England banning smoking in public places.

I refuse to believe that 30% of the population are that ignorant. No matter how addicted they are, surely they would still see the massive effects which would arise from banning cars? I don't think you understand how integral cars are to modern society. Whereas cigarettes are just an unhealthy yet addictive recreational item.Salvy41

I see the effects of banning cars aswell. But that goes both ways: we would need to rearrange our public transportation but the positive effects on the environment would be mayor aswell. See my post to Basic for my other points

Paragraph 1: I'd go to a bar if I weren't allowed to smoke inside, but what you get then is whole crowds of ppl going outside at night and some being drunk. You're not even allowed to be drunk on the street. Stuff will be vandalized. And a lot of non-smokers would come with the smokers. Happens at parties at non-smoking friends' houses I go to all the time. And there's also the point of the air ventilation system that's still standing. But like every other non-smoker that point is ignored. Unfortunatly I can only give Dutch links since I don't know how such a thing would be called in English. But google it... I'm sure you could find it.

Paragraph 2: You assume those restaurants complain to get smokers on their side, but with smoking being forbidden by law in such establishments there would be no sense for them to do so. You're just assuming they would.

Paragraph 3: Cars are NOT necessary. Public transportation would have to be re-arranged and if your wife is pregnant you'd have to take it into account, but it's perfectly doable. If you could make a choice between a world with no cars or one with no cigs... I'd pick the no car world. Better for the environment, better for everyones' health... But I guess since most ppl (even smokers) drive cars, they wouldn't want this. After all, it's inconvenient for them in which case any argument concerning the matter is moot to them.

Paragraph 4: For the last and final time: this point was made by me to show that 'evidence of second hand smoking damage' is bull. There is no way to distinquish damage done by factory polution from damage done by second hand smoking. Unless you show me statistics with seperate tables for different kinds of lung damage my point stands.

Paragraph 5: I KNOW smoking is bad for my health. I don't contest that. I know ppl who don't smoke think it's groce. So the solution is: don't hang around near smokers. Find a non-smoking bar/restaurant, don't follow them outside when smokers go there for a cig (many ppl really do this). I'm not infringing my bad habit onto anyone (and yes I'm one of those guys who will put out his cig if ppl are bothered by it)

Apenoot

So, in effect, you are saying non smokers do not have the right to go to a bar without risk of health?  Non smokers do not follow smokers outside as a rule......they wait for their friend to come back.

I've told you more than once that government imposes standards on emissions.  This seems to conveniently skip your notice.

Again...perhaps where you live they are not necessary....but in some areas they are and for emergencies....always. I don't know what kind of public transportation you have....but a bus schedule here is a schedule.  They don't come out because your wife goes in labor.  That is naive and unrealistic.

Lastly....again...non smokers avoid spending money where too much smoke is involved. Fact.  Remove the smoke and more potential consumers are created.  Logic.

The government has no place telling private business owners what it is that they can and can't allow within the confines of their own business establishements.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow smoking.

It's that simple. No one forces you to go to the pub down the street run by a smoker who allows smoking in his place of business. Stop whining about what other people do. No one is forcing you to associate with smokers at any point in time.

The government has no place telling private business owners what it is that they can and can't allow within the confines of their own business establishements.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow smoking.

It's that simple. No one forces you to go to the pub down the street run by a smoker who allows smoking in his place of business. Stop whining about what other people do. No one is forcing you to associate with smokers at any point in time.

lightthiscity

The government has been monitoring business since forever.  No one is forcing smokers not to smoke....just not to smoke in public.  You know....the considerate thing to do.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow smoking. lightthiscity

Basic,

I suggest we stop arguing as I'm getting a little tired of having to say the same thing everytime but in different wording. You do the same thing, so it's really pretty pointless imo. We're not going to convince eachother, I think it's a persons' own choice to go to a public place that allows smoking. They can always go to a place where smoking isn't allowed... But they simply don't do so, which is why there are hardly any non-smoking bars. I guess the situation in the Netherlands is different from where you live or something, but here non smokers can be very hypocritical. Especially former smokers ^^.

Anyways that was my last say on this matter, I'm going to get some food now, and after that, I got a Company of Heroes match replay to evaluate with my clanmates 8)

Peace, Apenoot out!

Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. lightthiscity

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

Basic,

I suggest we stop arguing as I'm getting a little tired of having to say the same thing everytime but in different wording. You do the same thing, so it's really pretty pointless imo. We're not going to convince eachother, I think it's a persons' own choice to go to a public place that allows smoking. They can always go to a place where smoking isn't allowed... But they simply don't do so, which is why there are hardly any non-smoking bars. I guess the situation in the Netherlands is different from where you live or something, but here non smokers can be very hypocritical. Especially former smokers ^^.

Anyways that was my last say on this matter, I'm going to get some food now, and after that, I got a Company of Heroes match replay to evaluate with my clanmates 8)

Peace, Apenoot out!

Apenoot

I have to go to work soon anyway......besides, you haven't addressed my points to you.

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. LJS9502_basic

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

I wasn't aware that establishments that allow smoking had "Smokers Only" signs on the front door and forceably removed those who didn't smoke.

The convoluted logic you've employed is laughable. I assume pubs discriminate against those who don't drink too, what, with all the drunk people and alcohol about I'd assume a lot of non drinkers would rather stay away. Maybe recovering alcoholics are being discriminated against too, I mean, a pub environment might cause them to want to endulge in their old habbits of drinking and what not; making them feel uncomfortable.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow it. Not every establishment in existence allows smoking. What makes you feel as though your rights trump the rights of those who smoke? You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what it is that they can do in relation to things such a smoking.

Just because you don't like smoking that doesn't give you the right to demand that everyone else stop when around you. You're forcing yourself on the smoking denizens of private establishents which allow smoking and you're telling them what they can and can't do becuase you don't like what it is that they indulge in.

You, nor the government, has the right to tell a private business owner that they can't allow smoking in a place THEY OWN.

besides, you haven't addressed my points to you.LJS9502_basic

I knew you were gonna say that :wink:

This debate had to end somewhere. Consider it a victory, I don't care :) 

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. lightthiscity

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

I wasn't aware that establishments that allow smoking had "Smokers Only" signs on the front door and forceably removed those who didn't smoke.

The convoluted logic you've employed is laughable. I assume pubs discriminate against those who don't drink too, what, with all the drunk people and alcohol about I'd assume a lot of non drinkers would rather stay away. Maybe recovering alcoholics are being discriminated against too, I mean, a pub environment might cause them to want to endulge in their old habbits of drinking and what not; making them feel uncomfortable.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow it. Not every establishment in existence allows smoking. What makes you feel as though your rights trump the rights of those who smoke? You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what it is that they can do in relation to things such a smoking.

Just because you don't like smoking that doesn't give you the right to demand that everyone else stop when around you. You're forcing yourself on the smoking denizens of private establishents which allow smoking and you're telling them what they can and can't do becuase you don't like what it is that they indulge in.

You, nor the government, has the right to tell a private business owner that they can't allow smoking in a place THEY OWN.

If it's laughable it's because I used your logic and turned it against you.

FYI...where I live the private owner is given his liscense to run the business by the government.  So he does have to run his business by government rules.....or he should choose another business.  You fail to convince.

End of discussion.......

[QUOTE="dommeus"]

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.

Def_Jef88

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. LJS9502_basic

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

I wasn't aware that establishments that allow smoking had "Smokers Only" signs on the front door and forceably removed those who didn't smoke.

The convoluted logic you've employed is laughable. I assume pubs discriminate against those who don't drink too, what, with all the drunk people and alcohol about I'd assume a lot of non drinkers would rather stay away. Maybe recovering alcoholics are being discriminated against too, I mean, a pub environment might cause them to want to endulge in their old habbits of drinking and what not; making them feel uncomfortable.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow it. Not every establishment in existence allows smoking. What makes you feel as though your rights trump the rights of those who smoke? You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what it is that they can do in relation to things such a smoking.

Just because you don't like smoking that doesn't give you the right to demand that everyone else stop when around you. You're forcing yourself on the smoking denizens of private establishents which allow smoking and you're telling them what they can and can't do becuase you don't like what it is that they indulge in.

You, nor the government, has the right to tell a private business owner that they can't allow smoking in a place THEY OWN.

If it's laughable it's because I used your logic and turned in against you.

FYI...where I live the private owner is given his lisense to run the business by the government.  So he does have to run his business by government rules.....or he should choose another business.  You fail to convince.

You turned my logic against me?

No, you made a terrible point, seeing as how that's all you had room to make.

FYI, no one is stating that private business owners somehow have the right to one up the government as of this juncture in time and ignore regulations imposed by said government. What it is that is being discussed is the passing of regulations by the government restricting the freedoms of private business owners and a certain segment of the populace.

If you really can't formulate a better argument than, "I don't want to be around smokers," you should probably refrain from engaging in discussions such as this.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lightthiscity"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. lightthiscity

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

I wasn't aware that establishments that allow smoking had "Smokers Only" signs on the front door and forceably removed those who didn't smoke.

The convoluted logic you've employed is laughable. I assume pubs discriminate against those who don't drink too, what, with all the drunk people and alcohol about I'd assume a lot of non drinkers would rather stay away. Maybe recovering alcoholics are being discriminated against too, I mean, a pub environment might cause them to want to endulge in their old habbits of drinking and what not; making them feel uncomfortable.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow it. Not every establishment in existence allows smoking. What makes you feel as though your rights trump the rights of those who smoke? You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what it is that they can do in relation to things such a smoking.

Just because you don't like smoking that doesn't give you the right to demand that everyone else stop when around you. You're forcing yourself on the smoking denizens of private establishents which allow smoking and you're telling them what they can and can't do becuase you don't like what it is that they indulge in.

You, nor the government, has the right to tell a private business owner that they can't allow smoking in a place THEY OWN.

If it's laughable it's because I used your logic and turned in against you.

FYI...where I live the private owner is given his lisense to run the business by the government.  So he does have to run his business by government rules.....or he should choose another business.  You fail to convince.

You turned my logic against me?

No, you made a terrible point, seeing as how that's all you had room to make.

FYI, no one is stating that private business owners somehow have the right to one up the government as of this juncture in time and ignore regulations imposed by said government. What it is that is being discussed is the passing of regulations by the government restricting the freedoms of private business owners and a certain segment of the populace.

If you really can't formulate a better argument than, "I don't want to be around smokers," you should probably refrain from engaging in discussions such as this.

:lol:  Show me where I said I didn't want to be around smokers....for all you know I could be a smoker.  And yes, I used your logic against you.  Now I have to go to work but I'll be back this evening if you think you can hang.

PS...I gave examples of government regulation in private business throughout this thread.  Now since you add your own spin on posts I'm done with you.  Come back when you can debate me on what I actually do say.

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lightthiscity"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. LJS9502_basic

Business is not meant to discriminate.  By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination.  Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public.  Government involvement in private business......which is necessary.  Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

I wasn't aware that establishments that allow smoking had "Smokers Only" signs on the front door and forceably removed those who didn't smoke.

The convoluted logic you've employed is laughable. I assume pubs discriminate against those who don't drink too, what, with all the drunk people and alcohol about I'd assume a lot of non drinkers would rather stay away. Maybe recovering alcoholics are being discriminated against too, I mean, a pub environment might cause them to want to endulge in their old habbits of drinking and what not; making them feel uncomfortable.

Don't like smoking? Don't go to places which allow it. Not every establishment in existence allows smoking. What makes you feel as though your rights trump the rights of those who smoke? You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what it is that they can do in relation to things such a smoking.

Just because you don't like smoking that doesn't give you the right to demand that everyone else stop when around you. You're forcing yourself on the smoking denizens of private establishents which allow smoking and you're telling them what they can and can't do becuase you don't like what it is that they indulge in.

You, nor the government, has the right to tell a private business owner that they can't allow smoking in a place THEY OWN.

If it's laughable it's because I used your logic and turned in against you.

FYI...where I live the private owner is given his lisense to run the business by the government.  So he does have to run his business by government rules.....or he should choose another business.  You fail to convince.

You turned my logic against me?

No, you made a terrible point, seeing as how that's all you had room to make.

FYI, no one is stating that private business owners somehow have the right to one up the government as of this juncture in time and ignore regulations imposed by said government. What it is that is being discussed is the passing of regulations by the government restricting the freedoms of private business owners and a certain segment of the populace.

If you really can't formulate a better argument than, "I don't want to be around smokers," you should probably refrain from engaging in discussions such as this.

:lol:  Show me where I said I didn't want to be around smokers....for all you know I could be a smoker.  And yes, I used your logic against you.  Now I have to go to work but I'll be back this evening if you think you can hang.

PS...I gave examples of government regulation in private business throughout this thread.  Now since you add your own spin on posts I'm done with you.  Come back when you can debate me on what I actually do say.

Oh no, I don't know if I can "hang" with internet intellectual LJS9502_basic.

No, you haven't said directly, "I don't want to be around smokers." You're right. I applaud you for your dazzling ability to point this out to me. However, every argument you've made thus far has been in support of that particular ideological mantra. Generally when someone expouses a tagline associated with an already well defined [as well as convoluted and overly simplistic] school of thought it is assumed that they support said thought as a pretext for debate.

PS. You'll note that when I asked you to provide examples of government regulation of private business I stated speficially that said examples be of regulations of the same nature as the smoking ban. The smoking ban sets a new precedent concerning government involvement in private business.  

That aside however, regardless of what "examples" you hopefully will provide in the future, the issue here isn't if the government tells people what they can and can't do, it's if they should have the right to tell business owners what they can and can't do. The issue at hand here is a lot bigger than, "LOLZ, I support/don't support the smoking ban."  

I'm completely sick of the backward logic of "it's a private business, the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything!' Can they serve spoiled meat? Not wash their hands? Would you be allowed to walk into a public place and start tossing poison everywhere with no legal consequence? As ridiculous as that sounds, smoking in public is exactly the same. It's for people's health. Just as people, for some reason I can't even comprehend, decide to smoke, there are those who decide that they'll go somewhere where smoking is permitted. This is pre-emptory action to protect the people. That's what a law is.yodariquo

You'll note the term "private". You'll also note how it appears before the term business. A private business is just that, a private business. If I open up a bar, I reserve(or at least I should be able to reserve) the right to determine whether or not I want to allow people to smoke within my place of business.

Comparing a business owner allowing smoking to a business owner serving spoiled meat is a perfect example of completely ass backwards logic. There's a reason that what you managed to regurgitate there came off as being so ridiculous. That reason is that your attempted point is quite possibly the single most staggering example of convoluted and idiotic logic employed thus far throughout the whole of this thread.

Yes, smoking is bad for your health. Thank you for pointing that out. I had managed to forget about that aspect of the debate. Whether smoking is unhealthy isn't the issue. Whether a private business owner has the right to govern his own business is.

Engaging in a legal recreational activity is hardly comparable to ingesting spoiled meat in anyway whatsoever. Nice attempt at formulating a "shocking" and "edgy" point though.

[QUOTE="yodariquo"]I'm completely sick of the backward logic of "it's a private business, the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything!' Can they serve spoiled meat? Not wash their hands? Would you be allowed to walk into a public place and start tossing poison everywhere with no legal consequence? As ridiculous as that sounds, smoking in public is exactly the same. It's for people's health. Just as people, for some reason I can't even comprehend, decide to smoke, there are those who decide that they'll go somewhere where smoking is permitted. This is pre-emptory action to protect the people. That's what a law is.lightthiscity

You'll note the term "private". You'll also note how it appears before the term business. A private business is just that, a private business. If I open up a bar, I reserve(or at least I should be able to reserve) the right to determine whether or not I want to allow people to smoke within my place of business.

Comparing a business owner allowing smoking to a business owner serving spoiled meat is a perfect example of completely ass backwards logic. There's a reason that what you managed to regurgitate there came off as being so ridiculous. That reason is that your attempted point is quite possibly the single most staggering example of convoluted and idiotic logic employed thus far throughout the whole of this thread.

Yes, smoking is bad for your health. Thank you for pointing that out. I had managed to forget about that aspect of the debate. Whether smoking is unhealthy isn't the issue. Whether a private business owner has the right to govern his own business is.

Engaging in a legal recreational activity is hardly comparable to ingesting spoiled meat in anyway whatsoever. Nice attempt at formulating a "shocking" and "edgy" point though.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][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.
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:

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.

[QUOTE="lightthiscity"]Business owners have a right to allow smoking in their establishments. Provide me with a single example of "business regulation" comparable to this ban on smoking in private business establishments. The considerate thing to do would be for non smokers to refrain from complaining about what smokers do in places were smokers gather, such as a privately owned pub which allows smoking. Again, no one is forcing anyone that doesn't smoke to enter into privately owned establishments which allow smoking. Stating that government regulates business and using said statement as justification for this ban is assinine. LJS9502_basic

Business is not meant to discriminate. By making pubs for smokers only....that's discrimination. Besides, I'd assume like the US the UK monitors the health standards of anyplace serving food or drinks to the public. Government involvement in private business......which is necessary. Don't like not being smoke free in a pub........stay home and smoke up a storm in your home.

Oh no, I don't know if I can "hang" with internet intellectual LJS9502_basic.

No, you haven't said directly, "I don't want to be around smokers." You're right. I applaud you for your dazzling ability to point this out to me. However, every argument you've made thus far has been in support of that particular ideological mantra. Generally when someone expouses a tagline associated with an already well defined [as well as convoluted and overly simplistic] school of thought it is assumed that they support said thought as a pretext for debate.

PS. You'll note that when I asked you to provide examples of government regulation of private business I stated speficially that said examples be of regulations of the same nature as the smoking ban. The smoking ban sets a new precedent concerning government involvement in private business.  

That aside however, regardless of what "examples" you hopefully will provide in the future, the issue here isn't if the government tells people what they can and can't do, it's if they should have the right to tell business owners what they can and can't do. The issue at hand here is a lot bigger than, "LOLZ, I support/don't support the smoking ban."  

lightthiscity

Ah an alt account just to argue with me...

Nonetheless, unlike yourself I can argue dispassionately about a subject...so no...you don't know if I smoke and you did state that I posted comments I didn't.  Stick to what is said.

I gave several examples throughout the course of this debate.....perhaps if you took the time to read and not assume you would not make this mistake.

I already told you that where I live you have to have a license to operate said business.  Just like driving a car one has to abide by government rules if they want the license....oh yeah, sorry.   You didn't read the thread.

Oh no, I don't know if I can "hang" with internet intellectual LJS9502_basic. lightthiscity

No....you can't.

Before smoking bans, bars were NOT for smokers only.

Any nonsmoker has always been fully capable of walking into a smoke-filled bar and NOT smoking.
MrGeezer

Bars are not for smokers only.....and until smokers can smoke without polluting the air around them....they don't smoke in public.

Second hand smoke effectively means non smokers ARE smoking.:wink:

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Before smoking bans, bars were NOT for smokers only.

Any nonsmoker has always been fully capable of walking into a smoke-filled bar and NOT smoking.
LJS9502_basic

Bars are not for smokers only.....and until smokers can smoke without polluting the air around them....they don't smoke in public.

Second hand smoke effectively means non smokers ARE smoking.:wink:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Before smoking bans, bars were NOT for smokers only.

Any nonsmoker has always been fully capable of walking into a smoke-filled bar and NOT smoking.
MrGeezer

Bars are not for smokers only.....and until smokers can smoke without polluting the air around them....they don't smoke in public.

Second hand smoke effectively means non smokers ARE smoking.:wink:

The government isn't deciding that at all....they are deciding where.  For the government to decide they would make smoking illegal period.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Before smoking bans, bars were NOT for smokers only.

Any nonsmoker has always been fully capable of walking into a smoke-filled bar and NOT smoking.
LJS9502_basic

Bars are not for smokers only.....and until smokers can smoke without polluting the air around them....they don't smoke in public.

Second hand smoke effectively means non smokers ARE smoking.:wink:

The government isn't deciding that at all....they are deciding where. For the government to decide they would make smoking illegal period.

They're deciding that you can't choose to inhale secondhand smoke on private property.

And once again, we're talking about private establishments. And the government is telling you that you can't allow a LEGAL activity on your own private property.

If that's their stance, then why DON'T they just outright ban tobacco for good?
MrGeezer

One.....addiction of people that have smoked and Two.....and more importantly from the governments view...business.  Business runs the country.  Besides, we all know what happened with prohibition.

I don't know if this escaped your notice....but most people don't like inhaling second hand smoke.

As I've stated numerous times....government already makes rules in the food and health industry which are not inherently illegal....but if you want to serve food/drinks must be obeyed. 

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

They're deciding that you can't choose to inhale secondhand smoke on private property.

And once again, we're talking about private establishments. And the government is telling you that you can't allow a LEGAL activity on your own private property.

If that's their stance, then why DON'T they just outright ban tobacco for good?
LJS9502_basic

One.....addiction of people that have smoked and Two.....and more importantly from the governments view...business. Business runs the country. Besides, we all know what happened with prohibition.

I don't know if this escaped your notice....but most people don't like inhaling second hand smoke.

As I've stated numerous times....government already makes rules in the food and health industry which are not inherently illegal....but if you want to serve food/drinks must be obeyed.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

They're deciding that you can't choose to inhale secondhand smoke on private property.

And once again, we're talking about private establishments. And the government is telling you that you can't allow a LEGAL activity on your own private property.

If that's their stance, then why DON'T they just outright ban tobacco for good?
MrGeezer

One.....addiction of people that have smoked and Two.....and more importantly from the governments view...business. Business runs the country. Besides, we all know what happened with prohibition.

I don't know if this escaped your notice....but most people don't like inhaling second hand smoke.

As I've stated numerous times....government already makes rules in the food and health industry which are not inherently illegal....but if you want to serve food/drinks must be obeyed.

My point was that the government already regulates that industry.  Smoke is harmful to consumers just as much as bad food.  Watering alcohol down is not harmful per se....but it's regulated.  Even enforcing a drinking age is regulating the industry.  This is just another rule that will have to be dealt with.  Is it that difficult to step outside for a quick smoke....or just not smoke?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

They're deciding that you can't choose to inhale secondhand smoke on private property.

And once again, we're talking about private establishments. And the government is telling you that you can't allow a LEGAL activity on your own private property.

If that's their stance, then why DON'T they just outright ban tobacco for good?
LJS9502_basic

One.....addiction of people that have smoked and Two.....and more importantly from the governments view...business. Business runs the country. Besides, we all know what happened with prohibition.

I don't know if this escaped your notice....but most people don't like inhaling second hand smoke.

As I've stated numerous times....government already makes rules in the food and health industry which are not inherently illegal....but if you want to serve food/drinks must be obeyed.

My point was that the government already regulates that industry. Smoke is harmful to consumers just as much as bad food. Watering alcohol down is not harmful per se....but it's regulated. Even enforcing a drinking age is regulating the industry. This is just another rule that will have to be dealt with. Is it that difficult to step outside for a quick smoke....or just not smoke?

I'm cool with this. Second hand smoke gives me a headache so if people were not allowed to do so around me in public places I would be much happier.

Good, I don't want people that lack self control anywhere around me in public.

Ridiculous Brits taking away freedoms... Typical.lo_Pine

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]Ridiculous Brits taking away freedoms... Typical.shadowkiller11