Party of free choice???

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: spittledip
I dont quite understand why smokers think it is ok for non-smokers to be choked by their habit...? Even if it wasn't dangerous, it is still unpleasant to smell and breathe.

You will understand when you realize you DON'T have the right to eat at a restaurant.

Oh.. are you saying you can't breathe without a cigarette in your mouth? Otherwise what you are saying makes no sense.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: sirjonk


Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good. Your extreme example assumes the benefit of outlawing cars outweighs the necessity of personal transportation despite their unfortunate associated environmental sideeffects. Cigarettes do not represent any social or societal benefit nearly as pressing as the need personal transportation does for the majority of the country.

Basically, your balance is broken.

Your slippery slope argument rightfully falls on deaf ears. Oh no, some states passed mandatory seatbelt laws! Next they're going to require everyone get a breathalyzer attached to the car so no one could drive drunk! I mean, it's not like they could possibly just stop at seatbelts and car seats for infants! You watch! ....hm, nothing happened since they passed those seatbelt laws over a decade ago. huh.

Balancing test says you fail.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

I'm just as vehemently against seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, and every other law passed in the name of limiting personal choice. They DO NOT protect the "common good," they are merely a tool for the government to impose their/your morals on those who would choose to live differently. If I want to get in my car without a seat belt on, it's none of your business and it's none of the government's business.

As for the "slippery slope," do you remember when seat belts became mandatory but the law was written so you couldn't be pulled over for it? Well, you can now so I do think it's a valid point.

Then, you go on to state that some of us cannot draw lines yet believing in individual rights = being an anarchist? Please.

What is so freaking difficult in making a personal decision to avoid establishments which choose to allow smoking? Why can you people not think about the consequences of YOUR actions in entering an establishment rather than expecting that establishment to cater to you. Personal choice and freedom is dying a rapid death in this country and you folks are to blame. You actually believe it's your right to tell me how to live. You want to say you live in a free country yet you insist on labeling it free on condition of your acceptance. You disgust me and you have no right to call yourself American.

I agree about seat belt laws btw, but they only affect you. If you not wearing a seat belt could kill other people there'd be more of a discussion to have there. The argument is not that smoking is bad for you, it's that it's bad for other people around you.

So seatbelt laws started to actually get enforced. That's your best slippery slope argumenent? I don't think it's a strong one.

You combined my posts and snipped what I was responding to wrt anarchy. I was being extreme. The poster I was responding to seemed to be unable to differentiate between laws proscribing murder and those banning smoking. I was responding in kind, with a ridiculous statement.

Your rant about this not being a free country is pretty pointless. If free only means being able to do whatever you want whenever you want, then there is no free country anywhere, nor could there be. Civilized society requires balance between freedoms and restrictions. We simply disagree on what should be a freedom and which a restriction. It can still be a civilized debate without questioning anyone's patriotism.

As to me not being able to call myself an American, I'm exercising the very rights protected anc cherished by our country, while your attack would seek to silence my opinion and is the epitome of anti-Americanism.

Additionally, I think there's a lot of people who you'd have to call unamerican since these states ban smoking in restaurants and bars:

California, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey (casinos exempted), Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Montana banned smoking in restaurants - bars exempt till 2009. South Dakota had a ban - status unsure. In November 2006, Ohio and Nevada banned smoking in most public places; Arizona passed a similar ban, which takes effect May 2007. In January 2006 the Territory of Puerto Rico banned smoking in the workplace, including bars and casinos

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic
Your argument is apples and oranges. Food safety is regulated because consumers have a reasonable expectation to healthy food, and would not purchase unhealthy food if they knew it to be so beforehand. In other words, food safety regulation is a form of consumer protection against fraud. 2nd-hand smoke comes with its own disclosure (which is the problem).

There are no relative merits to any prohibition, nor are they ever justified. All cases of prohibition are based of the idea that because one person has some moral position, therefore everyone should share that moral position, whether they like it or not. This is IMO the most immoral position of all.

So you believe that the government should be able to regulate otherwise legal behavior on private property as it pertains to fraud, but not as it pertains to public health due to the difficulty a customer would have in determining how the meat was handled. (if I'm reading you right) So again, it is permissable in certain circumstances. Maybe smoking in restaurants isn't one of those circumstances, but the concept is certainly valid and can certainly apply to ideas outside of fraud.

I also don't think your argument about the consumption of alcohol has merit here. You are in effect arguing that because people are doing one unhealthy thing that they have no right to stop other unhealthy things from happening to them, and of course that's not true.

I don't feel like I really need to address your statement about prohibitions never being justified or ever having any merit as that is obviously false.

No, you're not reading me right. Would you purchase unhealthy food if you knew it to be unhealthy? Do you think any other reasonable person would do the same? Obviously not.

And I have found that saying something is "obviously false" is usually just an excuse for saying that you have no argument against it besides personal prejudice. In this case, you're just reserving the right to inflict your moral prejudices on others whenever it suits your fancy.
You see, just because I don't smoke doesn't mean that I feel that no one should smoke. I'm not gay either, and you don't see me arguing against homosexuality, do you?

So when the guy lights up and blows smoke in my family's face that's his right, eh?

It's amazing how literally no one knows what a "right" is anymore. :roll:

Anyway, no, it's not his "right." Anymore than it would be his "right" to fart in your family's face. Quick! Pass a law!


edit: oops, I forgot the all-important emotional argument of "your family's face" (as opposed to just your face), as though the fact that you chose to breed has sh!t to do with this.

how about the RIGHT of the business owner to run his business the way he sees fit?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good. Your extreme example assumes the benefit of outlawing cars outweighs the necessity of personal transportation despite their unfortunate associated environmental sideeffects. Cigarettes do not represent any social or societal benefit nearly as pressing as the need personal transportation does for the majority of the country.

Basically, your balance is broken.

Really? What individual liberty do laws against murder, theft, etc. compromise for the sake of the common good?

Answer: none. Those laws benefit both individual liberty and the common good.

I don't get to kill you when you piss me off. That infringes on my individual liberty/choice for the sake of the common good.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

And you're an idiot. Unbelievable.

Hey, it's not my fault, my mom smoked while pregnant. Apparently your's drank. I hear that's worse.

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

I know you think this distracts from the fact that you clearly don't know anything about political rights and law, but it doesn't.

BTW, why aren't you using this information to bring back alcohol prohibition? It would be even more consistent to your expressed views than your argument about banning smoking due to 2nd-hand smoke.

edit: BTW, it's kind of ironic that you're accusing me of flinging insults while you're insulting my mother. Typical ATPN nonsense. Too bad for you my mother is a Mormon... :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

I know you think this distracts from the fact that you clearly don't know anything about political rights and law, but it doesn't.

BTW, why aren't you using this information to bring back alcohol prohibition? It would be even more consistent to your expressed views than your argument about banning smoking due to 2nd-hand smoke.

Because maybe he doesn't view a fetus as a separate person deserving of individual rights and consideration? I know I don't.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

I know you think this distracts from the fact that you clearly don't know anything about political rights and law, but it doesn't.

BTW, why aren't you using this information to bring back alcohol prohibition? It would be even more consistent to your expressed views than your argument about banning smoking due to 2nd-hand smoke.

Because maybe he doesn't view a fetus as a separate person deserving of individual rights and consideration? I know I don't.

So you're okay with mothers who drink, smoke, and do drugs while pregnant, but worried about the idiots who voluntarily go into smoky bars?

And we're not talking about fetuses here. Fetuses are what get aborted. FAS and similar are a post-birth result of poor natal care.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic
So you're okay with mothers who drink, smoke, and do drugs while pregnant, but worried about the idiots who voluntarily go into smoky bars?

And we're not talking about fetuses here. Fetuses are what get aborted. FAS and similar are a post-birth result of poor natal care.

For the most part you've got it right. This obviously has to do with the relative merits and burdens that have to do with declaring a pile of cells, etc. in a woman as a person deserving legal protections and a whole load of other things as opposed to the way you are trying to frame it however.

What do you mean by natal care anyway? Usually I hear about prenatal/neonatal/post natal care, but doesn't natal in general just have to do with the act of birth? I'm going to assume you mean prenatal care, as FAS occurs while the baby is still in the womb. If that is what you mean, then no we are definitely talking about fetuses. Just because something becomes a baby later doesn't mean that it was always a baby.

(by the way I have no interest in having the "when is a baby a baby" argument. If you are disagreeing with me based on the idea that you think differently on this subject I suggest we agree to disagree on it.)

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

I know you think this distracts from the fact that you clearly don't know anything about political rights and law, but it doesn't.

BTW, why aren't you using this information to bring back alcohol prohibition? It would be even more consistent to your expressed views than your argument about banning smoking due to 2nd-hand smoke.

edit: BTW, it's kind of ironic that you're accusing me of flinging insults while you're insulting my mother. Typical ATPN nonsense. Too bad for you my mother is a Mormon... :roll:

This will sound really juvenile, but you started it. Go back and see who called who an idiot first. Don't start the name calling and then get pissed when you get called names.

Re prohibition: did i suggest banning smoking completely or in the home? No, so it's in no way consistent with any view I've espoused. Prohibition doesn't work, for drugs or prostitution and I don't support either. Regulation, however, is a different ballgame, but again, these distinctions somehow are beyond you.

Go ahead, insult me again since responding is too much work. Question my understanding of the law again, I love reading that one. Well, me and all the lawyers in the legislatures around the world who have passed these laws, and the judges who have upheld the laws. Everyone's wrong but you.

Oh, and I know Mormon's (and Muslims and Jews and Christians and Atheists) who drink, so that doesn't get mama off the hook. Sorry.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I'm just as vehemently against seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, and every other law passed in the name of limiting personal choice. They DO NOT protect the "common good," they are merely a tool for the government to impose their/your morals on those who would choose to live differently. If I want to get in my car without a seat belt on, it's none of your business and it's none of the government's business.

As for the "slippery slope," do you remember when seat belts became mandatory but the law was written so you couldn't be pulled over for it? Well, you can now so I do think it's a valid point.

Then, you go on to state that some of us cannot draw lines yet believing in individual rights = being an anarchist? Please.

What is so freaking difficult in making a personal decision to avoid establishments which choose to allow smoking? Why can you people not think about the consequences of YOUR actions in entering an establishment rather than expecting that establishment to cater to you. Personal choice and freedom is dying a rapid death in this country and you folks are to blame. You actually believe it's your right to tell me how to live. You want to say you live in a free country yet you insist on labeling it free on condition of your acceptance. You disgust me and you have no right to call yourself American.

Actually things like seat belt and helmet laws are for the common good because they reduce the chance of death/injury. If someone wants to go without a seat belt or helmet (where they are law) they should be the one to handle the financial responsibility for their actions. Why should everyones insurance rates go up because an unrestrained driver went through a windshield or got thrown from their vehicle when a simple thing like a seatbelt could have prevented it?

Edit: Oops... bad quoting.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic
So you're okay with mothers who drink, smoke, and do drugs while pregnant, but worried about the idiots who voluntarily go into smoky bars?

And we're not talking about fetuses here. Fetuses are what get aborted. FAS and similar are a post-birth result of poor natal care.

For the most part you've got it right. This obviously has to do with the relative merits and burdens that have to do with declaring a pile of cells, etc. in a woman as a person deserving legal protections and a whole load of other things as opposed to the way you are trying to frame it however.

What do you mean by natal care anyway? Usually I hear about prenatal/neonatal/post natal care, but doesn't natal in general just have to do with the act of birth? I'm going to assume you mean prenatal care, as FAS occurs while the baby is still in the womb. If that is what you mean, then no we are definitely talking about fetuses. Just because something becomes a baby later doesn't mean that it was always a baby.

(by the way I have no interest in having the "when is a baby a baby" argument. If you are disagreeing with me based on the idea that you think differently on this subject I suggest we agree to disagree on it.)

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm strongly pro-choice BTW.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

More like your mom smoked crack while pregnant with you. :roll:

Interesting side note!

Studies done on supposed "crack babies" that everyone was afraid were going to be all crazy turned out to show that crack mostly just gives you a baby with low birth weight, sometimes some hyperactivity. Drinking is way worse for babies then crack... sadly enough.

Hey, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome trumps crack baby! Sorry vic, ya lose again! I'm sure you can find another insult properly researched.

I know you think this distracts from the fact that you clearly don't know anything about political rights and law, but it doesn't.

BTW, why aren't you using this information to bring back alcohol prohibition? It would be even more consistent to your expressed views than your argument about banning smoking due to 2nd-hand smoke.

edit: BTW, it's kind of ironic that you're accusing me of flinging insults while you're insulting my mother. Typical ATPN nonsense. Too bad for you my mother is a Mormon... :roll:

This will sound really juvenile, but you started it. Go back and see who called who an idiot first. Don't start the name calling and then get pissed when you get called names.

Re prohibition: did i suggest banning smoking completely or in the home? No, so it's in no way consistent with any view I've espoused. Prohibition doesn't work, for drugs or prostitution and I don't support either. Regulation, however, is a different ballgame, but again, these distinctions somehow are beyond you.

Go ahead, insult me again since responding is too much work. Question my understanding of the law again, I love reading that one. Well, me and all the lawyers in the legislatures around the world who have passed these laws, and the judges who have upheld the laws. Everyone's wrong but you.

Oh, and I know Mormon's (and Muslims and Jews and Christians and Atheists) who drink, so that doesn't get mama off the hook. Sorry.

I suggest you look back on the thread again. You said "all laws" blah blah, and then when I pointed out that assertion was wrong, you accused me of being an anarchist and not knowing the difference between laws and regulation, as your little ego spin machine went into action. It was pathetic, and I gave it the only response it deserved.

And really, how much response do you think you deserve when you can't frame any form of argument and just move from one bullshit spin to the next?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Robor

This entire issue comes down to the smokers and hard-core personal freedom advocates against the majority of the people who aren't smart enough to avoid situations they feel put them at risk.

Fixed!

No, it's not fixed. As I've said in this thread already, most of the backlash to second hand smoke is about the smell, not the health hazard. I do agree that bar/restaurant/casino employees should not be unnecessarily exposed to second hand smoke because they are the ones who get the type of long term exposure than can cause health hazards. That said, they're the minority. These laws aren't getting passed by them. They're getting passed by the people who got sick of having a nice meal spoiled by smoke. The FL law passed with 71% in favor of it so don't tell me about the government eliminating your 'freedoms' and 'rights'. It was people who got fed up with accommodating smokers.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

So tell us what, in principle, is the difference between banning indoor smoking in public places and banning the random shooting of firearms in public places?

 

[Vic]

Wow... the way you guys spin it, restaurants and bars are the most solid businesses on earth, totally immune to their consumers' desires. Oh wait... actually they're the riskiest business there is, statistically.

BTW, laws restricting public smoking pass purely from democratic pressure. 78% of America doesn't smoke. A similarly high percentage don't patronize bars. So these things go to a vote as predictable as those "Defense of Marriage" laws a few years back. It's not democracy when it's people who think they aren't affected who are making the decision.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

So tell us what, in principle, is the difference between banning indoor smoking in public places and banning the random shooting of firearms in public places?

Firearms actually kill? :roll:

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I wonder if there'll ever be a non-smoking casino in Vegas one day.

If there were enough people that desired to go to such a thing, they would open one.

Same thing with restaurants and bars. If enough people would spend there money only at a non-smoking establishment, they would exist more often.

They could probably go back to the days of having different sections for smoking and non-smoking and instead of regulating the smoking policy, they could regulate that a business is well ventilated. That way personal freedoms are left intact for both sides.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: spittledip
I dont quite understand why smokers think it is ok for non-smokers to be choked by their habit...? Even if it wasn't dangerous, it is still unpleasant to smell and breathe.

You will understand when you realize you DON'T have the right to eat at a restaurant.

Oh.. are you saying you can't breathe without a cigarette in your mouth? Otherwise what you are saying makes no sense.

/slaps forehead in disbelief...

First of all, if you had read this thread, hell just the last 11 posts, you would know I hate the smell of cig. smoke (i.e. I'm a non-smoker).

It makes perfect sense. What part of "you DON'T have the right to eat at a restaurant" does not make sense? You are invited in because they want your business. Nothing more. You are not forced to go or even obliged to go. The CHOICE is up to YOU. If I were you and I didn't like the place, I wouldn't give them my business. What doesn't make sense? They're free to cater to who they want and you are free to take it or leave it. Where's the problem?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Oh, and I know Mormon's (and Muslims and Jews and Christians and Atheists) who drink, so that doesn't get mama off the hook. Sorry.

Standard joke when we lived in Utah went:

Why do you never take one Mormon fishing?

Because he'll drink all your beer.

The explanation was that you always take 2 or more Mormons fishing

That way, they'll be worried that one of the others will turn them in,
and they'll leave your beer alone...

Jack Mormon can drink...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... the way you guys spin it, restaurants and bars are the most solid businesses on earth, totally immune to their consumers' desires. Oh wait... actually they're the riskiest business there is, statistically.

BTW, laws restricting public smoking pass purely from democratic pressure. 78% of America doesn't smoke. A similarly high percentage don't patronize bars. So these things go to a vote as predictable as those "Defense of Marriage" laws a few years back. It's not democracy when it's people who think they aren't affected who are making the decision.

Are you saying smoking bans make owning a restaurant more risky? If so I say you're wrong. I live in FL and smoking is banned in restaurants/bars that make < 10% from food. That pretty much includes all restaurants and excludes most bars. Neither are suffering from the ban that went in place years ago. The places that want to be considered 'bars' do so and attract the smoking and younger crowd. Restaurants are smoke free but allow it on patios. In both cases most places around here are packed.

What is wrong with putting an issue like banning indoor smoking to a vote and letting the people decide? I'm a non-smoker and I voted for the ban. I'm married hetro and I'd vote against any 'defense of marriage' law because it's stupid. Gay people marrying doesn't affect me or my spouse or our marriage.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I wonder if there'll ever be a non-smoking casino in Vegas one day.

If there were enough people that desired to go to such a thing, they would open one.

Same thing with restaurants and bars. If enough people would spend there money only at a non-smoking establishment, they would exist more often.

They could probably go back to the days of having different sections for smoking and non-smoking and instead of regulating the smoking policy, they could regulate that a business is well ventilated. That way personal freedoms are left intact for both sides.

Negative. For the most part smoking sections don't work. Why? Because smoke doesn't know not to cross that 'virtual barrier'. Sure you could use walls or glass to separate sections - and I've seen it done - but it's uncommon and an expensive modification. Also they have to be on separate A/C systems or it's useless. Anyway, who is going to pay for this 'ventilation regulation'?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: teiresias
Yeah, but if I'm the DD of my group I'm not going to get accidentally intoxicated via second-hand liquor.

True, but the drunk driver that kills you on the street ...your not thinking things thru.

(sigh) Driving drunk is ILLEGAL and there are severe penalties.

Any amount of alcohol impairs your reflexes so to be true to your purported ideals you should be in favor of prohabition. Hypocrite much?

I'm aware that alcohol affects reflexes. You are aware there have been studies to determine the point of impairment, right? I know it's .08% here in FL. My point is it driving while impared is already illegal so I don't see any validity of using DUI to condone second hand smoke. Nice try going to the prohibition card though.

ANY amount of alcohol impaires your judgement/reflexes, so save your "it's already illegal" to drive while drinking argument for someone else. If your going to have zero tolerance for being exposed to second hand smoke then you should at least be consitent and have zero tolerance for being exposed to drivers whose driving has been impaired by alcohol.

I guess your only worried about other peoples vices and not your own. Like I said, hypocrite much?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I wonder if there'll ever be a non-smoking casino in Vegas one day.

If there were enough people that desired to go to such a thing, they would open one.

Same thing with restaurants and bars. If enough people would spend there money only at a non-smoking establishment, they would exist more often.

They could probably go back to the days of having different sections for smoking and non-smoking and instead of regulating the smoking policy, they could regulate that a business is well ventilated. That way personal freedoms are left intact for both sides.

Negative. For the most part smoking sections don't work. Why? Because smoke doesn't know not to cross that 'virtual barrier'. Sure you could use walls or glass to separate sections - and I've seen it done - but it's uncommon and an expensive modification. Also they have to be on separate A/C systems or it's useless. Anyway, who is going to pay for this 'ventilation regulation'?

The owner of the establishment and that's why it should be up to them to decide what they want and/or don't want in THEIR place of business. People that don't agree don't have to go there. It's just that simple.

Now this is where you people who are whacko on this subject get all concerned about the employees rights. I need you to explain to me why the air quality for resturant employees should be any different then the air quailty for a welder, machinist, etc.?