I live in the City, and I hear a lot of barking dogs, and also police sirens. They sometimes keep me up at night. Maybe we should ban dogs and the use of sirens, because they are imposing their choice to make noise and interfering with my freedom to sleep noise-free. After all, when I don't get any sleep, I get headaches.

 

Also, in Bardstown, the distilleries churn their sour mash in the spring. It makes an extremely pungent smell that wafts throughout the city. It makes my 2 year-old nauseous sometimes. I think we should ban distilleries because they choose to directly make noxious odors two weeks a year and that interferes with my sons freedom to breathe sparkling clean air.

 

Now who is being fantastical?????:lol:

But if smoking isn't regulated there may not be any place you could choose to go that there isn't at least a few people smoking.

 

The smell of smoke and the way it irritates my wife and myself would be like someone sitting behind you at a restaurant and continually setting off an air horn. It is just irratating.

 

If you are addicted to cigarettes fine, then smoke them at your leisure in your home, in your car, in your yard, outdoors (but not in doorways of public places).

 

You can smoke then in a box you, can smoke them with a fox.

You can smoke then in your house, you can smoke them with a mouse.

Just don't smoke them where others have to breath in that crap if they do not want to.

 

And if smoking IS regulated, then there very well may not be a place where anyone can smoke cigarettes. In fact, some townships are even calling for laws to ban smoking in your private home. After all, you might have guests over some day!

I find public cell phone conversations annoying. Being annoyed is most likely detrimental to my health. Maybe restaurants could ban them? If not, the government should step in... Nanny State indeed.

Why do others have to limit their actions because of you?

 

Someone's actions are going to be limited. No doubt there.

 

My view is that THEIR actions is creating a health issue for other citizens.

My actions is bothering NO ONE.

 

Enfringing on them smoking means....

They could still go to the restaurant, have the meal and go home.

We have the meal and go home.

 

Enfringing on mine means....

They go to the restaurant, have the meal and go home.

We either a) go to the restaurant and have the meal and daughter goes home sick; b)live like hermits limiting our chances of going out and having a meal.

 

Either way, they STILL get the service they are buying. One way, we get the same thing they are purchasing. THe other way, we either don't get what they are purchasing or get it and can't breath the rest of the night.

Should a private business be allowed to refuse service to blacks because of the color of their skin?

 

If no, you are saying then that government has every right to make decisions for the private business owner on discrimination issues but not health issues?

 

With this statement you belie the origins of your thoughts on this issue. You have just equated invidious racial discrimination with the question of smokers vs. non-smokers. I think you need to withdraw it.

I find public cell phone conversations annoying. Being annoyed is most likely detrimental to my health. Maybe restaurants could ban them? If not, the government should step in... Nanny State indeed.

 

Being annoyed is not detrimental to your health. Being able to not breath because the cigarette smoke clogged up your sinuses is. Big difference.

 

Please do not compare your being ANNOYED to my daughter not being able to breath.

Now who is being fantastical?????:lol:

 

There is nothing at all fantastical about this. In fact, there are some locals who are trying to propose these very same rules.

With this statement you belie the origins of your thoughts on this issue. You have just equated insidious racial discrimination with the question of smokers vs. non-smokers. I think you need to withdraw it.

 

I have no clue what your first sentence means.

 

I have asked for clarification at what point does the poster think the government CAN interfere with their private choices as a business owners. Either a) he thinks that they never can which means that I counter his point one way; b) or he thinks there can be times which like the old saying is, "we are just haggling over price."

There is nothing at all fantastical about this. In fact, there are some locals who are trying to propose these very same rules.

 

I live in the general area of a plant that makes dog food out of dead cows. I know all about living in a place that stinks at times. But the thing is, it does not make my children and my wife physically sick and unable to breathe.

 

'Cigarette smoke does.

And if smoking IS regulated, then there very well may not be a place where anyone can smoke cigarettes. In fact, some townships are even calling for laws to ban smoking in your private home. After all, you might have guests over some day!

 

That is wrong and ridiculous.

Someone's actions are going to be limited. No doubt there.

 

My view is that THEIR actions is creating a health issue for other citizens.

My actions is bothering NO ONE.

 

Enfringing on them smoking means....

They could still go to the restaurant, have the meal and go home.

We have the meal and go home.

 

Enfringing on mine means....

They go to the restaurant, have the meal and go home.

We either a) go to the restaurant and have the meal and daughter goes home sick; b)live like hermits limiting our chances of going out and having a meal.

 

Either way, they STILL get the service they are buying. One way, we get the same thing they are purchasing. THe other way, we either don't get what they are purchasing or get it and can't breath the rest of the night.

There is no such thing as a RIGHT to dine out. What we often define as our "rights" is nothing more than our want of our way at the inconvienience of others. In my mind, when the interests of two parties conflict, and any law must disenfranchise one of the parties, noninterference is the better course.

I live in the general area of a plant that makes dog food out of dead cows. I know all about living in a place that stinks at times. But the thing is, it does not make my children and my wife physically sick and unable to breathe.

 

'Cigarette smoke does.

 

Sour mash makes my son sick. Should be ban the distilleries?

There is no such thing as a RIGHT to dine out. What we often define as our "rights" is nothing more than our want of our way at the inconvienience of others. In my mind, when the interests of two parties conflict, and any law must disenfranchise one of the parties, noninterference is the better course.

 

I think we have a basic human right to enjoy a normal life. Races of all kinds should have the rights the same as all others. Genders of all kinds should have the rights the same as all others. We get that protection and SHOULD get that protection.

 

When an action of someone hampers that basic human right with a HEALTH ISSUE, than I think it should be addressed.

I have no clue what your first sentence means.

 

I have asked for clarification at what point does the poster think the government CAN interfere with their private choices as a business owners. Either a) he thinks that they never can which means that I counter his point one way; b) or he thinks there can be times which like the old saying is, "we are just haggling over price."

 

There was nothing in his post to suggest that the government could never interfere with private rights.

 

However, you interjected the racial discrimination, which obviously can be regulated, since it is constitutionally protected. So my question to you is 1) do you believe the right to breathe smoke-free air is constitutionally protected and/or 2) do you believe that the question of regulating private business smoking is on par with regulating private racial discrimination?

Oh contraire, LBBC, it is a fact that stress(including annoyances) is detrimental to your health.

 

And, being someone who took weekly allergy injections and treatments for asthma for the first 16 years of my life, I feel completely free to discuss, compare and opine on the subject of breathing. Sometimes second hand smoke bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. Especially at certain times of the year when allergy/sinus problems are more prevalent. I choose whether or not to subject myself to it.