State Wide Smoking Ban Proposed

[ladiesbballcoach]

So drinking should be illegal too, right? It definitely can be harmful to the one drinking as well as others.

 

Your drinking next to a person does not make them sick.

Your smoking standing next to a person who is allergic to smoke does make them sick.

Big difference.

[ladiesbballcoach]

You're right, law's change. If smoking is made illegal, I'd have no problem with restaurants being smoke free. If smoking is still legal, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell me I'm not allowed to allow it on my private property.

 

Your argument makes no sense especially when YOU bringing drinking into it.

 

Drinking is legal.

Can you legally drink anywhere you want?

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

There are places that it is illegal to drink probably for health and safety issues.

 

No difference than the smoking issue here.

[UKMustangFan]

Your drinking next to a person does not make them sick.

Your smoking standing next to a person who is allergic to smoke does make them sick.

Big difference.

 

Some people are allergic to peanut buttter. Should it be illegal for me to eat a reese cup next to someone with a peanut allergy? I guess we need to ban peanuts now too.

[UKMustangFan]

Your argument makes no sense especially when YOU bringing drinking into it.

 

Drinking is legal.

Can you legally drink anywhere you want?

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

There are places that it is illegal to drink probably for health and safety issues.

 

No difference than the smoking issue here.

 

May want to look again. That was in response to a poster that said smoking should be made illegal because it can harm others. He did not specify that it should only be illegal in certain areas.

[ladiesbballcoach]

May want to look again. That was in response to a poster that said smoking should be made illegal because it can harm others. He did not specify that it should only be illegal in certain areas.

 

Okay but it is to YOUR point that smoking is illegal so you shouldn't be allowed to make it illegal in certain places.

The exact thing that is done with alcohol. You can't drink while driving, in certain places, etc, etc, etc.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Some people are allergic to peanut buttter. Should it be illegal for me to eat a reese cup next to someone with a peanut allergy? I guess we need to ban peanuts now too.

 

My understanding is that the fumes from a reese cup wouldn't make the person sick. And the fumes are not going to last for a long period of time.

[UKMustangFan]

Okay but it is to YOUR point that smoking is illegal so you shouldn't be allowed to make it illegal in certain places.

The exact thing that is done with alcohol. You can't drink while driving, in certain places, etc, etc, etc.

 

I was responding to his post that smoking should be illegal. I have to take him at his word that he thinks smoking should be illegal. Since he didn't specify I have to assume he's talking about everywhere.

[UKMustangFan]

My understanding is that the fumes from a reese cup wouldn't make the person sick. And the fumes are not going to last for a long period of time.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. One of my good friends is deathly allergic to peanuts. She can't be anywhere near anything with peanuts in it, or she gets rashes, has trouble breathing and even needs to carry an eppy (sp?) pen at all times, just in case.

 

So based on your arguement, they shouldn't be allowed to serve anything with peanuts in it at restaurants, correct?

[malachicrunch]

Okay but it is to YOUR point that smoking is illegal so you shouldn't be allowed to make it illegal in certain places.

The exact thing that is done with alcohol. You can't drink while driving, in certain places, etc, etc, etc.

 

Has nothing to do with alcohol. It's illegal to drink anything in your car...

[SSC]

You're right, law's change. If smoking is made illegal, I'd have no problem with restaurants being smoke free. If smoking is still legal, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell me I'm not allowed to allow it on my private property.

 

They tell you a million things you're allowed to do on your private property, especially if it's a business that is open to the public.

[HammerTime]

You couldn't be more wrong. One of my good friends is deathly allergic to peanuts. She can't be anywhere near anything with peanuts in it, or she gets rashes, has trouble breathing and even needs to carry an eppy (sp?) pen at all times, just in case.

 

So based on your arguement, they shouldn't be allowed to serve anything with peanuts in it at restaurants, correct?

 

And she wouldn't intentionally go to a place where peanuts were all the time just like someone who is allergic to smoke probably should find a smoke free bar or restaurant.

[coldweatherfan]

Used to be allowed.

 

And hopefully, both smokers and nonsmokers will have the FULL choice of where they choose to go eat. Both will now be able to go out and eat at any restaurant they choose without health consequences.

 

And the business owner will lose his right to cater his business to his customer base.

[coldweatherfan]

Your argument makes no sense especially when YOU bringing drinking into it.

 

Drinking is legal.

Can you legally drink anywhere you want?

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

There are places that it is illegal to drink probably for health and safety issues.

 

No difference than the smoking issue here.

 

I can drink in a restaurant or bar that has a license and serves alcohal. I can drink on most private property with their permission. I can give permission to someone of legal age permission to drink on my private property. I should also be able to give or deny permission to smoke in my establishment or on my private property, based on how I think it will affect me and my business. If someone doesn't like that I allow or deny smoking they don't have to come in. No one is being forced to come into an unsafe environment, they choose to or not to.

 

This has never been a smoker vs nonsmoker issue to me, it has always been one group (nonsmokers) trying to exert their will over another group (business owners).

[woodsrider]

The bolded is the ironic part of one side of the argument.

 

How dare you ask us to give up our freedom to go to a restaurant and smoke but we will easily ask you to do the same.

 

Smoke free restaurants does NOTHING to prevent smokers from going to a restaurant and eating a meal.

But the opposite is not true. Smoke DOES PREVENT non-smokers who are allergic to it from going to a restaurant and eat.

 

One side's position DOES infringe on the other's ability to go out to eat.

The other side's position DOES NOT infringe on the other's ability to go out to eat.

Again, it's not about your freedom or the smoker's freedom. The only freedom being taken away is the restaurant owner's freedom, period. Your freedom does not out weigh his/hers. As a matter of fact your freedom shouldn't even enter into this equation. You do not have the right or freedom to come into my restaurant. I allow you to do so under my terms. If it is against your religon to wear shoes should I be forced to allow you in my restaurant where my policy is no shoes no service?

[UKMustangFan]

And she wouldn't intentionally go to a place where peanuts were all the time just like someone who is allergic to smoke probably should find a smoke free bar or restaurant.

 

Exactly.