Clean Air or Banning Smoking

[GaViking]

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:

 

This is why a have a problem with the smoking ban. Next, it will be I'm on my property but you can smell it 2 blocks away

[sweet16]

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.

 

Smokers have a choice as well. Go to restaurants that allow it or smoke outside and not while they eat.

 

the solutions is simple.

[sweet16]

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.

 

Those are exceptions to the majority. You are always going to have some like that.

[GaViking]

People don't want it to be that simple. Non smokers want it their way or no way. I have no problem going to a non-smoking restaurant. Non smokers want to control all air.

[ladiesbballcoach]

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.

 

How is that?

 

I would be against banning smoking in total. That should be a person's right to kill themselves in that manner.

 

But I shouldn't to have a lower quality of life (giving up enjoying the benefits of society) because of another person's choice.

 

Again.

Smokers can go out to eat if they choose.

Non-smokers who are allergic to cigarette smoke cannot.

[ladiesbballcoach]

This is why a have a problem with the smoking ban. Next, it will be I'm on my property but you can smell it 2 blocks away

 

 

And I would not be for that.

[ladiesbballcoach]

People don't want it to be that simple. Non smokers want it their way or no way. I have no problem going to a non-smoking restaurant. Non smokers want to control all air.

 

Not true, but hyperbole to spur up the smoking crowd and get them fired up.

[sweet16]

How is that?

 

Again.

Smokers can go out to eat if they choose.

 

That is right and they can either smoke outside or wait until they are done eating and smoke in their own car on their way home.

[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.

 

So, let me understand this correctly, you want me to be noble and limit myself on choosing a restaurant but...

 

do not call on smokers to be noble and refrain from smoking so that they don't make others sick.

 

And you guys say non-smokers are the ones that want it their way or no way.

[coldweatherfan]

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.

 

 

Smokers rights is not my issue. It's the fact that the business owner's rights are taken from them.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Smokers rights is not my issue. It's the fact that the business owner's rights are taken from them.

 

And so they were..

when they wouldn't sell to blacks.

when they wouldn't pay women the same wages for the same jobs

when they were employing children

when they put workers in unsafe conditions

when they were dumping sewage and the like into the environment

when they wouldn't do this and they wouldn't do that.

 

That is not a new concept because businesses in general are going to do what is best for their pocketbook and NOT what is best for society.

 

Would you agree that there were times in our history that it was the right thing to do to TAKE away the business owners right and push them in the direction they needed to go?

[coldweatherfan]

And so they were..

when they wouldn't sell to blacks.

when they wouldn't pay women the same wages for the same jobs

when they were employing children

when they put workers in unsafe conditions

when they were dumping sewage and the like into the environment

when they wouldn't do this and they wouldn't do that.

 

That is not a new concept because businesses in general are going to do what is best for their pocketbook and NOT what is best for society.

 

Would you agree that there were times in our history that it was the right thing to do to TAKE away the business owners right and push them in the direction they needed to go?

 

 

Apples and oranges

[ladiesbballcoach]

Apples and oranges

 

Taking away business owners' rights is apples and oranges????:confused:

 

I am not talking about smoking here, but asking you "are there times that taking away a business owner's rights is the correct thing to do?"

[Jim Schue]

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.

 

It's not when that speech is used to bully governmental bodies into action, the way the smoking ban advocates do. Both are used to motivate an imposition on others' personal liberties.

[AcesFull]

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

You have no clear, inalienable right to enjoy freedom from tobacco smoke on somebody else's property. You do have total freedom not to place yourself at risk by entering such privately owned establishments. I do not understand how people can be so dismissive of other people's property rights. Nobody is keeping you from protecting your lungs.