Clean Air or Banning Smoking

[AcesFull]

Spitting is also a legal activity. Should I be able to go around and force my saliva on them like secondhand smoke is forced on me?

Over the past five years, I have eaten out frequently (probably 3 to 5 times a week and I recall very, very few instances where I have ever been bothered by second hand smoke. In the few cases where it was a problem, I simply have not returned to the restaurant.

 

An occasional whiff of second hand smoke is not going to kill anybody. (If there are people who are actually severely allergic to second hand smoke, then they are at risk just walking down the sidewalk without a respiratory filter or oxygen tank.)

 

I agree that smoking is a stupid, nasty habit, but getting a whiff of second hand smoke is not analogous to having somebody spit in your face.

 

One of the BGP resident lawyers may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that forcing your saliva on somebody else would be a legal activity. Depending on how you committed such as act, my guess is that you would be guilty of some sort of assault or battery.

 

If you walk into a business in which you know that smoking is allowed, then those smokers are not forcing you to breathe second hand smoke. You make that decision when you walk through the door. If you feel so strongly about second hand smoke, call ahead to make sure that the air is clear before patronizing a restaurant. Otherwise, drive through or stick with restaurants that offer curbside service. You have no constitutional right to breathing smoke free air on private property nor should you have.

[Run To State]

So an activity that can cause cancer (secondhand smoke) is okay as long as it is legal to do it.

It would likely take a lot more exposure to secondhand smoke then you'd get in a lifetime of going to restaurants for you to get cancer. If you're that worried about it though, the solution is simple, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. You have a choice, as it should be.

[Theoldguy]

Spitting is also a legal activity. Should I be able to go around and force my saliva on them like secondhand smoke is forced on me?

 

Spitting on a city street is not a legal activity in some cities around the world and for good reason.

[RowdyRedRam]

How did smokers cause themselves to be regulated? By doing what is legal? Or was it upsetting the nannies by doing what was legal?

By imposing their smoke, which is harmful and odious, upon you. Regulations occur because people have chosen not to act responsible in relation to other. Were it not a problem then the regulations would never occur. There are hundreds of things that are legal, but laws restrict and prohibit there action in public for health, safety, and decency reasons.

[Run To State]

By imposing their smoke, which is harmful and odious, upon you. Regulations occur because people have chosen not to act responsible in relation to other. Were it not a problem then the regulations would never occur. There are hundreds of things that are legal, but laws restrict and prohibit there action in public for health, safety, and decency reasons.

They don't "impose" their smoke on you unless they're walking up to you and blowing it in your face. This is totally absurd, they're smoking (a legal activity) in a restaurant that allows smoking (a legal activity) and you want to claim that they're being irresponsible and infringing on you somehow. This is the sort of thing people are talking about when they mention the nannies.

[coldweatherfan]

Why is that so many want to avoid the question, and come out and say they want to ban cigarettes?

[ladiesbballcoach]

Why is that so many want to avoid the question, and come out and say they want to ban cigarettes?

 

Many have answered the question, many times, but the answer does not seem to be what you want, so you ignore it.

 

I answered clean air and you replied to my post by asking the question again.

 

Let me be sure you know my answer.

 

CLEAN AIR

[Jim Schue]

Many have answered the question, many times, but the answer does not seem to be what you want, so you ignore it.

 

I answered clean air and you replied to my post by asking the question again.

 

Let me be sure you know my answer.

 

CLEAN AIR

 

Then for you and those who say "clean air" it begs the next question: Are you willing to shut down all industrial activity in this country? Oh, and gas-burning engines? Because that stuff's harming the air a lot more than smokers.

[coldweatherfan]

Many have answered the question, many times, but the answer does not seem to be what you want, so you ignore it.

 

I answered clean air and you replied to my post by asking the question again.

 

Let me be sure you know my answer.

 

CLEAN AIR

 

I would have to disagree. Most are not answering the question. Most are talking around the question, several are just bashing smokers. If I miss read yours I apologize.

 

There is no answer that I want. I'm just looking for answers.

 

IMO the national anti smoking people's goal is to ban smoking (a legal activity). They do it under the guise of clean air. The end result is clean air but at the infringements of the rights of the business owners and the smokers. Like I have said I do not smoke. I like being able to go to a clean air environment.

 

The reason I limited my range was to restaurants is I feel it is very doable. Unfortunately no one at the national level, and apparently at the local level is willing to discuss it.

[Run To State]

Then for you and those who say "clean air" it begs the next question: Are you willing to shut down all industrial activity in this country? Oh, and gas-burning engines? Because that stuff's harming the air a lot more than smokers.

:thumb:

[Run To State]

I would have to disagree. Most are not answering the question. Most are talking around the question, several are just bashing smokers. If I miss read yours I apologize.

 

There is no answer that I want. I'm just looking for answers.

 

IMO the national anti smoking people's goal is to ban smoking (a legal activity). They do it under the guise of clean air. The end result is clean air but at the infringements of the rights of the business owners and the smokers. Like I have said I do not smoke. I like being able to go to a clean air environment.

 

The reason I limited my range was to restaurants is I feel it is very doable. Unfortunately no one at the national level, and apparently at the local level is willing to discuss it.

The reason most won't answer is they don't want to admit the truth IMO. That they just want it their way only.

[Theoldguy]

I would have to disagree. Most are not answering the question. Most are talking around the question, several are just bashing smokers. If I miss read yours I apologize.

 

There is no answer that I want. I'm just looking for answers.

 

IMO the national anti smoking people's goal is to ban smoking (a legal activity). They do it under the guise of clean air. The end result is clean air but at the infringements of the rights of the business owners and the smokers. Like I have said I do not smoke. I like being able to go to a clean air environment.

 

The reason I limited my range was to restaurants is I feel it is very doable. Unfortunately no one at the national level, and apparently at the local level is willing to discuss it.

 

 

I too voted clean air!

Clean air is my choice and an environment where I don't have to come home smelling like I have smoked four packs of cigarettes or having my throat raw from having to breathe the smoke of those who could care less that they are bothering others.

[ladiesbballcoach]

To make the air clean for those that are allergic to smoking and help prevent those that are smoking from making those who are allergic to smoking sick. Both sides should be able to go out and enjoy a meal without either getting sick.

 

Not sure how you misread my post unless, again, you weren't getting the answer you wanted and so chose to overlook it.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Then for you and those who say "clean air" it begs the next question: Are you willing to shut down all industrial activity in this country? Oh, and gas-burning engines? Because that stuff's harming the air a lot more than smokers.

 

There is a difference in an activity that adds a positive to the economy compared to smoking which does not AS IT RELATES to smoking in a restaurant.

[Run To State]

To make the air clean for those that are allergic to smoking and help prevent those that are smoking from making those who are allergic to smoking sick. Both sides should be able to go out and enjoy a meal without either getting sick.

Agreed, that's why I say leave it up to the owner/operator, that way both have a choice.