England banning smoking in public places.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Cigarettes are a very mild drug, but still a drug.
leeveeu
They might be mild as far as immediate sensations, but they are extremely addicting...but we all know that.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]insert any post made by me from this thread
Vampyronight
At least one person gets it. How is it acceptible for the government to dictate one activity but not another? If you allow them to tell you where you can smoke, then government will continue encroach on your freedoms.
The fact of the matter is, restaurants and bars are PRIVATE businesses. You have no required business there, and therefore the owners should be the only ones deciding the rules of the establishment- they're the only people entitled to be there. If they allow smoking and nobody comes for that reason, they will quickly abolish smoking.
And they say fascism died in the 40's.
It is the job of government to make laws that benefit the majority of the people.......
FYI...government makes plenty of laws pertaining to PRIVATE businesses....ie health and safety in a restaurant. I don't see you complaining when they expect the food you eat be prepared in a clean environment and the food handled properly....so that argument does not stand.
Great! Nice job UK!
I think it's good. disc0verySame here. It's already banned in half the public places here in Singapore.
SMOKING IS COOL THIS SUCKSdommeusThey haven't stopped you from smoking.....just from polluting others. And it's not cool. :wink:
[QUOTE="Taegukki"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]You know, nobody makes you inhale secondhand smoke.
Whining about how you got lung cancer because of people smoking in your favourite bar is like whining about getting AIDS because you had sex with a prostitute.
Not that I condone AIDS or lung cancer, but you sort of knew the risks when you opened the door of the bar and a huge cloud of smoke emanated from the door. Lung cancer is bad and I don't like to see anyone get it, but I'm sorry. I just can't feel sorry for you.
MrGeezer
Actually the smokers do make us inhale secondhand smoke. I understand where youre coming from with your whole smoking bar/restaurant argument, that makes sense, but when your walking down the street or just want to have a nice family meal, or even a beer at a bar and there is not a choice like what you have in your area, should you have to suffer and inhale secondhand smoke? Here in New Zealand they have outlawed smoking in public indoor areas only (like bars, restaurants and covered car parks etc), and nobody seems to care. They have compensated in bars by creating covered outdoor areas for smoking so the indoor patrons dont have to inhale smoke.
Your statement about breathing secondhand smoke being like getting AIDS from a hooker is idiotic. Breathing and condoning in illegal sexual acts are as different as chalk and cheese. You need oxygen to live, you dont need sex to live. People shouldnt be forced to breathe secondhand smoke, period.
Do you know WHY there's no nonsmoking bar/restaurant for you to choose?
BECAUSE NONSMOKERS STILL GO TO SMOKING BARS/RESTAURANTS.If you go to a smoking establishment and then ***** about how they allow smoking, you still gave them your damn money, which means you're still saying that there's no reason for the bars/restaurants to ban it. If you ***** about it but still continue to give them money, then you're supporting them.
And yes, you have to breathe air. but you DON'T HAVE TO BREATHE AIR IN A BAR FULL OF SMOKE. I have to drink water, but I won't drink water out of a water fountain that someone just peed in. Screw that, I'll drive a couple miles down the road and find a cleaner water fountain.
NO ONE FORCES YOU TO BREATHE TOBACCO SMOKE. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this just boggles my mind.
Agreed. Landlords should be able to choose if their venues allow smoking. And then people can decide to go based on that decision. The pub I usually frequent will probably end up LOSING business because in July the smoking law is being passed here in England. The landlord doesn't have a choice, so he will be losing money due to a decision the government made.
[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]I wonder what would happen if england tried to ban drinking:lol:stkr
Now that is something that wouldn't work anywhere. I think alcohol is just as bas as smoking and I don't associate myself with either. But c'mon, banning drinking. Even I know that'd be impossible (to enforce). It doesn't take much to produce ethanol. Some fruit, water, bread, etc. There's more to it, but either way....
Alcohol kills more people every year, and the health risks are far greater.Â
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
MrGeezer
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Taegukki"]
Actually the smokers do make us inhale secondhand smoke. I understand where youre coming from with your whole smoking bar/restaurant argument, that makes sense, but when your walking down the street or just want to have a nice family meal, or even a beer at a bar and there is not a choice like what you have in your area, should you have to suffer and inhale secondhand smoke? Here in New Zealand they have outlawed smoking in public indoor areas only (like bars, restaurants and covered car parks etc), and nobody seems to care. They have compensated in bars by creating covered outdoor areas for smoking so the indoor patrons dont have to inhale smoke.
Your statement about breathing secondhand smoke being like getting AIDS from a hooker is idiotic. Breathing and condoning in illegal sexual acts are as different as chalk and cheese. You need oxygen to live, you dont need sex to live. People shouldnt be forced to breathe secondhand smoke, period.
dommeus
Do you know WHY there's no nonsmoking bar/restaurant for you to choose?
BECAUSE NONSMOKERS STILL GO TO SMOKING BARS/RESTAURANTS.If you go to a smoking establishment and then ***** about how they allow smoking, you still gave them your damn money, which means you're still saying that there's no reason for the bars/restaurants to ban it. If you ***** about it but still continue to give them money, then you're supporting them.
And yes, you have to breathe air. but you DON'T HAVE TO BREATHE AIR IN A BAR FULL OF SMOKE. I have to drink water, but I won't drink water out of a water fountain that someone just peed in. Screw that, I'll drive a couple miles down the road and find a cleaner water fountain.
NO ONE FORCES YOU TO BREATHE TOBACCO SMOKE. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this just boggles my mind.
Agreed. Landlords should be able to choose if their venues allow smoking. And then people can decide to go based on that decision. The pub I usually frequent will probably end up LOSING business because in July the smoking law is being passed here in England. The landlord doesn't have a choice, so he will be losing money due to a decision the government made.
He's incorrect in everyway. Of course, by allowing smoking he is forcing non smokers to breathe second hand smoke. Are you telling me if you tickets to the NFL game and a date that didn't smoke...you would not appreciate the fact that the girl of your dreams went with you? She might say no if she had to breathe in smoke for over three hours. Think about more than your habit dude. It's only fair. As I stated before....business is up where smoking is banned. It won't hurt business.
[QUOTE="dommeus"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Taegukki"]
Actually the smokers do make us inhale secondhand smoke. I understand where youre coming from with your whole smoking bar/restaurant argument, that makes sense, but when your walking down the street or just want to have a nice family meal, or even a beer at a bar and there is not a choice like what you have in your area, should you have to suffer and inhale secondhand smoke? Here in New Zealand they have outlawed smoking in public indoor areas only (like bars, restaurants and covered car parks etc), and nobody seems to care. They have compensated in bars by creating covered outdoor areas for smoking so the indoor patrons dont have to inhale smoke.
Your statement about breathing secondhand smoke being like getting AIDS from a hooker is idiotic. Breathing and condoning in illegal sexual acts are as different as chalk and cheese. You need oxygen to live, you dont need sex to live. People shouldnt be forced to breathe secondhand smoke, period.
LJS9502_basic
Do you know WHY there's no nonsmoking bar/restaurant for you to choose?
BECAUSE NONSMOKERS STILL GO TO SMOKING BARS/RESTAURANTS.If you go to a smoking establishment and then ***** about how they allow smoking, you still gave them your damn money, which means you're still saying that there's no reason for the bars/restaurants to ban it. If you ***** about it but still continue to give them money, then you're supporting them.
And yes, you have to breathe air. but you DON'T HAVE TO BREATHE AIR IN A BAR FULL OF SMOKE. I have to drink water, but I won't drink water out of a water fountain that someone just peed in. Screw that, I'll drive a couple miles down the road and find a cleaner water fountain.
NO ONE FORCES YOU TO BREATHE TOBACCO SMOKE. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this just boggles my mind.
Agreed. Landlords should be able to choose if their venues allow smoking. And then people can decide to go based on that decision. The pub I usually frequent will probably end up LOSING business because in July the smoking law is being passed here in England. The landlord doesn't have a choice, so he will be losing money due to a decision the government made.
He's incorrect in everyway. Of course, by allowing smoking he is forcing non smokers to breathe second hand smoke. Are you telling me if you tickets to the NFL game and a date that didn't smoke...you would not appreciate the fact that the girl of your dreams went with you? She might say no if she had to breathe in smoke for over three hours. Think about more than your habit dude. It's only fair. As I stated before....business is up where smoking is banned. It won't hurt business.
I'd never date a girl who smokes. Ew. :?
Whining about how you got lung cancer because of people smoking in your favourite bar is like whining about getting AIDS because you had sex with a prostitute.
MrGeezer
No.....you had the sex...you got the disease, the consequences of YOUR actions. Second hand smoke is the actions of others. Logic FTW.
...well anyway as I said, smoking FTW!!!11dommeusLong as you do alone or with other smokers.....no one cares.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Â
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
LJS9502_basic
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
Actually smokers have no rights, and what gives you a right to generalize smokers. Most smokers that I know do not smoke around their friends and family that don't smoke. Let me guess, smokers shouldn't be able to smoke outside either cause the racoons might get second hand smoke, right. If you are worried about the health risks of second hand smoke you should not drive your car, because you recieve toxins from the emissions of your auto. Second hand smoke from one cigarette in a bar won't kill you, but turning on your car in the garage and breathing in the smoke from the tailpipe will, in just minutes. So they should ban cars, they kill the environment and make all of us breathe in their smoke.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Â
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
psyko7144
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
Actually smokers have no rights, and what gives you a right to generalize smokers. Most smokers that I know do not smoke around their friends and family that don't smoke. Let me guess, smokers shouldn't be able to smoke outside either cause the racoons might get second hand smoke, right. If you are worried about the health risks of second hand smoke you should not drive your car, because you recieve toxins from the emissions of your auto. Second hand smoke from one cigarette in a bar won't kill you, but turning on your car in the garage and breathing in the smoke from the tailpipe will, in just minutes. So they should ban cars, they kill the environment and make all of us breathe in their smoke.Reread the thread over and see which posters are arguing for smoking in public. Making illogical accusations doesn't increase your chance of making a point. I have been around smokers and the considerate ones are few and far between. Life experience buddy.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
Whining about how you got lung cancer because of people smoking in your favourite bar is like whining about getting AIDS because you had sex with a prostitute.
LJS9502_basic
No.....you had the sex...you got the disease, the consequences of YOUR actions. Second hand smoke is the actions of others. Logic FTW.
I agree with you 100%, why should I get lung cancer for someone else smoking, its totally unfair. LJS Logic FTW!!
This thread reminded me of some Bill Hicks quotes :
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I recommend you look around the world in which we live, and … I don't know, shut your ****ing mouth?"
"Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight!"
"See, I know you entertain some kind of eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke; let me be the first to pop that f***ing bubble and send you hurtling back to reality – because you're dead too. And you know what doctors say: "S***, if only you'd smoked, we'd have the technology to help you. It's you people dying from nothing who are screwed."
Take these with a pinch of salt, us smokers aren't coming to r*** your wives and burn your houses.
[QUOTE="psyko7144"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Â
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
LJS9502_basic
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
Actually smokers have no rights, and what gives you a right to generalize smokers. Most smokers that I know do not smoke around their friends and family that don't smoke. Let me guess, smokers shouldn't be able to smoke outside either cause the racoons might get second hand smoke, right. If you are worried about the health risks of second hand smoke you should not drive your car, because you recieve toxins from the emissions of your auto. Second hand smoke from one cigarette in a bar won't kill you, but turning on your car in the garage and breathing in the smoke from the tailpipe will, in just minutes. So they should ban cars, they kill the environment and make all of us breathe in their smoke.Reread the thread over and see which posters are arguing for smoking in public. Making illogical accusations doesn't increase your chance of making a point. I have been around smokers and the considerate ones are few and far between. Life experience buddy.
And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice that happens to bother others.And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice.psyko7144
One....it has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with health risks. There is a difference.
Two...taxpaying gets you no breaks where law is concerned. Drunk drivers pay taxes, thieves pay taxes, murderers pay taxes.  Are you advocating the laws apply only to those who pay no taxes?
Three...I'm not aware of any study saying a homosexual is a health risk. Please do link.
And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice that happens to bother others.psyko7144When you type this stuff out, do you ever look back on what you said and reflect if any of it makes sense?
that guys sounds like an idiot / jackassThis thread reminded me of some Bill Hicks quotes :
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I recommend you look around the world in which we live, and … I don't know, shut your ****ing mouth?"
"Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight!"
"See, I know you entertain some kind of eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke; let me be the first to pop that f***ing bubble and send you hurtling back to reality – because you're dead too. And you know what doctors say: "S***, if only you'd smoked, we'd have the technology to help you. It's you people dying from nothing who are screwed."
Take these with a pinch of salt, us smokers aren't coming to r*** your wives and burn your houses.
dommeus
[QUOTE="psyko7144"]And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice.LJS9502_basic
One....it has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with health risks. There is a difference.
Two...taxpaying gets you no breaks where law is concerned. Drunk drivers pay taxes, thieves pay taxes, murderers pay taxes.  Are you advocating the laws apply only to those who pay no taxes?
Three...I'm not aware of any study saying a homosexual is a health risk. Please do link.
Smoking is not illegal so you cannot compare a smoker to a theif or murderer but that is what your doing, so we see how you truly feel about them. Homosexual intercourse does have health risks, Google it! Also don't try to turn it around to make me sound like a biggot I used a group who has struggled for their own rights when society says they do not deserve those rights as an example. Smokers assume the risks of cancer, lung and heart disease, much like anyone else who is envolved in risky behaviors Show me a link where someone has contracted cancer or died from second hand smoke!
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="psyko7144"]And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice.psyko7144
One....it has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with health risks. There is a difference.
Two...taxpaying gets you no breaks where law is concerned. Drunk drivers pay taxes, thieves pay taxes, murderers pay taxes.  Are you advocating the laws apply only to those who pay no taxes?
Three...I'm not aware of any study saying a homosexual is a health risk. Please do link.
Smoking is not illegal so you cannot compare a smoker to a theif or murderer but that is what your doing, so we see how you truly feel about them. Homosexual intercourse does have health risks, Google it! Also don't try to turn it around to make me sound like a biggot I used a group who has struggled for their own rights when society says they do not deserve those rights as an example. Smokers assume the risks of cancer, lung and heart disease, much like anyone else who is envolved in risky behaviors Show me a link where someone has contracted cancer or died from second hand smoke!One....doesn't matter. If a law says it's illegal to smoke in public and you do....what do you think you become? Besides not all thieves are prosecuted....
Two....you made yourself sound like a bigot....I can't do that for you. Unprotected sex of any orientation can be a health risk.....
Three....second hand smoke has been shown to be hazardous.
Four.....now I want two links from you....the one stating using a bathroom after a homosexual is a health risk and one showing smoking is not a health hazard. Get to work.
[QUOTE="psyko7144"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="psyko7144"]And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars because they make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice.LJS9502_basic
One....it has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with health risks. There is a difference.
Two...taxpaying gets you no breaks where law is concerned. Drunk drivers pay taxes, thieves pay taxes, murderers pay taxes.  Are you advocating the laws apply only to those who pay no taxes?
Three...I'm not aware of any study saying a homosexual is a health risk. Please do link.
Smoking is not illegal so you cannot compare a smoker to a theif or murderer but that is what your doing, so we see how you truly feel about them. Homosexual intercourse does have health risks, Google it! Also don't try to turn it around to make me sound like a biggot I used a group who has struggled for their own rights when society says they do not deserve those rights as an example. Smokers assume the risks of cancer, lung and heart disease, much like anyone else who is envolved in risky behaviors Show me a link where someone has contracted cancer or died from second hand smoke!One....doesn't matter. If a law says it's illegal to smoke in public and you do....what do you think you become? Besides not all thieves are prosecuted....
Two....you made yourself sound like a bigot....I can't do that for you. Unprotected sex of any orientation can be a health risk.....
Three....second hand smoke has been shown to be hazardous.
Four.....now I want two links from you....the one stating using a bathroom after a homosexual is a health risk and one showing smoking is not a health hazard. Get to work.
You are trying to turn it around, I wasn't talking about STDs, like I said google it! I did not say that smoking has no health risks read the post again assumed health risks from risky behaviours. Show me the link where someone has contracted illness due to second hand smoke. I never said there was a health risk using the bathroom after a homosexual you tried to spin that in your own mind. There are other health risks from associated with intercourse of anothe nature, look it up.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="psyko7144"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="psyko7144"]And smokers will say that non smokers want smoking banned just because they don't like it, even if they never have to be personally exposed to it themselves ever again. I would say that is pretty inconsiderate and selfish. Here in the states we still have some bars that have smoking sections, you have non-smokers who are fully aware that they are sitting in a smoking section complain about the smoke. That is just crazy! Smokers are still people and tax paying citizens and in my opinion they should be given the same rights as any other legal tax paying citizen. How is it acceptable to say these people shall be excluded because of a personal choice? So with your frame of mind, do you believe that homosexuals should have to have seperate bathrooms or bars becausethey make a personal choice that has known health risks. Isn't that what we as a society are trying to move away from? Don't tell me its different because its not. We are talking about a certain group of the populace being excluded because of a personal choice.psyko7144
One....it has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with health risks. There is a difference.
Two...taxpaying gets you no breaks where law is concerned. Drunk drivers pay taxes, thieves pay taxes, murderers pay taxes.  Are you advocating the laws apply only to those who pay no taxes?
Three...I'm not aware of any study saying a homosexual is a health risk. Please do link.
Smoking is not illegal so you cannot compare a smoker to a theif or murderer but that is what your doing, so we see how you truly feel about them. Homosexual intercourse does have health risks, Google it! Also don't try to turn it around to make me sound like a biggot I used a group who has struggled for their own rights when society says they do not deserve those rights as an example. Smokers assume the risks of cancer, lung and heart disease, much like anyone else who is envolved in risky behaviors Show me a link where someone has contracted cancer or died from second hand smoke!One....doesn't matter. If a law says it's illegal to smoke in public and you do....what do you think you become? Besides not all thieves are prosecuted....
Two....you made yourself sound like a bigot....I can't do that for you. Unprotected sex of any orientation can be a health risk.....
Three....second hand smoke has been shown to be hazardous.
Four.....now I want two links from you....the one stating using a bathroom after a homosexual is a health risk and one showing smoking is not a health hazard. Get to work.
You are trying to turn it around, I wasn't talking about STDs, like I said google it! I did not say that smoking has no health risks read the post again assumed health risks from risky behaviours. Show me the link where someone has contracted illness due to second hand smoke. I never said there was a health risk using the bathroom after a homosexual you tried to spin that in your own mind. There are other health risks from associated with intercourse of anothe nature, look it up.Highlighted your comment about homosexuals and bathrooms. I don't have to link....you made the statement...now prove it. But if I were you I'd stop while I was behind.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
LJS9502_basic
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
lol...selfish attitude.
I'm not advocating that smoking is allowed in ALL bars/restaurants. I'm advocating that that decision is left up to the owner.
Notice how I never complained about how a certain bar that I go to doesn't allow smoking? That's because if I don't like not being able to smoke there, I don't have to go there.
And your analogy about food and drink standards is flawed. Because it's still legal to sell tobacco. It isn't legal to sell rotten food. If the government is going to allow me to continue PURCHASING cigarettes, then it damn sure ought to allow you the decision to breathe in secondhand smoke.
[QUOTE="dommeus"]that guys sounds like an idiot / jackassThis thread reminded me of some Bill Hicks quotes :
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I recommend you look around the world in which we live, and … I don't know, shut your ****ing mouth?"
"Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight!"
"See, I know you entertain some kind of eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke; let me be the first to pop that f***ing bubble and send you hurtling back to reality – because you're dead too. And you know what doctors say: "S***, if only you'd smoked, we'd have the technology to help you. It's you people dying from nothing who are screwed."
Take these with a pinch of salt, us smokers aren't coming to r*** your wives and burn your houses.
Def_Jef88
Well he's not. Lighten up yeah?
And your analogy about food and drink standards is flawed. Because it's still legal to sell tobacco. It isn't legal to sell rotten food.
MrGeezer
Ok.... if you ásk for rotten eggs you can get them. But if you ask for food, of course you can't get rotten food.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
But hey, I guess government involvement is okay if you personally don't like the thing being banned, right? Hypocrisy at its best.
MrGeezer
Do you complain that the government sets standards by the Health Department for the food and drink you consume? Do you complain that the government would get involved if your workplace was unsafe? OSHA
Why should smokers have all the rights and no one else has any. Everyone has as much right to see a sporting event or concert. The government should minimize the health risks involved.
One of the things most annoying about smokers is the selfish attitude.:roll:
lol...selfish attitude.
I'm not advocating that smoking is allowed in ALL bars/restaurants. I'm advocating that that decision is left up to the owner.
Notice how I never complained about how a certain bar that I go to doesn't allow smoking? That's because if I don't like not being able to smoke there, I don't have to go there.
And your analogy about food and drink standards is flawed. Because it's still legal to sell tobacco. It isn't legal to sell rotten food. If the government is going to allow me to continue PURCHASING cigarettes, then it damn sure ought to allow you the decision to breathe in secondhand smoke.
It's also legal to sell food....your point? My point was that the government is already involved in private business which you seem to neglect to mention.
Government makes laws that the people want....bottom line. Don't infringe your habit on others and the world will be a better place.
Good. Smoking is nasty. If you want to pollute your own body, fine, but it's no excuse to hurt others as well. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but smoking is disgusting.stkr
 So does the gasoline burn and other products you use. Many medicines and foods pollute your body. Everything we do causes us harm. We don't live forever.
 Smoking is banned from many places here already. Which I don't disagree with. I don't smoke and I do think it's disgusting. But in Ohio they have put a smoking fine into effect. All smokers outside of residential property will be fined. Which is BS, because only government owned property is public. All property owned by an individual is private property. That's why it's considered private, because the government doesn't own it.
 So if I own a bar or a club which would be my private property the local government has decided they can tell me which legal things can take place on my private property. If you don't like smoking then get out. If you don't like working around smokers then find another job. Go work at a hospital or somewhere that doesn't allow smoking on their private property.
Â
If it was clear that 2nd hand smoke was damaging I might have a different opinion, but a lot of the things I've seen seem to suggest that it's risks are actually quite small.
Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
* an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers
* about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
* other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
* increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
* increased incidence of middle ear infections in young children
Edit: Sorry I had to space that out right. BTW I am one of the asthmatic children the surgeon general mentioned.
Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
* an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers
* about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
* other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
* increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
* increased incidence of middle ear infections in young children
Edit: Sorry I had to space that out right. BTW I am one of the asthmatic children the surgeon general mentioned.
Where were these figures compiled? Some interesting figures.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment