Clean Air or Banning Smoking

[ladiesbballcoach]

So as long as I give you money you don't care if your rights are violated?

 

No, I do care and don't believe I said that.

And thus, the reason why I am taking the position I am. I think it is a right for a person to be able to enjoy the good things that our society offers without having to sacrifice their health to do so.

 

That is EXACTLY what is being asked of a non-smoker who has allergic reactions to smoke.

 

The smoker is being asked to give up nothing but a side action of going out to eat.

[ladiesbballcoach]

OK, I'll bite. Chasing away a steady customer base is bad for businesses. Beer and cigarettes and coffee and cigarettes go hand-in-hand.

 

And let's not kid ourselves. Those behind the smoking bans would absolutely love to take their causes to the next level.

 

I can't speak for those behind the smoking bans.

 

I am only looking at it from a perspective that my wife and child gets sick when they are around someone smoking.

 

And a smoker "gets healthier" when around someone where they cannot smoke.

 

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible thing. One gets sick, one gets healthier.:sssh:

[Run To State]

Tell that to the many times, I have been around smokers, who simply have ignored the non-smoking sections and lit up at the expense of others health.

 

When is the last time that a non-smoker did not smoke and you either became sick from it or was not able to enjoy where you were because of a non-smoker NOT smoking?

If someone is a jerk, report it to the manager and problem solved. This simply is not a reason to make ALL restaurants smoke free IMO.

[Run To State]

I can't speak for those behind the smoking bans.

 

I am only looking at it from a perspective that my wife and child gets sick when they are around someone smoking.

 

And a smoker "gets healthier" when around someone where they cannot smoke.

 

Yeah, that sounds like a horrible thing. One gets sick, one gets healthier.:sssh:

I know a lot of smokers that are healthy as any non smokers. I've also seen a lot of my dad's non smoking friends die as he continues smoking away as he has for the last 60+ years, he's 78 now.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Again this is a simple concept.

 

The smoker's actions has a direct consequence on another person.

The non-smoker's actions of not smoking has no direct consequence on another person.

 

When a person's actions interferes with a person's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society, that action needs to be addressed.

 

The non-smoker's actions interferes in no way with the smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

The smoker's actions directly interfere with the non-smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

 

Simple concept.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I know a lot of smokers that are healthy as any non smokers. I've also seen a lot of my dad's non smoking friends die as he continues smoking away as he has for the last 60+ years, he's 78 now.

 

And it is medically proven in just minutes that a smoker quits smoking, their body begins to get healtier.

[Jim Schue]

Again this is a simple concept.

 

The smoker's actions has a direct consequence on another person.

The non-smoker's actions of not smoking has no direct consequence on another person.

 

When a person's actions interferes with a person's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society, that action needs to be addressed.

 

The non-smoker's actions interferes in no way with the smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

The smoker's actions directly interfere with the non-smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

 

Simple concept.

 

Maybe we should tell the tee-totallers within the religious community to quiet their act. Their actions toward pursuing and/or preserving blue laws interfere with my ability to enjoy the benefits of society, such as having a beer at a diner in a dry town or county.

[AcesFull]

Who says anything about pumping in the street. They could just pump if over the hill ON THEIR PROPERTY. That is not legal in this country.

 

Seems like a pretty simple concept to me and what non-smokers have been told for awhile now.

 

If you are upset about not smokers not being allowed to smoke, than don't go to restaurants and eat out. Let the restaurants suffer and they will make enough noise to have the law changed back.

 

That let the market speak works both ways.

As others who share my opinion, my concern is not so much for smokers' rights as it is for the rights of private property owners. I am not the one seeking to dictate how somebody else uses their own property and runs a business that they own. I find the growing disregard for property rights in this country frightening.

 

Back to your ridiculous analogy - you asked if it was okay with me for a business to "dump their sewage anywhere." Now you have changed the parameters of your analogy to "ON THEIR PROPERTY."

 

Whichever version of your analogy that you wish to use, my reply is the same. The effects of dumping raw sewage, whether on one's own property or into a city street is the same. Such an act has a detrmiental effect well beyond the business's own property because sewage flows downhill and it works its way into public waterways and/or into groundwater.

 

I would have expected one who argues so passionately for the rights of the unborn to have more regard for personal property rights. All of our freedoms are precious to me and once we start infringing upon other people's liberty, then it is just a matter of time that we lose one of our own rights that we treasure

[ladiesbballcoach]

As others who share my opinion, my concern is not so much for smokers' rights as it is for the rights of private property owners. I am not the one seeking to dictate how somebody else uses their own property and runs a business that they own. I find the growing disregard for property rights in this country frightening.

 

Back to your ridiculous analogy - you asked if it was okay with me for a business to "dump their sewage anywhere." Now you have changed the parameters of your analogy to "ON THEIR PROPERTY."

 

Whichever version of your analogy that you wish to use, my reply is the same. The effects of dumping raw sewage, whether on one's own property or into a city street is the same. Such an act has a detrmiental effect well beyond the business's own property because sewage flows downhill and it works its way into public waterways and/or into groundwater.

 

I would have expected one who argues so passionately for the rights of the unborn to have more regard for personal property rights. All of our freedoms are precious to me and once we start infringing upon other people's liberty, then it is just a matter of time that we lose one of our own rights that we treasure

 

Isn't it interesting that your belief in this ends with someone wanting to enjoy the benefits of society and protecting their lungs.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Maybe we should tell the tee-totallers within the religious community to quiet their act. Their actions toward pursuing and/or preserving blue laws interfere with my ability to enjoy the benefits of society, such as having a beer at a diner in a dry town or county.

 

Smoking and a person's expressing their freedom of speech right is two different things.

 

Now if those religious tee-totallers were going around spraying holy water on you, I would say that is too far and they are interfering with your right.

[Run To State]

And it is medically proven in just minutes that a smoker quits smoking, their body begins to get healtier.

Takes quite a few years and depends on how long and how much you smoke.

[Run To State]

Again this is a simple concept.

 

The smoker's actions has a direct consequence on another person.

The non-smoker's actions of not smoking has no direct consequence on another person.

 

When a person's actions interferes with a person's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society, that action needs to be addressed.

 

The non-smoker's actions interferes in no way with the smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

The smoker's actions directly interfere with the non-smoker's ability to enjoy the benefits of our society in eating out.

 

Simple concept.

The ONLY simple concept is, if you don't like smoke, go to a non smoking restaurant and leave others be. Not only a simple concept, but a noble one at that.

[ladiesbballcoach]

As others who share my opinion, my concern is not so much for smokers' rights as it is for the rights of private property owners. I am not the one seeking to dictate how somebody else uses their own property and runs a business that they own. I find the growing disregard for property rights in this country frightening.

 

Back to your ridiculous analogy - you asked if it was okay with me for a business to "dump their sewage anywhere." Now you have changed the parameters of your analogy to "ON THEIR PROPERTY."

 

Whichever version of your analogy that you wish to use, my reply is the same. The effects of dumping raw sewage, whether on one's own property or into a city street is the same. Such an act has a detrmiental effect well beyond the business's own property because sewage flows downhill and it works its way into public waterways and/or into groundwater.

 

I would have expected one who argues so passionately for the rights of the unborn to have more regard for personal property rights. All of our freedoms are precious to me and once we start infringing upon other people's liberty, then it is just a matter of time that we lose one of our own rights that we treasure

 

The effects of secondhand smoke whether on one's own property or into a city air is the same. Such an act has a detrmiental effect well beyond the business's own property because secondhand smokes works its way into public air and/or into other's lungs.

 

Good bolded statement with a good argument. I have changed a few of the nouns and phrasing around to make a similar argument.:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

The ONLY simple concept is, if you don't like smoke, go to a non smoking restaurant and leave others be. Not only a simple concept, but a noble one at that.

 

The problem is that there were no non-smoking restaurants till very, very recently. The ball got rolling and owners began to make the change themselves but the ball has not stopped rolling.

 

Many, many times in our society, the correct action was to spur the local business owners when the free market was not reacting quick enough.

 

All of the separate but equal crap in the South is a good example of that.

 

Sometimes, the government does have to lead society to where it needs to be by putting a ring in it's nose and yanking on it.

[Run To State]

The problem is that there were no non-smoking restaurants till very, very recently. The ball got rolling and owners began to make the change themselves but the ball has not stopped rolling.

 

Many, many times in our society, the correct action was to spur the local business owners when the free market was not reacting quick enough.

 

All of the separate but equal crap in the South is a good example of that.

 

Sometimes, the government does have to lead society to where it needs to be by putting a ring in it's nose and yanking on it.

One reason that the ball didn't start rolling until recently is because in the past a lot more people smoked. The owners made the change based on their right to, nothing wrong with that. That's the way it should be, not because non smokers want it all their way. You and several others on here prove the point that if you give an inch, you'll take a mile. That's a problem.

The government is in our lives enough now, we don't need more of that.