Party of free choice???

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Just for the record, Harvey, the second statement you attributed to me was not my quote. :laugh:

Yeah. Sorry about that. Fixed it in the post.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

Tobacco is as addictive and deadly as crack and heroin. What makes you think we should allow any kind of free marketing of addiction and death? :roll:

I truly hate the tobacco companies. I think every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should be tried for crimes against humanity for the killer products they continue to market. I watched those lying assholes raise their hands before Congress and swear that tobacco was not addictive or carcinogenic.

A few years ago, California passed an initiatiative that is one of the strongest anti-smoking laws in the country. Despite the tobacco lobby spending a record amount for a private interest to defeat this initiative, it passed by a record margin of 80% - 20% margin. In the very next session of the state legislature, our elected representatives in the State Assembly passed a bill to overturn that initiative. Fortunately, the media stink that followed caused the State Senate to think better of the idea and kill it. I still have to wonder how much money it takes to get over half of a state legilative body to overturn a law passed by 80% of the voters.

Now, Philip Morris's saccherine anti-smoking commercials are equally lame. If they believed 10% of what they say, they would immediately stop selling their tobacco products.

To hide the association with their other products, they now call the parent company, Altria. From their site

Marketing Excellence and Innovation

Philip Morris International?s brand portfolio includes seven of the top 20 international brands, including Marlboro, which has been the best-selling international cigarette brand since 1972, and L&M, which is now the No. 3 brand in the world over the last decade. Other brands include [/i]Philip Morris, Chesterfield, Bond Street, Lark and Parliament.[/i]

Does this sound like a company that wants people to stop smoking? Can you say lying, two faced mofos, boys and girls? :|

If you don't smoke, your buying decisions about tobacco are irrelevant to them. However, you, and those with whom you share the info, below, can have an effect by boycotting tobacco-owned food products, depriving them of income from those sources. Here's a list from Philip Morris' Altria/Kraft Foods site:

A-1 Sauces
Altoids mints
Athenos Cheeses
Back to Nature
Baker's Chocolate and Coconut
Barnum's Animals
Biscos
Boca (meat alternatives)
Breakstone's Sour Cream, Cottage Cheese, etc.
Breyer's Ice Cream, Yogurt, etc.
Bull's-Eye barbecue and grilling sauces
Café Creme
California Pizza Kitchen pizza
Callard & Bowser Toffees
Calumet Baking Powder
Cameo
Campbell Soups
Capri Sun
CarbWell
Churny Cheeses
Claussen Pickles
Comet Cups Icecream Cones
Cool Whip
Corn Nuts
Country Time Lemonade
Cracker Barrel cheeses
Cream of Wheat
CremeSavers
Crystal Light
Dad's Cookies
Dream Whip
D-Zerta
Di Giorno Italian foods
Easy Cheese Process Cheese Spread
Ever Fresh Fruit Preservatives
Fruit20 drinks
General Foods (all products)
Gevalia Coffee
Good Seasons Salad Dressing Mixes
Grey Poupon
Handi-Snacks
Harvest Moon cheeses
Hoffman's cheeses
It's Pasta Anytime
Jack's Pizza
Jello
Jet-Puffed
Knudsen dairy products
Kool-Aid
Kool Stuf Toaster Pastries
Kraft Foods
La Vie De La Vosgienne candies
Life Savers
Light n' Lively cottage cheese
Louis Rich lunch meats
Lunchables
Maxwell House Coffee
Milk-Bone Dog Biscuits
Milka L'il Scoops
Miller Beer
Minute Brand Deserts
Minute Rice
Mirácoli pasta
Nabisco products
Oscar Meyer
Oven Fry Coatings
Planters Nuts, etc.
Polly-O Cheeses
Post Cereals
Postum
Ragu Sauces, etc.
Sanka Coffee
Sather's Candies
Sauceworks
Sealtest dairy products
Seattle's Best Coffee (Packaged products in stores)
Seven Seas Salad Dressings
Shake 'N Bake
Starbucks coffees (Packaged products in stores)
Stove Top Stuffings, etc.
Taco Bell dinner kits, Salsa, etc.
Tang
Tazo coffees (Packaged products in stores)
Torrefazione Italia coffees (Packaged products in stores)
Temp-tee cream cheese
Terry's candies
Tobler and Toblerone Candies
Tombstone Pizza
Trolli Candies
Veryfine
Woody's Cold Pack Cheese
Yuban Coffee

Death to the tobacco murderers! :| :| :|

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

I said "the pursuit of happiness", not that you have right to happiness. It's part of the declaration of independence as part of the "inalienable rights" of all people.

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

You are mistaken. First, a restaurant is *not* "private property", by law it is "private property with public access". If you want to do in your home as you please, invite friends over etc, that's "private property". However, when you start engaging in commerce on that premise, you have to abide by commerce laws. As an example, you can choose not to invite someone over to your house based on the color of their skin if you like, but you can not refuse them access to your private property with public access (such as a place of business). Basically, you want make money off the public, you have to abide by the laws that are made for the good of the public. Protecting people from other people's smoke is part of those public rules.

Also, someone has to work in those restaurants and bars etc. If they can't find a good job elsewhere, why should they have to choose between employment and their health? No, I say ban smoking in all but private places.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

 

[Vic]

The pursuit of happiness means the right to occupational opportunity, not eat in a restaurant. FFS restaurants as we know them didn't even exist in the Founding Fathers' time.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
The pursuit of happiness means the right to occupational opportunity, not eat in a restaurant.

The only "pursuit of happiness" you're advocating is allowing nicotine junkies to feed their habit at the expense of PUBLIC HEALTH, which is a proper subject for government concern.

FFS restaurants as we know them didn't even exist in the Founding Fathers' time.

Bullshit! Maybe you're confused because many people called them inns and taverns, then. I'd have expected a more intelligent response from you, but since you didn't, here's your daily etymology and history lessons:

restaurant (res't?-ränt', -t?r-?nt)

n.

A place where meals are served to the public.

[French, restorative soup, restaurant, from present participle of restaurer, to restore, from Old French restorer. See restore.]

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: restaurant

Establishment where refreshments or meals are served to paying guests. Though inns and taverns served simple fare to travelers for centuries, the first modern restaurant where guests could order from a varied menu is thought to have belonged to A. Boulanger, a soup vendor who opened his business in Paris in 1765. The sign above his door advertised restoratives, or restaurants, referring to his soups and broths. By 1804 Paris had more than 500 restaurants, and France soon became internationally famous for its cuisine. Other European restaurants include the Italian trattorie, taverns featuring local specialties; the German Weinstuben, informal restaurants with a large wine selection; the Spanish tapas bars, which serve a wide variety of appetizers; and the public houses of England. Asian restaurants include the Japanese sushi bars and teahouses serving formal Kaiseki cuisine as well as the noodle shops of China. Most U.S. restaurant innovations have revolved around speed. The cafeteria originated in San Francisco during the 1849 gold rush; cafeterias feature self-service and offer a variety of foods displayed on counters. The U.S. also pioneered fast-food restaurants such as White Castle (founded 1921) and McDonald's (see Ray Kroc), usually operated as chains and offering limited menus.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Well "mere" thousands have died from asbestos while north of 100 million have died from cigarettes. With numbers like that, I think the free market argument has failed here.

 

[Moonbeam]

People should be able to smoke if I can skunk spray them if I gag on their smoke.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
The pursuit of happiness means the right to occupational opportunity, not eat in a restaurant.

The only "pursuit of happiness" you're advocating is allowing nicotine junkies to feed their habit at the expense of PUBLIC HEALTH, which is a proper subject for government concern.

FFS restaurants as we know them didn't even exist in the Founding Fathers' time.

Bullshit! Maybe you're confused because many people called them inns and taverns, then. I'd have expected a more intelligent response from you, but since you didn't, here's your daily etymology and history lessons:

restaurant (res't?-ränt', -t?r-?nt)

n.

A place where meals are served to the public.

[French, restorative soup, restaurant, from present participle of restaurer, to restore, from Old French restorer. See restore.]

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: restaurant

Establishment where refreshments or meals are served to paying guests. Though inns and taverns served simple fare to travelers for centuries, the first modern restaurant where guests could order from a varied menu is thought to have belonged to A. Boulanger, a soup vendor who opened his business in Paris in 1765. The sign above his door advertised restoratives, or restaurants, referring to his soups and broths. By 1804 Paris had more than 500 restaurants, and France soon became internationally famous for its cuisine. Other European restaurants include the Italian trattorie, taverns featuring local specialties; the German Weinstuben, informal restaurants with a large wine selection; the Spanish tapas bars, which serve a wide variety of appetizers; and the public houses of England. Asian restaurants include the Japanese sushi bars and teahouses serving formal Kaiseki cuisine as well as the noodle shops of China. Most U.S. restaurant innovations have revolved around speed. The cafeteria originated in San Francisco during the 1849 gold rush; cafeterias feature self-service and offer a variety of foods displayed on counters. The U.S. also pioneered fast-food restaurants such as White Castle (founded 1921) and McDonald's (see Ray Kroc), usually operated as chains and offering limited menus.

Gee, Harv, thanks for proving my point for me.

The first modern restaurant in America was Delmonico's in NYC. It opened in 1827.

That doesn't change the fact that the pursuit of happiness clause in the DoI was specifically intended to mean the right to occupational opportunity (as in, you didn't have to be a farmer just because your daddy was a farmer like his daddy before him). And sure as hell didn't mean a damn thing about the right to patronize some private business establishment (in fact, given that Jefferson stole that line from Locke, who said "right to property" instead pursuit of happiness, the opposite is most likely true).
Let's not even get into the fact that the DoI isn't law (have you even read the whole thing BTW?).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Well "mere" thousands have died from asbestos while north of 100 million have died from cigarettes. With numbers like that, I think the free market argument has failed here.

And how many of those 100 million (and more, I am sure) died from 2nd-hand smoke? Answer: almost none that can be substantially proven.

So you can delude yourself all you want, but you're not arguing against free market here. If you going to expand beyond the original discussion and start bringing up every person who ever died from cigarettes because they smoked, then you are arguing in favor of expanding the drug war to include tobacco products. In which case, I would kindly suggest that you join the Republican party and start going to church every Sunday like the rest of the busybody moral authoritarians.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Gee, Harv, thanks for proving my point for me.

The first modern restaurant in America was Delmonico's in NYC. It opened in 1827.

Gee, Vic. Nice selective choice of info. Thanks for showing us you're reading challenged. Did you miss the part that said:

restaurant (res't?-ränt', -t?r-?nt)

n.

A place where meals are served to the public.

Or did you miss the part that said:

Establishment where refreshments or meals are served to paying guests. Though inns and taverns served simple fare to travelers for centuries, the first modern restaurant where guests could order from a varied menu is thought to have belonged to A. Boulanger, a soup vendor who opened his business in Paris in 1765.

Hmmm... That's eleven years before the American Revolution. :roll:

Beyond that, why are you parsing the difference between various words used to describe a public commercial dining establishment. Does the name change the fact that smoking in such environments pose known, avoidable risks to PUBLIC health for the sole purpose of feeding smokers' addictions? :shocked:

Or are you anti-semantic?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Gee, Harv, thanks for proving my point for me.

The first modern restaurant in America was Delmonico's in NYC. It opened in 1827.

Gee, Vic. Nice selective choice of info. Thanks for showing us you're reading challenged. Did you miss the part that said:

restaurant (res't?-ränt', -t?r-?nt)

n.

A place where meals are served to the public.

Or did you miss the part that said:

Establishment where refreshments or meals are served to paying guests. Though inns and taverns served simple fare to travelers for centuries, the first modern restaurant where guests could order from a varied menu is thought to have belonged to A. Boulanger, a soup vendor who opened his business in Paris in 1765.

Hmmm... That's eleven years before the American Revolution. :roll:

Beyond that, why are you parsing the difference between various words used to describe a public commercial dining establishment. Are you anti-semantic?

Paris is in France, Harv :roll:

And while Jefferson did live in Paris for a time, if he meant restaurants I'm sure he would have opened one in America in his own time instead of waiting for Delmonico to open the first one 3 years after his death.

And you're the one splitting semantics, and trying to argue something pointlessly stupid. I sincerely doubt that any Constitutional/legal scholar on earth would argue that the DoI guaranteed any right to eat in a smoke-free restaurant.
Seriously, that line of reasoning was as internet-retarded as they get. Someone says something patently false in basic premise and everyone starts arguing it as though the premise was sound.
Once again, the right of pursuit of happiness meant the right to occupational opportunity. That you didn't have to be a baker because your daddy was like his daddy before him. As in, no caste/guild systems as were common in Europe of the time and before.

And for the millionth time, I'm sorry that some of your friends and loved ones have died from smoking. Perhaps they shouldn't have smoked. I've had friends and loved ones die from alcohol and from car accidents. You don't see me boycotting A-B and Ford, do ya?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

I dunno about Iowa (link didn't work for me) but in FL a bars or nightclubs that generates < 10% from food sales are exempt. The same goes for places like pool halls or bowling alleys.

Read the house bill - only exemptions are casinos and VFW(private clubs)

I'm still fine with it. I wish the ban was like that here in FL and I wish it would include the casinos. I avoid places like bowling alleys, pool halls, casinos, and bars that allow smoking simply because they allow smoking. Cigarette smoke bothers me physically. If I'm around a smoking environment long I can feel it in my chest and get a headache. Why should I be denied the enjoyment of those establishments simply because some people don't want to enjoy them without smoking?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

Your argument is flawed if you base it on restaurants being private property as your primary basis.

I would then argue that the government should take your advice and ONLY allow smoking in designated buildings and completely outlaw it in ALL public areas including public buildings, parks, roadways, sidewalks and any other outdoor area that is not specifically marked as a private property smoking allowable structure. If you truly want to kill yourself....have at it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

Your argument is flawed if you base it on restaurants being private property as your primary basis.

I would then argue that the government should take your advice and ONLY allow smoking in designated buildings and completely outlaw it in ALL public areas including public buildings, parks, roadways, sidewalks and any other outdoor area that is not specifically marked as a private property smoking allowable structure. If you truly want to kill yourself....have at it.

The argument is flawed because the right of pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with any of this BS. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

I dunno about Iowa (link didn't work for me) but in FL a bars or nightclubs that generates < 10% from food sales are exempt. The same goes for places like pool halls or bowling alleys.

Read the house bill - only exemptions are casinos and VFW(private clubs)

I'm still fine with it. I wish the ban was like that here in FL and I wish it would include the casinos. I avoid places like bowling alleys, pool halls, casinos, and bars that allow smoking simply because they allow smoking. Cigarette smoke bothers me physically. If I'm around a smoking environment long I can feel it in my chest and get a headache. Why should I be denied the enjoyment of those establishments simply because some people don't want to enjoy them without smoking?

Open your own smoke-free establishment then :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

Yes it is and you know it but you are obviously to stubborn to ever admit it.:laugh:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

I don't know... ask all those black people that successfully sued when the white owners wouldn't let them in.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

Yes it is and you know it but you are obviously to stubborn to ever admit it.:laugh:

I'm sure I could easily document numerous cases of deaths from asbestos exposure. You can't (and won't be able to) do the same for occupational 2nd-hand smoke exposure, and you're calling me stubborn?

I swear, the anti-tobacco crusade has reached the Reefer Madness stage... :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Paris is in France, Harv :roll:

And last time I checked, France was right across the channel from England, and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were spending a lot of time in both places.

Of course, you still haven't addressed the question of the significant difference between a restaurant, an inn, a tavern, a cafeteria, a bakery, a clothing store, a library, a sports arena or any other public place when it comes to allowing pathetic addicts to impose and inflict their toxins on others. :|

And your dumb ass argument about drinking and driving is as straw as any man gets. Sheesh! :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't know... ask all those black people that successfully sued when the white owners wouldn't let them in.

Are you suggesting Smokers should file suits?

God we need Tort Reform in this country. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Why are they not the same? All governmental laws (or nearly all) infringe upon liberty in some way. The entire basis for a law being able to do so is that they have to prove a benefit to society that exceeds the burden placed upon citizens to follow it. (at least in theory). This is why you can't drive your car 65 down a residential street.

Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause all sorts of problems, cancers, etc. in people who have nothing to do with the person smoking. The contention that people who don't want to inhale secondhand smoke simply should not visit bars or restaurants that allow smoking is not a realistic solution. So, to view smoking as some sort of assault on personal liberty is true in a sense, but it has plenty of company in other laws that I don't think you care much about.

I for one have to say that I looooooove the smoking ban in California. I hate that when I go home to Pennsylvania and go to the bar I come back covered in the stench of cigarettes, my hair, my clothes, everything. (then my pillow when I go to sleep... nasty) What's amazing is that even my friends who smoke love the smoking ban. It gives them all sorts of chances to meet new people outside in the smoking areas, etc. Now I think about the hysteria before the ban was passed about how people weren't going to go to the bar anymore and I laugh.

I have a suggestion for you facists then - ban cigarettes/cigars/smoke tobacco if it's such a public health issue.
Oh wait....prohibition doesn't work.

That response is nonsensical, it does not address the substance of my post nor does it address the substance of the argument for an indoor smoking ban.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Paris is in France, Harv :roll:

And last time I checked, France was on the same planet we occupy, right across the channel from England, and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others were spending a lot of time in both places.

Of course, you still haven't addressed the question of the significant difference between a restaurant, an inn, a tavern, a cafeteria, a bakery, a clothing store, a library, a sports arena or any other public place when it comes to allowing pathetic addicts to impose and inflict their toxins on others. :|

And your dumb ass argument about drinking and driving is as straw as any man gets. Sheesh! :roll: