Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 02:58
Quote Posted by theBlackman
That the owner has the choice of what product to sell, what service to give, what rules to impose in his or her establishment.
Within the limits of the law yes.
I don't really understand what your point is anymore. You started off saying
Quote:
If you don't like smoke, and a place or establishment allows it, STAY THE FUCK AWAY.
Be responsible for your own choices and
don't choose the government as your babysitter or mama to make all your choices for you.That sounds to me like you're against any smoking ban. But in your more recent posts you don't seem to be following through with that. If you've no objection to a smoking ban we are in agreement.
theBlackman on 16/7/2006 at 03:05
I feel that the establishment owner should have the right to ban or not. Not the government who is taking responsiblity for idiots who willingly and knowingly walk into such an environment.
I don't support any ban that subverts the right of an individual to exercise his or her own judgement.
I don't smoke in my own house, by choice. I don't smoke in my own car if I have a passenger. But these are MY CHOICES.
The government, and you, have no business deciding that this establishment should X, Y, Z, for things as petty as smoking. Yes, petty because you have the choice.
An elevator, a public transportation system, a public, or office building, OK, that is within reason. But a restaurant or Bar... Stupid, as are the people who knowingly go to such places and then whine.
jprobs on 16/7/2006 at 03:09
Quote Posted by theBlackman
I feel that the establishment owner should have the right to ban or not. Not the government who is taking responsiblity for idiots who willingly and knowingly walk into such an environment.
I don't support any ban that subverts the right of an individual to exercise his or her own judgement.
I don't smoke in my own house, by choice. I don't smoke in my own car if I have a passenger. But these are MY CHOICES.
The government, and you, have no business deciding that this establishment should X, Y, Z, for things as petty as smoking. Yes, petty because you have the choice.
An elevator, a public transportation system, a public, or office building, OK, that is within reason. But a restaurant or Bar... Stupid, as are the people who knowingly go to such places and then whine.
:thumb: Well said, blackman!!!
Convict on 16/7/2006 at 03:12
Well Blackman you still haven't answered whether bar owners, as a private business, should be able to ban or allow homosexuals in their establishments.
EDIT: To clarify the above sentence I am talking about as a private enterprise whether you can choose anything that is allowed or not allowed in your bar.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 03:16
If places that allowed smoking were in the minority then I'd agree. But they aren't, so I don't.
Smoking is not "petty", it's a cause of serious health problems. You can't just say that something is "petty" because you have a choice. What sort of idiot logic is that?
If you give owners a choice the majority will allow smoking because financially it makes sense - smokers, or groups of people containing smokers, will be more likely to go to smoking establishments. Therefore a total ban is required. If there were quotas I'd be happy too, like if only 5% of bars in a given area can allow smoking. But guys like you would moan about how that's unfair etc etc.
Convict - re-read his posts. He's already mentioned banning people based on quilaty X so long as it's within the law.
jprobs on 16/7/2006 at 03:27
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
If places that allowed smoking were in the minority then I'd agree. But they aren't, so I don't.
Smoking is not "petty", it's a cause of serious health problems. You can't just say that something is "petty" because you have a choice. What sort of idiot logic is that?
If you give owners a choice the majority will allow smoking because financially it makes sense - smokers, or groups of people containing smokers, will be more likely to go to smoking establishments. Therefore a total ban is required. If there were quotas I'd be happy too, like if only 5% of bars in a given area can allow smoking. But guys like you would moan about how that's unfair etc etc.
Convict - re-read his posts. He's already mentioned banning people based on quilaty X so long as it's within the law.
No quotas... I should be allowed to let ME decide if I want to allow smoking in my "PUB"... IF you do not like it, go somewhere else... FREEDOM OF CHOICE, for you. That allows you your liberties, and me mine.
theBlackman on 16/7/2006 at 03:46
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
If you give owners a choice the majority will allow smoking because financially it makes sense - smokers, or groups of people containing smokers, will be more likely to go to smoking establishments. Therefore a total ban is required. If there were quotas I'd be happy too, like if only 5% of bars in a given area can allow smoking. But guys like you would moan about how that's unfair etc etc.
No one would moan about "unfair" except people like you. Start your own damn bar or pub if there are not enough in your area. You have no right to decide what a owner does. A total ban is ipso facto "unfair". Free choice BY THE OWNER is not.
Just as you have the free choice to START YOUR OWN with no smokers. Be real. Start being objective about the arguement.
The morals and ethics of the owners of such establishments are not your business. If they want money, and of course they do that's how they feed thier family, and say smoking allowed, it is thier moral and ethical decision. You don't have to frequent the place.
You are still trying to run the life and business of another person. You do not have that right.
Your arguements throughout have been Me, Me, Me, even couched in general terms. I say let the individual make those choices. Me to not smoke in company, or to go into a smoking establishment and SMOKE, even if non-smokers are present. They made the choice, knowing that they might encounter smoke. I am not responsible for thier choices or yours, but both of you will not accept responsibility for your own decisions.
"I can't go out and drink because of all those damn smokers". Such a bunch of petty, whining crap I've not heard in my 70 years.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 07:20
You two are clearly out of touch with reality. This isn't about running the lives of others, it's about the health of the nation.
Do either of you smoke?
theBlackman on 16/7/2006 at 07:24
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You two are clearly out of touch with reality. This isn't about running the lives of others, it's about the health of the nation.
Do either of you smoke?
I do smoke, read the EFFing posts.
As for the "health of the nation" smoking is not going to kill the nation any more than drunk driving or child molestors. Give that chestnut a rest. Be a Vegan, don't smoke, or whatever other lifestyle you want, but stop displaying your lack of true logic or education.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 07:30
Is that because smoking and passive smoking have no effects on health? Clearly they affect brains though, right? I'm thinking of yours.
