Do you think smokers are being discriminated against?

[bluespoke]

But again I go back to my point - if passive smoking gives people cancer and it was a medical fact - then it would have been outlawed by now . There would be huge law suits going on , infact anyone who smokes in a public place could then be charged with manslaughter or culpible homicide.

Think about it if passive smoking was that dangerous then why has all goverments in the world not made tobacco a killer drug that is banned . then the analogy about throwing anthrax spores around a restaurant would hold water.

Alcohol kills - not outlawed - just labelled.

Fatty foods kill - not outlawed - just labelled.

Smoking kills - not outlawed - just labelled.

Government doesn't ban smoking nor does it do much about passive smoking because of the billions they make from taxation.

Just because something is medically proven does not mean that the government will ban it.

Any wasn't the issue here about freedom. The freedom of the smokers to smoke if they so wish. And the freedom of non-smokers not o have to inhale second hand smoke.

I have friends who smoke but none of them would dream of smoking where there is food being prepared, served and eaten.

 

[celiaKitten]

This is a ridiculous argument. Obviously bars and restaurants that serve alchohol can be held liable if one of their patrons kills someone on the way home from their establishment.

Do you really know so little about how our laws really work? The establishment isn't held liable, unless you're talking about a family suing it, and even then they often lose. Drunk drivers get off with 5 years in prison, often.

[quoteSomeone's drink isn't going to leap out of it's glass and force its way down my gullet. Smoking is offensive because everyone in the place has to smell it and breathe it. This is analogous to someone forcing your head into their ass and making you smell their farts all evening. [/QUOTE]

You completely miss the parallel. No, the drink isn't going to leap out at you. But, that drunk driver is on the road, endangering everyone in his/her path.

And if you're talking about health hazards - that's fine - that is a legitamate reason to infringe .. but just because you don't like the smell of something? I'm with Risia .. there are plenty things I don't like the smell of .. that alone isn't a reason. So shove that argument if you care to be taken at all seriously.

 

[christo]

Unclebill--

So, in your mind, perjury is perfectly fine, honorable even, because the people who are listening the the testimony have also, in your mind, committed perjury. But, if you think lying under oath is "almost honorable", what the big deal about judges or members of Congress lying? According to your logic, lying is fine, so why hold them up to a higher standard? They swear an oath to tell the truth the same as a witness in open court.

If a tobacco executive lies under oath about the fact that he KNOWS his product kills people, that's perfectly OK. How about Timothy McVeigh, if he lied about the Oklahoma City bombing during his trial, he's doing a good thing? How about a 9/11 terrorist who is put on trial in federal court? If he lies through hie teeth, by your logic he's "almost honorable." Do you draw the line somewhere, and if you do, where do you draw it? Because tobacco executives lied about their product killing tens of thousands of people, and that's some pretty serious accusations.

But what if he's testifying before those Congressmen and judges whose hearts are pure, in your mind? You do say that there are a "few exceptions" to your blanket condemnation. Who are they? Do you know all of them? Can you tell who they are by looking at them? What if the tobacco execs only testified before them?

I guess you were President Clinton's biggest supporter during his impeachment trial. He obviously perjured himself, but because he was giving testimony to Congress. He was in fact an American patriot, skillfully parsing the meaning of the word "is" while denying that he got a blowjob in the White House.

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

No. Of course not. Smokers stink like shit. If they want to smoke, stay home and smoke. No bus boy or waiter wants to have to breathe that shit 40 hours per week.

Oh, and the taxes need to be raised on tobacco products ... I'd say about $2.50 more on a package of cigarettes.

Aftershave and perfume stink too. They can also affect migraine sufferers and asthmatics. They can stink up bars and restaurants and cabs and buses and trains and planes and offices just as badly as a smoker. And a lot of people find it just as foul.

Can we ban them too?

 

[celiaKitten]

Aftershave and perfume stink too. They can also affect migraine sufferers and asthmatics. They can stink up bars and restaurants and cabs and buses and trains and planes and offices just as badly as a smoker. And a lot of people find it just as foul.

Can we ban them too?

This is a good point. My mother is allergic to many perfumes. She'll get migranes, stuffed sinuses and even severely nauseated if someone has gone really strong on the scents. Happens a lot when we're in public, too.

 

[candlelight]

Yes they are and I don't care.

 

[Gord]

The whole thing about this is common sense and good manners.

I would never dream of smoking at someone elses house unless it was obvious they didnt mind.

I will gladly sit in a no smoking restaurant- though I would prefer to have a cigg after dinner - I can always pop out .

In the UK most pubs are smoking and anyone who has big anti smoking thoughts - well maybe it is best not to go.

What I hate is being dictated to - if I am in a restaurant that allows smoking - my friends at the table are all cool about it , but you still get tutted at by some other table - it does make me mad , if you have that much of a problem , then dont go to a smoking establishment

You think the UK is bad - go to France there smoking is the norm. And hey where does 50% of tobacco come from - the US of course -

Live and let live I say - with common sense and understanding.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

Do you really know so little about how our laws really work? The establishment isn't held liable, unless you're talking about a family suing it, and even then they often lose. Drunk drivers get off with 5 years in prison, often.

Was that an attempt at humour? You must have been joking, right? What else could I possibly have meant by the bar being held liable? Civilly liable! As to drunk drivers (I assume you mean drunk drivers who kill someone) getting only five years, I said nothing that disputed that.

You completely miss the parallel. No, the drink isn't going to leap out at you. But, that drunk driver is on the road, endangering everyone in his/her path.

I didn't miss anything. There was no parallel. There was no relevant relationship between the drunk drivers and banning smoking in public places. Drunk driving is a very real criminal and public health issue. I believe that people who drive while impaired should be crucified. However, it is not prerequisite to solve that problem before the completely unrelated public nuisance/ health issue of nicotine addicts spewing their foul cancerous filth into air and forcing everyone to breathe can be addressed. That argument smacks of post hoc reasoning.

 

[Captain Howdy]

well the bar owners are pissed in Pueblo Co. an are already trying to over turn the ban. they only need like 33,000 signatures of reg. voters. (just a lil update, an it fits this thread)

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

Are the bar owners in Pueblo offerning any free Pamphlets on the subject?

 

[Guest]

I am angry cause I have to smoke it helps me to control the shaking for my condition if I could I would stop
I have parkinson diease

 

[Touch1]

I used to play on a steel tip dart team. I loved the competition and friends. But I would cough for two days after being in a bar or tavern. So I've given up darts. And so much for dancing, as there aren't that many no smoking places to go dance, or listen to jazz or almost any other form of live music. So we all have to give up some things. Smokers have a choice on were and when to smoke. Breathers don't have a choice about breathing.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by christo
Unclebill--

So, in your mind, perjury is perfectly fine, honorable even, because the people who are listening the the testimony have also, in your mind, committed perjury. But, if you think lying under oath is "almost honorable", what the big deal about judges or members of Congress lying? According to your logic, lying is fine, so why hold them up to a higher standard? They swear an oath to tell the truth the same as a witness in open court.

If a tobacco executive lies under oath about the fact that he KNOWS his product kills people, that's perfectly OK. How about Timothy McVeigh, if he lied about the Oklahoma City bombing during his trial, he's doing a good thing? How about a 9/11 terrorist who is put on trial in federal court? If he lies through hie teeth, by your logic he's "almost honorable." Do you draw the line somewhere, and if you do, where do you draw it? Because tobacco executives lied about their product killing tens of thousands of people, and that's some pretty serious accusations.

But what if he's testifying before those Congressmen and judges whose hearts are pure, in your mind? You do say that there are a "few exceptions" to your blanket condemnation. Who are they? Do you know all of them? Can you tell who they are by looking at them? What if the tobacco execs only testified before them?

I guess you were President Clinton's biggest supporter during his impeachment trial. He obviously perjured himself, but because he was giving testimony to Congress. He was in fact an American patriot, skillfully parsing the meaning of the word "is" while denying that he got a blowjob in the White House.

If you read my post, I clearly stated that honesty is owed to those who value and respect it. It is blatantly obvious that Congress at large has no respect for honesty, honor or integrity. Had they, they would honor their oath of office collectively.

Thus, having no valuation or respect for honesty, honor or integrity, they are not due any significant respect. Likewise, it is not within their authority to monitor, regulate or control any business venture. If you think it is, please cite for me the Constitutional basis for your opinion as the Constitution is the source of their just powers.

Part of the concept of integrity among Congressmen means they would never be holding hearings and investigations. They are a legislative body, not an executive (enforcement) one. Thus, investigation is not within their purview.

Conversely, since a court's purpose is to seek the truth, absolute honesty is mandated there. This is the venue in which Clinton committed the crime of perjury.

I must admire the pretzel logic you concocted though, to somehow paint me as a potential Clinton supporter. If you read a few more of my older posts (and there really aren't all that many), you'd see how very foolish such a notion is. I guess its a flaw of my consistency.

Originally posted by Cuckolded_BlK_Male
Was that an attempt at humour? You must have been joking, right? What else could I possibly have meant by the bar being held liable? Civilly liable! As to drunk drivers (I assume you mean drunk drivers who kill someone) getting only five years, I said nothing that disputed that...

This is part of what I find so offensive of the mindless collectivist rhetoric. They perpetually advocate holding an innocent person accountable for the misdeeds of someone else.

This is so morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt it is sickening. Yet this is still a primary item on the collectivist agenda, blame the innocent and punish them for the misdeeds of others.

There is no rational, sane, intelligent reason one can offer for holding one man responsible for another's actions. Yet the collectivists do it with impunity and this is just one classic example.

 

[liljammer]

love the flag

Are the bar owners in Pueblo offerning any free Pamphlets on the subject?

lest we for get who it was who defeated
the evil,it still exists so get your facts str8