

no, it is not slavery to appease busy body moralists. unfortunately these laws have to be made to protect our health and well being because some people won't do these things voluntarily.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade
this law has nothing to do with turning us into slaves. it has to do with cutting down on cancer related illnesses and deaths.

Any law that protects people from themselves is, in effect, slavery to appease busy body moralists.

And this law is nothing different because, in the end, non-smokers who fear ETS have NO obligation to enter private property that allows smoking. Anyone who exposes themselves to it does so voluntarily.

no, it is not slavery to appease busy body moralists. unfortunately these laws have to be made to protect our health and well being because some people won't do these things voluntarily.

It is YOUR responsibility to protect YOURSELF from any threat you fear. If you fear ETS, don't go places that allow smoking. It's that simple.

And yes, it IS slavery. And it IS a law to appease busy body moralists. It is little different from seat belt laws, or the war on drugs. Only with this law, there is the added insult of not only violating personal rights and freedoms, but the rights of private property owners as well.

And all that because people like you have the ignorant and absurd notion that you have a "right" to not only enter other people's property, but to force them to cater to your whims.

 

[moshquerade]

the time has come

Amused, fsck off and die

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...adid=1674694&STARTPAGE=1&enterthread=y

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the time has come

Amused, fsck off and die

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...adid=1674694&STARTPAGE=1&enterthread=y

Why thank you!

 

[TheAdvocate]

Looks like 21 pages of a bunch of people who don't understand the basic concept of liberty:

You're free to do whatever you wanna do so long as it doesnt infringe on someon else's liberty. You are NOT > me.

Smoking in restaurants is ridiculous. The older I get, the more stupid I realize it is. So I'm always in favor of these bans. But I'm also willing to compromise, and I've long held that Florida's rule is a good one (bar or restaraunt determined by food vs alcohol sales, smoking still ok in bars).

The domino fallacy that amused constantly employs is ridiculous too. Yet another windbag idealogue with no concept of reality who employs really, really flawed logic.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

actually, it makes sense because innocent people aren't being hurt. if those who want to hurt themselves WANT to hurt themselves without hurting others, they can.

that's called "making sense," regardless of whether or not i agree with it.

Again, it is quite simple. If you think tobacco smoke will harm you, do not go into private property that allows smoking. How hard is that?

worst logic ever... businessly speaking and socially speaking.

No, the worst logic ever is assuming that because you don't like smoking and buy the propaganda, no one should be allowed to smoke in a bar. Good logic would be not patronizing businesses with practices you don't agree with--that's showing personal responsibility. Poor logic is celebrating removal of choice in what's labeled "land of the free."

 

[JohnPaul]

I just love how all you non-smokers hem and haw about smokers infringing on your rights, and how smoking should be eliminated entirely, and screw the smokers.

Have you any idea what would happen if smoking was outlawed? Your taxes on everything else would skyrocket, as smokers are raped by the government coming and going. I pay almost $6 a pack if I pay full price, which most times I don't because I get buy 1 get 1 free. Do you know how much of that $6 is taxes? $4!! That's right, 60% of a pack of smokes in my state is taxes. It is bullcrap. Quit your complaining, because you just might get what you are asking for. You don't know how much cigarettes are benefitting you, but you will see when they no longer do.

On another note, it is my contention that secondhand smoke is utter bullcrap. What it is really about is crybaby non-smokers, and ignorant smokers clashing, and secondhand smoke is the only way that non-smokers can come up with to get their way. Show me some stats that show shs has caused a single death that couldn't be attributed to something else, such as genetics, and not some study from a group that is bias one way or the other.

Where the hell do they get off dictating to business owners what they can and can't have in their bar? In my opinion, they should have an option to hang signs stating whether it is a smoking establishment or not, and that you enter at your own risk, so if you don't like it don't come here. Period! Simple enough for me. Don't even get me started on how hipocritical it is to let the gambling establishments allow smoking but not bars or resturaunts. It is utterly ridiculous.

For those of you that don't know it, the bar owners are losing business because of this, not gaining like polititians have stated. I frequent a bar in my area, and last year when they enacted no smoking in it, I know for a fact they lost some business. I don't go there near as often, and not even because I can't smoke there, but because people who used to go there don't anymore because they can't smoke, and from my estimates, it is probably 25% less busy than before. It may not be as high a percentage as that, but it is close, and maybe to you that is an acceptable loss, but I bet that bar owner doesn't think so.

I would say that at least 60-75% of bar patrons are smokers, at least from what I have seen. As far as employees wanting a smoke free work place, here is a hint, which I am sure has already been expounded on before in this thread: DON'T WORK AT A BAR IF YOU ARE BOTHERED BY SMOKE!!! WTF, are these people fools? They don't realize that most people who go to bars are smokers, and it is just that type of enviroment? Some people who don't even smoke regularly like to smoke when drinking.

I am so tired of having my rights trampled by ignorant people who want their cake and to eat it too. You cannot have it both ways. Either you like the money smokers generate in taxes, or you want to eliminate smoking and smokers rights to do so where and when they please to. As I stated earlier in this post, the taxes smokers generate are mind boggling, especially to those who don't realize smokers are taxed at the level they are. This country would be crippled if smoking were banned completely, and that is why it isn't. The government likes to ignore this fact, and pretends to want to end smoking and all the negative things it causes. In reality, the government knows full well that if they outlawed tobacco completely, either they would have to tax other products, or find some other way of generating the income lost, which would be next to impossible. This is because tobacco is the only product where most people, even those who consume it in some cases, are willing to accept such an outrageously large tax to be levied upon it. Even liquor cannot compare.

I would love to see some of you non-smokers suddenly taxed on something they buy daily, and find very hard to quit using, knowing fully that they are being taken advantage of specifically because of that fact. The fact that they are an easy target. A target that can be counted on to buy the product daily. A target that is easily ignored by the public when he/she complains about being picked on, because after all, they can just quit. Simple as that. And finally, a target who hasn't got the money to fight back against the government.

How about we start taxing something YOU buy daily, and find almost impossible to quit. Not just taxing, but taxing to the point of absurdity, like 200% of the cost of the product. And every year, we will raise that tax by another 10%. Let's us also make sure that the majority of people who use this product are below middle class so that we are certain they won't be able to stop us with pesky lawyers and the like. Do you drink bottled water? How about we charge you $10 for a 12oz bottle of it. Coffee, same thing. Whatever it is that you use daily and cannot seem to stop using no matter how hard you try and no matter how much doing so will benefit you, think about that being so ridiculously taxed, and think about how helpless you would feel if this happened to you.

The government is praying on smokers because we are an easy target, and it is NOT RIGHT!! Even non-smokers with half a brain should be able to see that. If they want tobacco to go away, make it go away. PERIOD!!! That is the only way many smokers would be able to quit. Everyone is not the same, and for some of us, it is next to impossible to quit. It is more addictive than heroin, in fact I can buy a bag of heroin cheaper than I can buy a pack of cigarettes!! I would love it if tobacco was made illegal. At first of course I would be angry, because of withdrawal, but I am sure I would get over it. I WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE!! In fact, I would LOVE to watch all those who made ignorant comments about smoking in this thread and around the world pay the taxes that the smokers were taking the brunt of before. Yea, that would be sweet.

So, if you really want smoking to go away, do something about it. Really, I don't think you do, because then, instead of you thinking smoking is effecting you, the fallout from its demise really would be effecting you, at least financially.

Don't for one minute think the government wants tobacco to go away. They just want you to think they do. They also get the added benefit of brainwashing all you non-smokers into thinking that them taxing tobacco and smokers in general is the answer to the problem, instead of outlawing tobacco, which is the true answer to the problem.

Get off your high horses people and open your eyes to what your government is REALLY doing. It is like a magician who puts his hand in front of your face to divert your attention from what is going on in the other hand, which is where the real magic is happening. In the case of the government, it is not magic, but deception.

John-Paul

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
I just love how all you non-smokers hem and haw about smokers infringing on your rights, and how smoking should be eliminated entirely, and screw the smokers.

John-Paul

i stopped reading there because no one in this thread has said smoking should be eliminated entirely, and screw the smokers.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It's been illegal in California for years now, and to be honest, bars are much nicer places to hang out for it. I absolutely hated leaving and smelling like an ashtray. People adapted, and it's all good here.

Many of the smaller bars closed in San Diego. Not the night clubs mind you the small quaint little hole in the wall Bars.

And Yet Cigar lounges are still Legal in San diego

This is about Protecting people from an irratant and nothing more.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Looks like 21 pages of a bunch of people who don't understand the basic concept of liberty:

You're free to do whatever you wanna do so long as it doesnt infringe on someon else's liberty. You are NOT > me.

Smoking in restaurants is ridiculous. The older I get, the more stupid I realize it is. So I'm always in favor of these bans. But I'm also willing to compromise, and I've long held that Florida's rule is a good one (bar or restaraunt determined by food vs alcohol sales, smoking still ok in bars).

The domino fallacy that amused constantly employs is ridiculous too. Yet another windbag idealogue with no concept of reality who employs really, really flawed logic.

Um, what?

The simple fact is, you are forcing private property owners to conform to YOUR whims. If you do not like smoking, do not go places that allow it. If individual bans imposed by property owners on smoking were so popular, property owners would do it... and most have in states with no government bans. These bans do nothing but impose YOUR will on those few remaining private property owners that CHOOSE to allow smoking on their property.

There is no flaw in that logic whatsoever.

A property owner allowing smoking on his property in no way infringes on anyone else's liberty. You are NOT obligated to go there. Your only moral recourse is to choose not to do business with them. But instead, you choose the immoral, fascist recourse of forcing them to conform to your whims.

 

[JohnPaul]

I didn't claim anyone in this thread said smoking should be eliminated entirely, although I will say now that I do remember reading somewhere in this thread where it was said that just that should happen, but I am not about to read through the whole thread again to prove it to you. It wasn't in those exact words, but it has been alluded to with wording differing from my own. Either way, I said it referring to non-smokers feelings about smokers/smoking in general, and not anyone specifically.

What I basically meant was that most non-smokers feel smokers ARE infringing on their rights by smoking in a bar, just by being in their proximity.

I just feel that many people are hypocrites, who are willing to bend their own rules when it benefits them, such as cars emitting all types of noxious chemicals, and all types of things made in factorys and consumed by non-smokers that contribute in a negative way to the quality of the air we all breath.

My point is this: There are all types of things that can be construed as effecting the quality of the air we breath negatively, but because we don't see them up close, or we know they exist but choose to ignore them because admitting that they exist makes us hypocrites for condemning smokers, non-smokers feel it is okay to complain infinitely about the negative consequenses of second hand smoke. You may feel it is a necessary evil to drive a car, and so do I, but then I don't go around complaining about something tainting the air I breath, do I?

Moshquerade, this isn't directed at you, it is just an explanation of what I wrote, and again is explaining my thoughts about non-smokers opinions in a general sense.

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
I just love how all you non-smokers hem and haw about smokers infringing on your rights, and how smoking should be eliminated entirely, and screw the smokers.

John-Paul

i stopped reading there because no one in this thread has said smoking should be eliminated entirely, and screw the smokers.

 

[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.