Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
SD on 15/7/2006 at 18:59
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
If enough people want or don't want a non-smoking environment then somebody can set up shop to accommodate either group. It's called the free market. My house, my rules so to speak.
But as is, in the US such rules are imposed by governments. The same governments that make more money on a pack of smokes than the company that makes them. Don't smoke anywhere well tell you not to and hand over your money. Does this make ANY sense? If smoking is sooooo dangerous then why not just ban the product?
From bemoaning the oppression of those mean old "governments" (any relation to the Internets?) to suggesting that they might as well ban the product altogether in just two paragraphs... sincerely, you are a person unable to understand the meaning of the terms "compromise" or "middle ground".
Quote:
And the "well I can't get a job anyplace else" argument is so full of shit. If you have a law degree, pierced nose and a tattoo on your face, good luck climbing to the top in that profession. Sometimes life ain't fair. Get over it. You'll be much happier in the long run.
"Low-paid bar workers shouldn't be entitled to the same health and safety rights as the rest of us, because life isn't fair" - Slyfoxx.
SlyFoxx on 15/7/2006 at 19:41
Quote:
sincerely, you are a person unable to understand the meaning of the terms "compromise" or "middle ground".
Uhhh...:confused:
Quote:
I don't have any problem with no smoking in most places of public accommodation. But I think such rules need to be imposed by the people who own such places. If enough people want or don't want a non-smoking environment then somebody can set up shop to accommodate either group. It's called the free market. My house, my rules so to speak.
SD on 15/7/2006 at 19:50
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Uhhh...:confused:
I was referring to the way you went from "People should make the rules, not the government" to "If people can't make the rules, the government might as well ban it altogether".
SlyFoxx on 15/7/2006 at 20:00
OK sorry. You misunderstood my statement as it was a rhetorical question. I DON'T think government should ban it. I just think it's odd how folks and government officials carry on about how dangerous it is. They talk like it's the most dangerous thing known to man. Well if somebody really feels that way, then they should feel bound to try and get the substance banned. That's the logical conclusion if you feel the substance is so harmful.
SD on 15/7/2006 at 20:04
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
That's the logical conclusion if you feel the substance is so harmful.
No it isn't, not if it's a dangerous substance that people want to use. The logical thing to do is
exactly what we have done at this moment in time - allow people to use it so long as they don't harm anyone but themselves.
Ghostly Apparition on 15/7/2006 at 22:04
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This is just silly. First of all second hand smoke causes inhalation of carcinogens
against your will, whilst drinking is a choice YOU make.
That was kind of my point, they bitch about people smoking and omg they might have to inhale a small part of it, all the while voluntarily drinking.
Apparently its only bad if its something I'm not doing. I drink, ergo its ok. You get the point.
SD on 15/7/2006 at 22:09
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
You get the point.
No, not really.
theBlackman on 15/7/2006 at 22:51
This last string of dissertations are like the lawsuit against KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken for you uniformed) about transfats.
If you don't like smoke, and a place or establishment allows it, STAY THE FUCK AWAY.
If you don't like transfats cooking your food, THEN DON'T EAT THE FUCKING FOOD, and so on.
Be responsible for your own choices and don't choose the government as your babysitter or mama to make all your choices for you.
It's not really complicated. If you don't like drunken brawls, then stay out of the bars.
SD on 15/7/2006 at 23:00
Quote Posted by theBlackman
If you don't like smoke, and a place or establishment allows it, STAY THE FUCK AWAY.
Nice attitude. People keep repeating this same baloney but not one of them has justified why they believe bar staff should not be entitled to the same health and safety rights as all other workers.
SubJeff on 15/7/2006 at 23:04
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Apparently its only bad if its something I'm not doing. I drink, ergo its ok. You get the point.
No, you are totally missing the point. We have, and should have, the freedom to make choices that affect our health. Inhaling secondhand smoke is outside of that choice.
tBM - it's not really fair to say that "If you don't like X, and a place or establishment X, stay away" when the vast majority of establishments of certain types allow activity X. So because I don't want to inhale someone else's smoke I shouldn't go to the pub? Don't be silly. I'd be perfectly happy if the minority of pubs allowed smoking because I could avoid those. This isn't the case though.
Quote:
If you don't like drunken brawls, then stay out of the bars.
Since bars are for socialising and drinking and not primarily for brawling (plus brawls are illegal, no?) this doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want to substitute "bars" for "druken brawl arenas" then fine. Otherwise, no.
