Party of free choice???

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

If the average car spends its time revving the engine in the middle of an enclosed restaurant then your argument is valid. Maybe things are different in your town.

Never driven in a city I take it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

And thanks, I was trying to remember how you did that immature kiss my ass thingy

With all your straw man diversions and name calling, you don't deserve any better. :bird-flip;

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

Another brillianly stupid dodge on three levels:

1. Unlike tobacco use, transportation is essential to commerce to our society, in general. Current transportation means do pollute, but there is great public awareness of these problems, and much has been accomplished to reduce pollution in all transportation, including air and rail transportation.

2. Much, in fact probably MOST of these technical advances have been due to government mandated improvements in fuel economy, as well as regulations mandating the clean up of other industrial pollution sources such as power and manufacturing companies and more.

3. There is widespread public awareness of the effects of pollution and support for cleaning it up... or did you miss the ads for hybrid cars during the Al Gore special? :roll:

Ah, so since you think driving an ICE is "essential" it's OK for you to spew the same toxins as cigarettes only in greater quantities? Sure...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

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:

There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

Yes, there is. It's called drunk driving, and it killed tens of thousands every year.

You think any law that tells other people what to do and how to live is a good law.

Well, some people like to drive drunk and yet i think it's a good thing the law can tell them that they can't.

You've got a right to do whatever you want unless it interferes with others rights not to partake, second hand smoke is partaking in your smoking, is it not?

There is an EU study where they concluded that 19000 people die every year in the EU from smoking yet they never smoked themselves, victims of passive smoke.

That does not include those who have asthma and chronic brochitis who may die from a few inhalations of smoke.

How can they tell if that passive smoke was from tobacco, smog, or their work enviroment (think welder)?

Pssttt.... They can't.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Robor
Bullshit. Smoking isn't a right. Period.

So what's not a "right" next then? Choosing what to eat? Which potentially dangerous activities to partake in? Alcohol? Sexuality? Abortion?

Get your hands off my body.

Alcohol, sex, and abortion are already regulated. Same as tobacco.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

That's BS. Maybe you aren't affected when you're around smoke but that doesn't mean no one is affected. I'll say it again...

Vic, why does someone have to die from second hand smoke to be affected? If I walk into a smoky place the smell bothers me immediately. Shortly after that it bothers my eyes and I can feel it in my chest. My ex wife had asthma when she lived with her mother. She had to regularly use a breather. Once she moved out the asthma went away completely. Turns out she was just being affected by her mom's 2nd hand smoke. Second hand smoke doesn't affect only those exposed to it long term and death isn't the only hazard.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

That's BS. Maybe you aren't affected when you're around smoke but that doesn't mean no one is affected. I'll say it again...

Vic, why does someone have to die from second hand smoke to be affected? If I walk into a smoky place the smell bothers me immediately. Shortly after that it bothers my eyes and I can feel it in my chest. My ex wife had asthma when she lived with her mother. She had to regularly use a breather. Once she moved out the asthma went away completely. Turns out she was just being affected by her mom's 2nd hand smoke. Second hand smoke doesn't affect only those exposed to it long term and death isn't the only hazard.

Drive a car? In a city?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

That's BS. Maybe you aren't affected when you're around smoke but that doesn't mean no one is affected. I'll say it again...

Vic, why does someone have to die from second hand smoke to be affected?

Because usually if second hand smoke was a problem then that probably means the person is in a concealed area in which they don't have to be in.

Originally posted by: Robor
If I walk into a smoky place the smell bothers me immediately.

Then leave.

Originally posted by: Robor
Shortly after that it bothers my eyes and I can feel it in my chest.

Then you probably leave.

Originally posted by: Robor
My ex wife had asthma when she lived with her mother. She had to regularly use a breather. Once she moved out the asthma went away completely. Turns out she was just being affected by her mom's 2nd hand smoke.

Sounds like things worked out when your ex-wife left.

Originally posted by: Robor
Second hand smoke doesn't affect only those exposed to it long term and death isn't the only hazard.

Sure, but that doesn't give non-smokers the right to confine smokers to a certain location to enjoy their pleasure or addiction of smoking. Bar owners have the right to enforce their set of rules on their property and if you don't like it then no one's forcing you to stay.

 

[Bitek]

Smoking is banned in public gathering places because some smokers are lazy selfish dicks who can't bother to drag their drug addicted asses outside as not to bother everyone else. "Market forces" don't work as non-smokers still like to go out and are willing to risk being irritated if they get sat by a lazy smoker. That doesn't mean its acceptable behavior.

Really the issue is of common courtesy, which a sizable portion of smokers do not have. I don't want to go to a nice restaurant and end up paying for a meal that tastes like burning shit because someone can't excuse themselves outside for 5min to get their fix. How would you like it if I stood by your table and just kept farting on your plate while you ate? Not so nice, eh? Then non-smokers get to go home and be reminded of it as our coats smell like smoked shit for days as well. I really have no sympathy for smokers as they've pissed off enough people they've brought such legislation on themselves. How's that for market forces bitches?

I think its fine if there are places where smoking is expected and allowed; bars, nightclubs and casinos. All the vices go well together. Otherwise quit yer bitchin and go outside and enjoy some fresh air with all your toxins.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

That's BS. Maybe you aren't affected when you're around smoke but that doesn't mean no one is affected. I'll say it again...

Vic, why does someone have to die from second hand smoke to be affected? If I walk into a smoky place the smell bothers me immediately. Shortly after that it bothers my eyes and I can feel it in my chest. My ex wife had asthma when she lived with her mother. She had to regularly use a breather. Once she moved out the asthma went away completely. Turns out she was just being affected by her mom's 2nd hand smoke. Second hand smoke doesn't affect only those exposed to it long term and death isn't the only hazard.

Drive a car? In a city?

Apple. Orange. Not related. Thanks.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This gets brought up all the time with the same players on each side arguing their points.

I'm a smoker, have (nearly) always been a smoker, and I appreciate a smoke-free restaurant.
I don't go to bars, so that doesn't affect me at all.

Why should a person who doesn't smoke have to endure/be exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace?

Because no one has the right to work. The employee does not make the contract, the employer does. If the employee does not agree with the contract then they can find a job some place else.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
That's usually the big argument in getting these kinds of laws passed in the first place. It's not so much about the customer, but about the employees.

That still doesn't fly. If I were operating a company one would think that I should have the freedom to define how my company operates. If smoking was a requirement for employment then so be it. But look at it this way, most people DON'T want to be put in that environment so they find places to work that suites their needs as well.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Those of you who think smoking should be legal probably think the person should find a new job if they don't like it...but if I go work at a place that permits hazardous materials to be used freely with no restrictions, I have the right to certain workplace protections.

So wait a second here. You knowingly decided to work at a place that permits hazardous materials to be used freely? You assumed the risks involved when you decided to work at such a place. Did this place provide a safe means to use such hazardous materials? What is this place?

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The same with bartenders, waiters/waitresses/cooks, cashiers.

They don't have a right to work.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Personally, (even though I'm a smoker) I think cigarettes and other tobacco products should be outlawed. IIRC, there is no other product on the market that has the potential for causing so many health risks that is so unregulated.

I'm personally a social smoker that enjoys a cigarette with friends from time to time. I don't appreciate your wanting to infringe on my right to pursue happiness at certain establishments that permits my behavior when no one is forcing you to participate.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This gets brought up all the time with the same players on each side arguing their points.

I'm a smoker, have (nearly) always been a smoker, and I appreciate a smoke-free restaurant.
I don't go to bars, so that doesn't affect me at all.

Why should a person who doesn't smoke have to endure/be exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace?

Because no one has the right to work. The employee does not make the contract, the employer does. If the employee does not agree with the contract then they can find a job some place else.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
That's usually the big argument in getting these kinds of laws passed in the first place. It's not so much about the customer, but about the employees.

That still doesn't fly. If I were operating a company one would think that I should have the freedom to define how my company operates. If smoking was a requirement for employment then so be it. But look at it this way, most people DON'T want to be put in that environment so they find places to work that suites their needs as well.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Those of you who think smoking should be legal probably think the person should find a new job if they don't like it...but if I go work at a place that permits hazardous materials to be used freely with no restrictions, I have the right to certain workplace protections.

So wait a second here. You knowingly decided to work at a place that permits hazardous materials to be used freely? You assumed the risks involved when you decided to work at such a place. Did this place provide a safe means to use such hazardous materials? What is this place?

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The same with bartenders, waiters/waitresses/cooks, cashiers.

They don't have a right to work.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Personally, (even though I'm a smoker) I think cigarettes and other tobacco products should be outlawed. IIRC, there is no other product on the market that has the potential for causing so many health risks that is so unregulated.

I'm personally a social smoker that enjoys a cigarette with friends from time to time. I don't appreciate your wanting to infringe on my right to pursue happiness at certain establishments that permits my behavior when no one is forcing you to participate.

The above argument only makes sense if OSHA didn't exist, but they do and for good reason. I personally don't find this line of argument particularly strong, but your counter arguments are less convincing and less established on precedent. I don't yet see a compelling reason why toxic and carcinogenic cigarette fumes should be treated differently from reasonable protection from other toxic materials in the workplace.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
snip)
Sure, but that doesn't give non-smokers the right to confine smokers to a certain location to enjoy their pleasure or addiction of smoking. Bar owners have the right to enforce their set of rules on their property and if you don't like it then no one's forcing you to stay.
(snip)

It's funny... Your responses are typical of a smoker talking to a non-smoker - tolerate me or leave. Well, sucks to be you because that isn't working like it used to. Why? Smokers are the minority and the tobacco lobby isn't as strong as it used to be. Non-smokers make up a majority of the population and they don't want to go to a restaurant and sit in a smoky 'non-smoking' section.

If you can't eat and not smoke before/during/after you can choose do it outside or not come at all. Those options are better than the ones you presented me with in your reply. After all, no one's forcing you to be there. I'd prefer the latter by the way...

Edit: (I snipped out the typical 'put up with me because I have a right to smoke wherever I want' mentality)

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Smoking is banned in public gathering places because some smokers are lazy selfish dicks who can't bother to drag their drug addicted asses outside as not to bother everyone else. "Market forces" don't work as non-smokers still like to go out and are willing to risk being irritated if they get sat by a lazy smoker. That doesn't mean its acceptable behavior.

So ban smoking in indoor places and outdoor places is what you're saying? What's next, private homes?

The radius of someone's smoking is really like 2 meters tops. Smokers can't control where the wind blows their smoke, but you definitely can move your ass a few feet. Are you sure its the smokers harassing you and not the other way around?

Originally posted by: Hafen
I don't want to go to a nice restaurant and end up paying for a meal that tastes like burning shit because someone can't excuse themselves outside for 5min to get their fix.

Then don't eat there. Seriously. Is there someone holding a gun to your head that I wasn't aware of? Goodness..

Originally posted by: Hafen
How would you like it if I stood by your table and just kept farting on your plate while you ate? Not so nice, eh? Then non-smokers get to go home and be reminded of it as our coats smell like smoked shit for days as well.

The places I choose to eat at kick out customers that fart on my food. Or at least I'd like to think that..

Originally posted by: Hafen
I really have no sympathy for smokers as they've pissed off enough people they've brought such legislation on themselves. How's that for market forces bitches?

I have no sympathy for people like you who are trying to coerce me to smoke where they choose. Market forces? More like intrusive coercion..

Originally posted by: Hafen
I think its fine if there are places where smoking is expected and allowed; bars, nightclubs and casinos. All the vices go well together. Otherwise quit yer bitchin and go outside and enjoy some fresh air with all your toxins.

Smoking should be based around the consent of the property holder. If its a private establishment, its their call. If its a public establishment, then its the public's call.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
snip)
Sure, but that doesn't give non-smokers the right to confine smokers to a certain location to enjoy their pleasure or addiction of smoking. Bar owners have the right to enforce their set of rules on their property and if you don't like it then no one's forcing you to stay.
(snip)

It's funny... Your responses are typical of a smoker talking to a non-smoker - tolerate me or leave.

Your responses are typical of that of an ignorant non-smoker to smoker, if you don't leave i'll get the government to force you to leave even though I don't own this place and the owner is ok with people smoking.

Originally posted by: Robor
Well, sucks to be you because that isn't working like it used to. Why? Smokers are the minority and the tobacco lobby isn't as strong as it used to be.

It sucks to have one's rights infringed in general so yes it would suck to be me if I chose to smoke in an establishment that permitted it.

Originally posted by: Robor
Non-smokers make up a majority of the population and they don't want to go to a restaurant and sit in a smoky 'non-smoking' section.

Then go eat at places that don't allow smoking. There are PLENTY.

Originally posted by: Robor
If you can't eat and not smoke before/during/after you can choose do it outside or not come at all.

No, you quit coercing me.

Originally posted by: Robor
Those options are better than the ones you presented me with in your reply. After all, no one's forcing you to be there. I'd prefer the latter by the way...

Edit: (I snipped out the typical 'put up with me because I have a right to smoke wherever I want' mentality)

That's where there's a problem. Everything is voluntary until we get to you. Then it turns to coercion.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The radius of someone's smoking is really like 2 meters tops. Smokers can't control where the wind blows their smoke, but you definitely can move your ass a few feet. Are you sure its the smokers harassing you and not the other way around?

Even in an outdoor patio you're a damned moron if you think that. Two meters is the space between tables. Tell ya what... I'll sit upwind with a big bag of cat shit/piss and let it drift downwind of you during your meal. Do you think you'd enjoy that? I have a cat and I can tolerate the smell so you should be able to do the same. If not, I'm sure you could 'move your ass a few feet', right?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Hafen
The above argument only makes sense if OSHA didn't exist, but they do and for good reason. I personally don't find this line of argument particularly strong, but your counter arguments are less convincing and less established on precedent. I don't yet see a compelling reason why toxic and carcinogenic cigarette fumes should be treated differently from reasonable protection from other toxic materials in the workplace.

OSHA is a good program and I'm not against it. However, cigarette policy should not be a part of its scope.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
snip)
Sure, but that doesn't give non-smokers the right to confine smokers to a certain location to enjoy their pleasure or addiction of smoking. Bar owners have the right to enforce their set of rules on their property and if you don't like it then no one's forcing you to stay.
(snip)

It's funny... Your responses are typical of a smoker talking to a non-smoker - tolerate me or leave.

Your responses are typical of that of an ignorant non-smoker to smoker, if you don't leave i'll get the government to force you to leave even though I don't own this place and the owner is ok with people smoking.

Originally posted by: Robor
Well, sucks to be you because that isn't working like it used to. Why? Smokers are the minority and the tobacco lobby isn't as strong as it used to be.

It sucks to have one's rights infringed in general so yes it would suck to be me if I chose to smoke in an establishment that permitted it.

Originally posted by: Robor
Non-smokers make up a majority of the population and they don't want to go to a restaurant and sit in a smoky 'non-smoking' section.

Then go eat at places that don't allow smoking. There are PLENTY.

Originally posted by: Robor
If you can't eat and not smoke before/during/after you can choose do it outside or not come at all.

No, you quit coercing me.

Originally posted by: Robor
Those options are better than the ones you presented me with in your reply. After all, no one's forcing you to be there. I'd prefer the latter by the way...

Edit: (I snipped out the typical 'put up with me because I have a right to smoke wherever I want' mentality)

That's where there's a problem. Everything is voluntary until we get to you. Then it turns to coercion.

Oops, but in this case every point you are trying to make about, 'I have the freedom to smoke and if others don't like it they don't like it they can leave', just got turned around. Like I said, too bad so sad. I didn't like it before. You don't like it now. Again, sucks to be you. Next up slippery slope defense about fast food...

 

[Bitek]

You don't understand, nonsmokers got tired, played smarter and told smokers to go get fucked. Now they whine like children with their toys taken away bc they can't play nicely. You all were rude, and now you've been told to go away.

You've seriously killed your sense of smell if you can't smell smoke from more than 6 ft away. Put 6 smokers in a restaurant of 50 and the whole place stinks. If you can't control where it goes than you should put it away if you can't use it responsibly. Smokers going outside to endulge in their vices is hardly inconvenient.

The only one talking about homes is you. I could care what you do in you house. You can ban black people from your house, but you can't ban blacks from your restaurant. They are treated as two different things under the law. You can still smoke to your hearts content. If business owners love smokers so much maybe they can open special smoking only restaurants. A few may even do well, I don't care. For the rest of the public spaces, smokers are going to have to act like civilized people and show some respect and self-restraint towards others.

 

[Siddhartha]

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?

A lawyer, I know, said that the smoking ban is a health issue for food service workers, bartenders, waiters, etc, who have to work in smoke filled bars.

As a non-smoker, I find I feel much better in morning after a night in the pub since the smoking ban has been enacted. But I can see, in the winter, that it sucks for smokers to have to go outside to smoke.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

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?

A lawyer, I know, said that the smoking ban is a health issue for food service workers, bartenders, waiters, etc, who have to work in smoke filled bars.

As a non-smoker, I find I feel much better in morning after a night in the pub since the smoking ban has been enacted. But I can see, in the winter, that it sucks for smokers to have to go outside to smoke.

Do they 'have to' endure that? Terrible! I can't imagine if they were put into a situation where they were confined to a plane for several hours where they couldn't smoke. Um, wait... Oh the injustice...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The radius of someone's smoking is really like 2 meters tops. Smokers can't control where the wind blows their smoke, but you definitely can move your ass a few feet. Are you sure its the smokers harassing you and not the other way around?

Even in an outdoor patio you're a damned moron if you think that. Two meters is the space between tables. Tell ya what... I'll sit upwind with a big bag of cat shit/piss and let it drift downwind of you during your meal. Do you think you'd enjoy that? I have a cat and I can tolerate the smell so you should be able to do the same. If not, I'm sure you could 'move your ass a few feet', right?

I've had pussies like you come to my house, drink my beer/wine/alcohol, eat my food and enjoy my hospitality, then have the gaul to ask to to put my cigarette out when I was smoking outside on the deck of my house.

You whackos are out of control.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

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?

A lawyer, I know, said that the smoking ban is a health issue for food service workers, bartenders, waiters, etc, who have to work in smoke filled bars.

As a non-smoker, I find I feel much better in morning after a night in the pub since the smoking ban has been enacted. But I can see, in the winter, that it sucks for smokers to have to go outside to smoke.

have to work in smoke filled bars They are slaves? Damn, here I was thinking that we had a choice as to where we work.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The radius of someone's smoking is really like 2 meters tops. Smokers can't control where the wind blows their smoke, but you definitely can move your ass a few feet. Are you sure its the smokers harassing you and not the other way around?

Even in an outdoor patio you're a damned moron if you think that. Two meters is the space between tables. Tell ya what... I'll sit upwind with a big bag of cat shit/piss and let it drift downwind of you during your meal. Do you think you'd enjoy that? I have a cat and I can tolerate the smell so you should be able to do the same. If not, I'm sure you could 'move your ass a few feet', right?

I've had pussies like you come to my house, drink my beer/wine/alcohol, eat my food and enjoy my hospitality, then have the gaul to ask to to put my cigarette out when I was smoking outside on the deck of my house.

You whackos are out of control.

Damn it's weird to be on the same side of an issue as you. :beer:

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Those of you who endorse this BS should all be drug out in the street and shot in the freaking knee caps. You freaking fascist pigs all need to endure excruciating pain and suffering. To hell with your freaking "I can be exposed to smoke" BS. You don't want to be exposed to smoke, then don't go somewhere it's allowed. What in the hell makes people believe it's their right to enforce their freaking will on a business owner. If a business chooses to allow smoking in their establishment, that's THEIR RIGHT! It's THEIR business, not your's and certainly not the governments! You people disgust me.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The radius of someone's smoking is really like 2 meters tops. Smokers can't control where the wind blows their smoke, but you definitely can move your ass a few feet. Are you sure its the smokers harassing you and not the other way around?

Even in an outdoor patio you're a damned moron if you think that. Two meters is the space between tables. Tell ya what... I'll sit upwind with a big bag of cat shit/piss and let it drift downwind of you during your meal. Do you think you'd enjoy that? I have a cat and I can tolerate the smell so you should be able to do the same. If not, I'm sure you could 'move your ass a few feet', right?

I've had pussies like you come to my house, drink my beer/wine/alcohol, eat my food and enjoy my hospitality, then have the gaul to ask to to put my cigarette out when I was smoking outside on the deck of my house.

You whackos are out of control.

Uh... No, you haven't had 'pussies like me' at your house complaining. It's *your* house and I wouldn't even consider it. My neighbors both smoke outside in front of their place. If I leave my kitchen window or front door open the smoke comes right through our place. I have two options... Close my window/door or ask my neighbors not to smoke outside *their own place*. I do the former. Sorry your friends suck though.