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

 

Good question and one I have not given any true thought, so I would not be able to give an adequate response.

 

I would say that if this is a common thing, like cigarette smoke allergies are, than it should be given serious consideration.

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.

 

ALL health issues, or just this one?

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?

 

He suggested that government should NOT Be interfering with his rights as a private business owners. I wanted to know how far he would take that position.

 

1) I could see a imaginative lawyer like yourself being to draw something out of the pursuit of happyness line. (like how I sucked up to you there, trying to disarm your zeal for the argument.:lol:)

 

2) No I do not see it is as the same. But I do see it as a legitimate issue to discuss.

ALL health issues, or just this one?

 

Legitimate health issues, I think the debate is "is this a legitimate health issue."

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.

 

So, you feel it is okay for someone to make you sick just for the sake of you choosing to "go to the grocery store or sitting down to have a meal with your family."

 

That it is okay for THEIR choices to interfere with your life.

No one has addressed a point I made earlier.

 

If the ban went through or not, the smokers can go out to eat. Their life is barely changed. They simply have to wait 10 minutes after their meal when they are in their car to have a cigarette.

 

Where the person allergic to smoke has to choose a) be sick; b) do not the opportunity to go out and eat at all.

 

Where is the big bad enfringement on the smokers? They have to wait 10 minutes.

No one has addressed a point I made earlier.

Where is the big bad enfringement on the smokers? They have to wait 10 minutes.

 

You make it so simple! While I was smoking, I happily would gave up smoking in restaurants and public buildings but you and I know that won't be enough. In the articles that you linked to this thread, one is a total grounds ban. There is already legislation passed or under consideration to ban all outdoor smoking, beaches, cars, all workplaces, etc.

 

It's no longer about separation of smokers/non-smokers. It's become a tool to eliminate smoking altogether.

You make it so simple! While I was smoking, I happily would gave up smoking in restaurants and public buildings but you and I know that won't be enough. In the articles that you linked to this thread, one is a total grounds ban. There is already legislation passed or under consideration to ban all outdoor smoking, beaches, cars, all workplaces, etc.

 

It's no longer about separation of smokers/non-smokers. It's become a tool to eliminate smoking altogether.

 

I think smoking in your home and in your car and on your property should never be touched.

 

And I would say that dipping and chewing tobacco should not be included in this ban.

 

If the purpose to eliminate smoking, then raise the taxes on it and make it $7.50 a pack and put a huge financial price on it with insurance costs. You hit people hard in the wallet and they would quit. THAT would do more to eliminate than any ban.

No one has addressed a point I made earlier.

 

If the ban went through or not, the smokers can go out to eat. Their life is barely changed. They simply have to wait 10 minutes after their meal when they are in their car to have a cigarette.

 

Where the person allergic to smoke has to choose a) be sick; b) do not the opportunity to go out and eat at all.

 

Where is the big bad enfringement on the smokers? They have to wait 10 minutes.

 

Well, lets go back to the prayer in schools issue, then.

 

ALLOW prayer in schools:

 

You and I go to school, you pray, study, and go home. I stay outside and don't participate while you pray, then I come in and study and go home.

 

BAN prayer in schools:

 

You and I go to school, we both study, and go home. I'm not forced to sit anything out, and you merely have to wait a few hours to pray. Noone is worse for the wear, and I have not been excluded.

 

If the purpose to eliminate smoking, then raise the taxes on it and make it $7.50 a pack and put a huge financial price on it with insurance costs. You hit people hard in the wallet and they would quit. THAT would do more to eliminate than any ban.

 

Smoking is, for most, far more than just a habit. People will continue to smoke regardless of your tax just as they pay for other drugs they can't afford. Smoking is an addiction. A strong addiction.

Well, lets go back to the prayer in schools issue, then.

 

ALLOW prayer in schools:

 

You and I go to school, you pray, study, and go home. I stay outside and don't participate while you pray, then I come in and study and go home.

 

BAN prayer in schools:

 

You and I go to school, we both study, and go home. I'm not forced to sit anything out, and you merely have to wait a few hours to pray. Noone is worse for the wear, and I have not been excluded.

 

You won't like this. I understand the prayer banning in schools and it doesn't upset me much. Forced relationship with our Lord and Savior is no relationship with our Lord and Savior.

Smoking is, for most, far more than just a habit. People will continue to smoke regardless of your tax just as they pay for other drugs they can't afford. Smoking is an addiction. A strong addiction.

 

Those that are addicted will have a tougher time. But how many will never START smoking because they cannot afford it. As the generations pass through, smoking becomes less and less.

 

Also, hit someone in their pocketbook hard enough and they will find the means to overcome the addiction.

You won't like this. I understand the prayer banning in schools and it doesn't upset me much. Forced relationship with our Lord and Savior is no relationship with our Lord and Savior.

 

Durn. Thought I had you there.

Durn. Thought I had you there.

 

Wascally Wabbit.

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?

 

Wow, talk about a massive leap in logic. My position is merely that people have choices. They can choose to frequent private businesses that allow smoking or choose not to go there.