I can agree to that. But make them really absurd fines such that those bars have to really raise prices.
I think the government should take a similar approach to environmentally friendly cars. Like, at malls and such, there should be regulations to make the first 3 rows of parking for environmentally friendly cars only. Stuff like that.
Not fines but tax breaks for bars that volunteer or if you are going to open a non-smoking bar you get a discount of your liquor license.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't want to smoke everywhere. I don't smoke in my home, in my car, in front of my children, in a park if children are at play near me.
Non smokers are addicted to being whinny bitches.
Yeah tumors are fun! forgive me for speaking out a little... I keep forgetting how much fun lung cancer is!
So you break away from life to appease your addiction?
What does that tell you? ...something is wrong with the picture and it's plain as day.
Remember that little ditty in Sesame Street...one of these things is not like the other ...one of these thing just does not belong?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
but smokers want to smoke everywhere..they're addicted remember?? and they can't/won't/don't want to stop and don't want to be segregated or alienated by big brother. Really who's doing the whining in all of this?
Non smokers are not addicted to not smoking :rolleyes:
one side is out of balance in the head...can you guess which one?
Well no...what part of stuck on stupid are you at again
How bout real guns for children?
smoking cigarettes is just about as infantile and consequential a concept...regardless of the age of the user...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
What is wrong with this picture is that what I do to my body is really none of your business. You choose not to smoke I do get over it.
Unless you infringe on my fundamental rights to health in public and choose to make it my business.
Then you are presented with a bit of a problem.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Unless you infringe on my fundamental rights to health in public and choose to make it my business.
Then you are presented with a bit of a problem.
But I'm not infringing on those right. When I go outside after work and light up am I infringing on your right to health. No, so what I do to my body is none of your business.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
you'll kill the bar staff.. imagine 30-40 people smoking in a small pub.
also before its raised... "he/she can just decide not to take that job".. now i live in rural Scotland.. my nearest pub is more than 3 miles away.. the next ones after that is in the town centre (5 miles or so)
now, if i was a barman and the pub nearest me went "pro-smokers" and i refused to take that job then it'd be the next pubs 5 or so miles away... beyond that... hmmmm 21 miles away or so... so now i have to hope i can find a job that requires a 42 miles round trip for a 5 hour shift... not economically viable for me.. nevermind my emmission travelling to my "non-smoking" employment!
now imagine i was disabled and had no transport
would all of you stub out your ciggies if a busload of travelling pregnant women came into a local pub for something to eat... i bet you all fucking would.. yet you wouldnt extend me the same courtesy.. thats selfishness encapsulated
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
But I'm not infringing on those right. When I go outside after work and light up am I infringing on your right to health. No, so what I do to my body is none of your business.
but what you do to you my health is my business
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
you'll kill the bar staff.. imagine 30-40 people smoking in a small pub.
also before its raised... "he/she can just decide not to take that job".. now i live in rural Scotland.. my nearest pub is more than 3 miles away.. the next ones after that is in the town centre (5 miles or so)
now, if i was a barman and the pub nearest me went "pro-smokers" and i refused to take that job then it'd be the next pubs 5 or so miles away... beyond that... hmmmm 21 miles away or so... so now i have to hope i can find a job that requires a 42 miles round trip for a 5 hour shift... not economically viable for me.. nevermind my emmission travelling to my "non-smoking" employment!
now imagine i was disabled and had no transport
would all of you stub out your ciggies if a busload of travelling pregnant women came into a local pub for something to eat... i bet you all fucking would.. yet you wouldnt extend me the same courtesy.. thats selfishness encapsulated
What if the bar staff doesn't care that it is a smoking bar.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
But my smoking is not affecting your health. Roland has a problem with me smoking. I live no where near him so my smoking has no affect on him. So in short it is none of his business.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
But I'm not infringing on those right. When I go outside after work and light up am I infringing on your right to health. No, so what I do to my body is none of your business.
Isn't this entire thread about smoking indoors in public places...bars in particular? where's the comparison?
Does not every bar have the option of creating a smoke free section?
Why isn't that being done everywhere if smoking clientèle is so coveted and lucrative...
Reason? because smokers are the VAST minority in society...
A dying breed so to speak...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Like I said earlier, they should just legalize MJ.
Then this thread wouldn't be approaching 20 pages long. We'd be saying...
"Yeah, cigarettes suck"
"Cool"
"Do you wanna get some chips?"
"Yeah"
lol hahaa
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
But my smoking is not affecting your health. Roland has a problem with me smoking. I live no where near him so my smoking has no affect on him. So in short it is none of his business.
You too missed the concept of this thread...wtf?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Gov't still tries to protect those who don't care about themselves as best possible, otherwise suicide wouldn't be illegal. :-)
And whose life is it anyway? Same as the informed person who wants to walk into a smoke filled bar.
Anyway, you (in general) railing for health to everybody must have long walks to work everyday as I can tell you take health to the extreme that you can't possibly drive a vehicle the way you think of others.
And there should be an option to open a bar with smoking in it.
To me this thread is about business owners rights.
Not not exactly. You're skipping a big part there for sake of trying to be right in an argument you probably can't win due to the common sense factor alone.
They can build a smoking section if they think it's so lucrative, but no one is doing it. There's lot's of common sense things the government regulates that smokers don't complain about. Why is that????
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Exactly...whose life is it affecting? In public this is very different situation. I'll not be affected by someone blinded by a destructive addiction.
Anti smokers could be called racist (if you will) if it wasn't for the fact that their actions actually operate along the terms of saving peoples lives :rolleyes:
That's really the bottom line..the rest is mere folly and circular banter...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Exactly...whose life is it affecting? In public this is very different situation. I'll not be affected by someone blinded by a destructive addiction.
If you do not want to be affected, you may want to stay away from the bars where smoking is allowed. That is a common sense way to be unaffected by smoking.
Not not exactly. You're skipping a big part there for sake of trying to be right in an argument you probably can't win due to the common sense factor alone.
They can build a smoking section if they think it's so lucrative, but no one is doing it. There's lot's of common sense things the government regulates that smokers don't complain about. Why is that????
I'm not skipping any part of the arguement. I agree that smoking is bad. I agree that second hand smoke is bad. I agree that if I was a non-smoker i would not want to be around smokers. I actually prefer non-smoking establishments. I'm not even arguing wether there should be non-smoking establsihments because I think there should be I just don't believe that the government should force it upon the business owner to do so. If you still have trouble understanding my arguement I can try to simplfy it a little more for you.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm not skipping any part of the arguement. I agree that smoking is bad. I agree that second hand smoke is bad. I agree that if I was a non-smoker i would not want to be around smokers. I actually prefer non-smoking establishments. I'm not even arguing wether there should be non-smoking establsihments because I think there should be I just don't believe that the government should force it upon the business owner to do so. If you still have trouble understanding my arguement I can try to simplfy it a little more for you.
There are so many things the government regulates. Many of of them are not contested because they are such common sense laws that they are considered public health/safety issues and just..well...standards. Would you like to see little or no government control in those areas as well? There's too many to mention that we all take for granted.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There are so many things the government regulates. Many of of them are not contested because they are such common sense laws that they are considered public health/safety issues and just..well...standards. Would you like to see little or no government control in those areas as well? There's too many to mention that we all take for granted.
There are areas that, I believe, government intervention is necessary. A good example would be the FDA. Obviously I argee that we need tro have saefty standards set for the food we buy and eat. As individuals we really don't have the power to control the industry so we need someone with more authority to do so, that is when government comes in. As for smoking bans we do have the power to make changes their as individuals. That is how I make the distiction.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.
In L.A., there is a bar called Tiki Ti, and since all of the employees are owners, having a smoke there is a-ok
What is wrong with this picture is that what I do to my body is really none of your business. You choose not to smoke I do get over it.
But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!
Comments
Not fines but tax breaks for bars that volunteer or if you are going to open a non-smoking bar you get a discount of your liquor license.
Yeah tumors are fun! forgive me for speaking out a little... I keep forgetting how much fun lung cancer is!
So you break away from life to appease your addiction?
What does that tell you? ...something is wrong with the picture and it's plain as day.
Remember that little ditty in Sesame Street...one of these things is not like the other ...one of these thing just does not belong?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So smoking bars for the smokers.
What is wrong with this picture is that what I do to my body is really none of your business. You choose not to smoke I do get over it.
Well no...what part of stuck on stupid are you at again
How bout real guns for children?
smoking cigarettes is just about as infantile and consequential a concept...regardless of the age of the user...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Unless you infringe on my fundamental rights to health in public and choose to make it my business.
Then you are presented with a bit of a problem.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But I'm not infringing on those right. When I go outside after work and light up am I infringing on your right to health. No, so what I do to my body is none of your business.
no
you'll kill the bar staff.. imagine 30-40 people smoking in a small pub.
also before its raised... "he/she can just decide not to take that job".. now i live in rural Scotland.. my nearest pub is more than 3 miles away.. the next ones after that is in the town centre (5 miles or so)
now, if i was a barman and the pub nearest me went "pro-smokers" and i refused to take that job then it'd be the next pubs 5 or so miles away... beyond that... hmmmm 21 miles away or so... so now i have to hope i can find a job that requires a 42 miles round trip for a 5 hour shift... not economically viable for me.. nevermind my emmission travelling to my "non-smoking" employment!
now imagine i was disabled and had no transport
would all of you stub out your ciggies if a busload of travelling pregnant women came into a local pub for something to eat... i bet you all fucking would.. yet you wouldnt extend me the same courtesy.. thats selfishness encapsulated
but what you do to you my health is my business
Then this thread wouldn't be approaching 20 pages long. We'd be saying...
"Yeah, cigarettes suck"
"Cool"
"Do you wanna get some chips?"
"Yeah"
What if the bar staff doesn't care that it is a smoking bar.
But my smoking is not affecting your health. Roland has a problem with me smoking. I live no where near him so my smoking has no affect on him. So in short it is none of his business.
Isn't this entire thread about smoking indoors in public places...bars in particular? where's the comparison?
Does not every bar have the option of creating a smoke free section?
Why isn't that being done everywhere if smoking clientèle is so coveted and lucrative...
Reason? because smokers are the VAST minority in society...
A dying breed so to speak...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
To me this thread is about business owners rights.
You too missed the concept of this thread...wtf?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And whose life is it anyway? Same as the informed person who wants to walk into a smoke filled bar.
Anyway, you (in general) railing for health to everybody must have long walks to work everyday as I can tell you take health to the extreme that you can't possibly drive a vehicle the way you think of others.
And there should be an option to open a bar with smoking in it.
Not not exactly. You're skipping a big part there for sake of trying to be right in an argument you probably can't win due to the common sense factor alone.
They can build a smoking section if they think it's so lucrative, but no one is doing it. There's lot's of common sense things the government regulates that smokers don't complain about. Why is that????
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Exactly...whose life is it affecting? In public this is very different situation. I'll not be affected by someone blinded by a destructive addiction.
Anti smokers could be called racist (if you will) if it wasn't for the fact that their actions actually operate along the terms of saving peoples lives :rolleyes:
That's really the bottom line..the rest is mere folly and circular banter...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If you do not want to be affected, you may want to stay away from the bars where smoking is allowed. That is a common sense way to be unaffected by smoking.
I'm not skipping any part of the arguement. I agree that smoking is bad. I agree that second hand smoke is bad. I agree that if I was a non-smoker i would not want to be around smokers. I actually prefer non-smoking establishments. I'm not even arguing wether there should be non-smoking establsihments because I think there should be I just don't believe that the government should force it upon the business owner to do so. If you still have trouble understanding my arguement I can try to simplfy it a little more for you.
There are so many things the government regulates. Many of of them are not contested because they are such common sense laws that they are considered public health/safety issues and just..well...standards. Would you like to see little or no government control in those areas as well? There's too many to mention that we all take for granted.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well suicide shouldn't be illegal. If I decide to end my life what business is it of the governments.
Thank you. I have no idea why people seem to think the government owns their life.
I find it funny that it's even considered illegal. Who are they going to arrest, your corpse?
no, the doctor who helps.
There are areas that, I believe, government intervention is necessary. A good example would be the FDA. Obviously I argee that we need tro have saefty standards set for the food we buy and eat. As individuals we really don't have the power to control the industry so we need someone with more authority to do so, that is when government comes in. As for smoking bans we do have the power to make changes their as individuals. That is how I make the distiction.
In L.A., there is a bar called Tiki Ti, and since all of the employees are owners, having a smoke there is a-ok
But, smokers require, on average, much more healthcare when they get old, and the government often foots the bill with our tax dollars, so, yes, it is everyone's business!