How many times have you been robbed by a smoker for smoke money?
Never, but my comfort and health has been compromised by smokers many times.
I am trying to gauge how far you would go to accomodate someone who has an addiction, since you feel so strongly about people feeling sorry for smokers who can't quit.
Never, but my comfort and health has been compromised by smokers many times.
I am trying to gauge how far you would go to accomodate someone who has an addiction, since you feel so strongly about people feeling sorry for smokers who can't quit.
I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.
The Dalai Lama says the path to happiness is through forgiveness after all.
I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.
Having sympathy is one thing, but did you take any action against the thief?
It is good to forgive within reason, but if some victimizes you over and over, would you still forgive?
The dalai lama would say that kind of thinking will prevent you from ever being happy. It's not about worrying over what you're going to lose, it's about being content with your world. Plus, you can forgive someone without leaving yourself open to further being a victim.
Honestly, if you think someone else smoking outside or in their own residence is victimizing you you should take a huge look at your priorities. See a post I made a few pages ago. (don't feel like retyping).
Having sympathy is one thing, but did you take any action against the thief?
Not really. I didn't trust him as much around my stuff, but that's about it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The dalai lama would say that kind of thinking will prevent you from ever being happy. It's not about worrying over what you're going to lose, it's about being content with your world. Plus, you can forgive someone without leaving yourself open to further being a victim.
Honestly, if you think someone else smoking outside or in their own residence is victimizing you you should take a huge look at your priorities. See a post I made a few pages ago. (don't feel like retyping).
I never mentioned that I worry about someone smoking at home. I worry about a smoker leaving puffs of smoke in my trail if I am walking behind them.
Does the dalai lama say that you should worry about other people's priorities?
If someone struck you once a week, would you keep forgiving them?
I never mentioned that I worry about someone smoking at home. I worry about a smoker leaving puffs of smoke in my trail if I am walking behind them.
Does the dalai lama say that you should worry about other people's priorities?
If someone struck you once a week, would you keep forgiving them?
People are really to uptight about this whole thing..
Oh jesus someone walking near you, OUTSIDE, is smoking! Run for your life! Call Congress! We'll stop that monster!
If someone is actually blowing smoke at you say "Look asshole, blow your smoke the other way", but other than that it's no real bother to you except for possibly the smell. And you can't charge someone for leaving bad smells near you.
Let's BAN smoking. I mean it worked with alcohol and drugs right. Don't worry about the multi-billion dollar black market it created. Banning alcohol did not work, and neither will banning smoking. And if you think alcohol does not affect those around you, check out drunk driving statistics....
You may not choose to get addicted, but it was a choice to use the instrument of addiction in the first place (i.e. to start smoking).
When my dad started smoking, they didn't know it was addictive or bad, it was just something new and fashionable. Nobody knew about the negative effects, only 5 or maybe 10 years later the facts were published. So my dad's addicted and he never chose to use the instrument of addiction.
When my dad started smoking, they didn't know it was addictive or bad, it was just something new and fashionable. Nobody knew about the negative effects, only 5 or maybe 10 years later the facts were published. So my dad's addicted and he never chose to use the instrument of addiction.
I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.
I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.
My dad is 58, he started smoking when he was 14 and we don't live in the US. I tried to find out when they started putting labels on the packs here, didn't find any info.
My dad is 58, he started smoking when he was 14 and we don't live in the US. I tried to find out when they started putting labels on the packs here, didn't find any info.
They didn't start with the labels in Europe until the late 70's, so damn that sucks. Even if he lived in the states, he still started prior to labels in the states, so I guess it wouldn't have mattered if he lived in the States or not.
I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.
I started smoking when I was conceived. My father smoked heavily while I was growing up. From the moment I was born I was consuming nicotine and growing a dependency to it, it didn't take much for me to become a smoker. You are also omitting the fact that most people, if not everyone, starts when they are children and children don't think far enough ahead to consider the consequences.
Obviously!! No one would start to begin with if they fully understood the addiction. You'd have to be a fucking moron not to realize that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Smoking is not a right. If you need to smoke that bad, you can do it outside. I don't see the problem here.
It's sort of the inverse of drinking. You can go to a bar and have a beer, but if you're walking down the street with an open beer, that's a no-no...unless that street is part of a festival or environment that has obtained the neccessary permit to have open-air consumption.
Both of my parents smoked until I was in my 20s. I hated it. It was disgusting and I always smelled like complete shit because of it...so I never started smoking.
I think gov't is missing the point here. They have an opportunity to profit from this disgusting habit by creating a non-transferable license...just like a liquor license for commercial establishments. Only difference is that they could charge an annual fee for the smoking license...say $25,000 a year per license. Let the business owners who see such a huge profit from smokers pay for the right to offer services to smokers. That $25k pays for one employee who gets sick from constant exposure to smoke.
If it works in NYC, it cn work anywhere...anywhere. I have friends in the hospitality industry that cannot wait for this to pass down here. They hate smoke, but the money is good, so they do what they have to do.
Missed opportunity to put the decision into the hands of business owners if you ask me.
If it works in NYC, it cn work anywhere...anywhere. I have friends in the hospitality industry that cannot wait for this to pass down here. They hate smoke, but the money is good, so they do what they have to do.
Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment. The patrons, by choice, go to those smoking establishments. The business owner, by choice, allows smoking in their private establishments as a way of improving the bottom line. If they could make more money by making the place non-smoking they would have. Butts in chairs = more reveneue and as soon as they have to go out to smoke, the decision exists to re-enter the placeo or go somewhere else.
So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment. The patrons, by choice, go to those smoking establishments. The business owner, by choice, allows smoking in their private establishments as a way of improving the bottom line. If they could make more money by making the place non-smoking they would have. Butts in chairs = more reveneue and as soon as they have to go out to smoke, the decision exists to re-enter the placeo or go somewhere else.
So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.
^^^
It's up to the individuals. You don't want someone smoking in the restaurant you're in? Go to a new restaurant.
It's sort of the inverse of drinking. You can go to a bar and have a beer, but if you're walking down the street with an open beer, that's a no-no...unless that street is part of a festival or environment that has obtained the neccessary permit to have open-air consumption.
What's wrong with having a beer and walking down the street?
Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment....blah blah blah
So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.
First of all, they are not establishments whose sole intent is to allow smoking. Smoking is permitted there, but that is not what the establishment, or my friends are there for.
Second, I have no problem with it, since NYC is close enough for me to make a trip if I want to go clubbing (which is exactly what I do). If Baltimore wants to be a knuckle dragging troglodite of a city, I'm happy to let Darwin have the smokers and their shitty, stinky clubs. All I'm saying is that the solution is a lot simpler than an outright ban. Create a smoking license that public establishments can purchase annually.
Smoking has been proven to be a detriment to personal and public health, but if an establishment whishes to profit from the behavior, they should have that right...at a price.
First of all, they are not establishments whose sole intent is to allow smoking. Smoking is permitted there, but that is not what the establishment, or my friends are there for.
Didn't say it was. That is irrelevant. If it is a laundramat or a bagel store it should still be up to the owner of the business to set policy. I'd personally never buy bagels or wash my clothes in a smoke filled environment, but if the owner of the business thinks it is good for business, that is his/her issue.
Second, I have no problem with it, since NYC is close enough for me to make a trip if I want to go clubbing (which is exactly what I do). If Baltimore wants to be a knuckle dragging troglodite of a city, I'm happy to let Darwin have the smokers and their shitty, stinky clubs. All I'm saying is that the solution is a lot simpler than an outright ban. Create a smoking license that public establishments can purchase annually.
Why? Why have a smoking license? Why not just let people decide for themselves? Sounds like you again are looking to the government to do something they have no business doing.
Smoking has been proven to be a detriment to personal and public health, but if an establishment whishes to profit from the behavior, they should have that right...at a price.
They do so at a price. The price is alienating non-smokers. If they feel that price is too high, they can change their policy. Government intervention, contrary to the beliefs of the supporters of a nanny state, is not needed here.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Nobody forces you to patronize private establishments that allow smoking. if you don't like it, don't vote with your dollars. Go to a non-smoking establishment and support the owner.
There you go, that is the main issue. Governement is mandating that private businesses are not allowed to have smoking establishments. Why should the government have a say over this? I say there should be smoking bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. Folks who choose to work at or patronize these places would know smoking is allowed - mark it at the entrances -SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT and if they did not want to work or come inside then they could go elsewhere.
I empathize for smokers since I am an ex-smoker and supposedly live in a free country. I respect the public building issue. I finally quit cold turkey 4-1/2 years ago.
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes" ~ M Kuhn
A smoking liscence type thing would be both fucked up, a HUGE waste of time, and meaningless.
You don't like smoke in a club go somewhere else.
How about having the smokers go somewhere else?
See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.
I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.
When I go to places that have a smoking ban, it's noticably more crowded, people still have a great time, and I don't wake up the next day feeling like someone stuffed my nasal passages with cement.
If you buy a pack of smokes, you have to pay a pretty hefty tax, yet bar and club owners get a pass on that. What's good enough for you is good enough for them. I view the license as a way of giving businesses the oprion to choose that type of behavior for their establishment. It is also a source of revenue for government. We're 8 billion dollars in debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Instead of raising taxes for all of us, how about focusing on exracting some revenue from business owners who want to make smoking a "right" in their establishments.
Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.
See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.
I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.
When I go to places that have a smoking ban, it's noticably more crowded, people still have a great time, and I don't wake up the next day feeling like someone stuffed my nasal passages with cement.
If you buy a pack of smokes, you have to pay a pretty hefty tax, yet bar and club owners get a pass on that. What's good enough for you is good enough for them. I view the license as a way of giving businesses the oprion to choose that type of behavior for their establishment. It is also a source of revenue for government. We're 8 billion dollars in debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Instead of raising taxes for all of us, how about focusing on exracting some revenue from business owners who want to make smoking a "right" in their establishments.
Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.
You again have completely missed the point. The point isn't about smokers' rights, or non-smokers' rights. It is about private property rights, and the right of self-determination.
And you talk about "extracting" revenue from business owners? It is these types of theft which have created the problems we have in government in the first place. Why is this the business of government? Why is your solution to allow the government to come in with guns and loot private business? You have completely twisted and convoluted this issue, but unforunately for those of us who value libery, you have a lot of company.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You again have completely missed the point. The point isn't about smokers' rights, or non-smokers' rights. It is about private property rights, and the right of self-determination.
And you talk about "extracting" revenue from business owners? It is these types of theft which have created the problems we have in government in the first place. Why is this the business of government? Why is your solution to allow the government to come in with guns and loot private business? You have completely twisted and convoluted this issue, but unforunately for those of us who value libery, you have a lot of company.
Private Property is a carefully constructed myth. Nothing you own is private. If the government wants it, they can and will take it, and there's not much that you can do about it.
Liberty has a price.You pay it, or you don't. It makes no difference to me. I have places where I can go and enjoy myself. It costs me double what it costs a smoker to do the same, so I'm penalized twice. First, because I can't go to places in my own home town to excercise my own liberties, and second because I have to incur additional expense to go to places that have taken everyone's health into consideration...while clubs who allow smoking only take smoker's happines into consideration in exchange for profit and everyone's health.
I pay the price, and there's not one smoker who sheds a tear for me .
My solution does not constitute looting. It constitues paying a price for creating a hazardous, unhealthy environment. Though I shouldn't be shocked that people are challenging me...Americans never want to pay the price for their actions.
See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.
Non smokers also have a choice, they can choose not to go to a bar where smoking is allowed and go to one where it isn't.
Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.
You want people to pay if they want smoking in their establishments just because you want a smoke-free enviroment? That's absurd.
Non smokers also have a choice, they can choose not to go to a bar where smoking is allowed and go to one where it isn't.
You want people to pay if they want smoking in their establishments just because you want a smoke-free enviroment? That's absurd.
Very solid point. The question I struggle with is whether or not it is ok for the servers etc in restaurants to be exposed to this smoke. Other companies have to provide a safe workplace for the employees...why not restaurant owners?
I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.
Yes, but the building that the show was in, it belongs to somebody. That somebody, who owns that building, apparently has okayed smoking it it. The building is theirs, not yours. Just like your house.
Personally I don't smoke and i abhor the smell of it. I went out last night and all my clothes are smokey. It's nasty. My or your personal feelings about smoking have nothing to do with this. A building belongs to somebody and it's up to them. You and I, we can go there or don't go there. That's it.
Yes, but the building that the show was in, it belongs to somebody. That somebody, who owns that building, apparently has okayed smoking it it. The building is theirs, not yours. Just like your house.
Personally I don't smoke and i abhor the smell of it. I went out last night and all my clothes are smokey. It's nasty. My or your personal feelings about smoking have nothing to do with this. A building belongs to somebody and it's up to them. You and I, we can go there or don't go there. That's it.
But people work in that building and have the right to breathe clean air.
Comments
Never, but my comfort and health has been compromised by smokers many times.
I am trying to gauge how far you would go to accomodate someone who has an addiction, since you feel so strongly about people feeling sorry for smokers who can't quit.
I'm just trying to look at it realistically. Now, I've actually had my shit stolen by a heroin addict to support his addiction and I am equally sympathetic for him. The addiction of heroin is strong and though he tried to fight it, it did get the better of him.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Having sympathy is one thing, but did you take any action against the thief?
It is good to forgive within reason, but if some victimizes you over and over, would you still forgive?
Honestly, if you think someone else smoking outside or in their own residence is victimizing you you should take a huge look at your priorities. See a post I made a few pages ago. (don't feel like retyping).
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Not really. I didn't trust him as much around my stuff, but that's about it.
I never mentioned that I worry about someone smoking at home. I worry about a smoker leaving puffs of smoke in my trail if I am walking behind them.
Does the dalai lama say that you should worry about other people's priorities?
If someone struck you once a week, would you keep forgiving them?
Oh jesus someone walking near you, OUTSIDE, is smoking! Run for your life! Call Congress! We'll stop that monster!
If someone is actually blowing smoke at you say "Look asshole, blow your smoke the other way", but other than that it's no real bother to you except for possibly the smell. And you can't charge someone for leaving bad smells near you.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
When my dad started smoking, they didn't know it was addictive or bad, it was just something new and fashionable. Nobody knew about the negative effects, only 5 or maybe 10 years later the facts were published. So my dad's addicted and he never chose to use the instrument of addiction.
naděje umírá poslední
I just find that kind of hard to believe. You are 19 yrs old. Let's say your dad is 50. Warnings on cigarette packs began in 1966. If your dad is 50, then he was about 10 years old when cigarette packs first had warning labels. I don't imagine he started smoking prior to that age.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
My dad is 58, he started smoking when he was 14 and we don't live in the US. I tried to find out when they started putting labels on the packs here, didn't find any info.
naděje umírá poslední
They didn't start with the labels in Europe until the late 70's, so damn that sucks. Even if he lived in the states, he still started prior to labels in the states, so I guess it wouldn't have mattered if he lived in the States or not.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I started smoking when I was conceived. My father smoked heavily while I was growing up. From the moment I was born I was consuming nicotine and growing a dependency to it, it didn't take much for me to become a smoker. You are also omitting the fact that most people, if not everyone, starts when they are children and children don't think far enough ahead to consider the consequences.
Obviously!! No one would start to begin with if they fully understood the addiction. You'd have to be a fucking moron not to realize that.
It's sort of the inverse of drinking. You can go to a bar and have a beer, but if you're walking down the street with an open beer, that's a no-no...unless that street is part of a festival or environment that has obtained the neccessary permit to have open-air consumption.
Both of my parents smoked until I was in my 20s. I hated it. It was disgusting and I always smelled like complete shit because of it...so I never started smoking.
I think gov't is missing the point here. They have an opportunity to profit from this disgusting habit by creating a non-transferable license...just like a liquor license for commercial establishments. Only difference is that they could charge an annual fee for the smoking license...say $25,000 a year per license. Let the business owners who see such a huge profit from smokers pay for the right to offer services to smokers. That $25k pays for one employee who gets sick from constant exposure to smoke.
If it works in NYC, it cn work anywhere...anywhere. I have friends in the hospitality industry that cannot wait for this to pass down here. They hate smoke, but the money is good, so they do what they have to do.
Missed opportunity to put the decision into the hands of business owners if you ask me.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Right. Your friends, by choice, work in a smoking establishment. The patrons, by choice, go to those smoking establishments. The business owner, by choice, allows smoking in their private establishments as a way of improving the bottom line. If they could make more money by making the place non-smoking they would have. Butts in chairs = more reveneue and as soon as they have to go out to smoke, the decision exists to re-enter the placeo or go somewhere else.
So instead of all of these groups being allowed to make informed choice, you are happy to have government mandate and coersion remove choice. It is a sad state of affairs when people have no self-reliance, and require the governement to make choices for them.
It's up to the individuals. You don't want someone smoking in the restaurant you're in? Go to a new restaurant.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
What's wrong with having a beer and walking down the street?
naděje umírá poslední
First of all, they are not establishments whose sole intent is to allow smoking. Smoking is permitted there, but that is not what the establishment, or my friends are there for.
Second, I have no problem with it, since NYC is close enough for me to make a trip if I want to go clubbing (which is exactly what I do). If Baltimore wants to be a knuckle dragging troglodite of a city, I'm happy to let Darwin have the smokers and their shitty, stinky clubs. All I'm saying is that the solution is a lot simpler than an outright ban. Create a smoking license that public establishments can purchase annually.
Smoking has been proven to be a detriment to personal and public health, but if an establishment whishes to profit from the behavior, they should have that right...at a price.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Didn't say it was. That is irrelevant. If it is a laundramat or a bagel store it should still be up to the owner of the business to set policy. I'd personally never buy bagels or wash my clothes in a smoke filled environment, but if the owner of the business thinks it is good for business, that is his/her issue.
Why? Why have a smoking license? Why not just let people decide for themselves? Sounds like you again are looking to the government to do something they have no business doing.
They do so at a price. The price is alienating non-smokers. If they feel that price is too high, they can change their policy. Government intervention, contrary to the beliefs of the supporters of a nanny state, is not needed here.
There you go, that is the main issue. Governement is mandating that private businesses are not allowed to have smoking establishments. Why should the government have a say over this? I say there should be smoking bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. Folks who choose to work at or patronize these places would know smoking is allowed - mark it at the entrances -SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT and if they did not want to work or come inside then they could go elsewhere.
I empathize for smokers since I am an ex-smoker and supposedly live in a free country. I respect the public building issue. I finally quit cold turkey 4-1/2 years ago.
You don't like smoke in a club go somewhere else.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
How about having the smokers go somewhere else?
See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.
I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.
When I go to places that have a smoking ban, it's noticably more crowded, people still have a great time, and I don't wake up the next day feeling like someone stuffed my nasal passages with cement.
If you buy a pack of smokes, you have to pay a pretty hefty tax, yet bar and club owners get a pass on that. What's good enough for you is good enough for them. I view the license as a way of giving businesses the oprion to choose that type of behavior for their establishment. It is also a source of revenue for government. We're 8 billion dollars in debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Instead of raising taxes for all of us, how about focusing on exracting some revenue from business owners who want to make smoking a "right" in their establishments.
Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
You again have completely missed the point. The point isn't about smokers' rights, or non-smokers' rights. It is about private property rights, and the right of self-determination.
And you talk about "extracting" revenue from business owners? It is these types of theft which have created the problems we have in government in the first place. Why is this the business of government? Why is your solution to allow the government to come in with guns and loot private business? You have completely twisted and convoluted this issue, but unforunately for those of us who value libery, you have a lot of company.
Private Property is a carefully constructed myth. Nothing you own is private. If the government wants it, they can and will take it, and there's not much that you can do about it.
Liberty has a price.You pay it, or you don't. It makes no difference to me. I have places where I can go and enjoy myself. It costs me double what it costs a smoker to do the same, so I'm penalized twice. First, because I can't go to places in my own home town to excercise my own liberties, and second because I have to incur additional expense to go to places that have taken everyone's health into consideration...while clubs who allow smoking only take smoker's happines into consideration in exchange for profit and everyone's health.
I pay the price, and there's not one smoker who sheds a tear for me
My solution does not constitute looting. It constitues paying a price for creating a hazardous, unhealthy environment. Though I shouldn't be shocked that people are challenging me...Americans never want to pay the price for their actions.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Non smokers also have a choice, they can choose not to go to a bar where smoking is allowed and go to one where it isn't.
You want people to pay if they want smoking in their establishments just because you want a smoke-free enviroment? That's absurd.
naděje umírá poslední
Very solid point. The question I struggle with is whether or not it is ok for the servers etc in restaurants to be exposed to this smoke. Other companies have to provide a safe workplace for the employees...why not restaurant owners?
Yes, but the building that the show was in, it belongs to somebody. That somebody, who owns that building, apparently has okayed smoking it it. The building is theirs, not yours. Just like your house.
Personally I don't smoke and i abhor the smell of it. I went out last night and all my clothes are smokey. It's nasty. My or your personal feelings about smoking have nothing to do with this. A building belongs to somebody and it's up to them. You and I, we can go there or don't go there. That's it.
But people work in that building and have the right to breathe clean air.