in huge quantities this is true, and in asthmatics heavy perfume can cause an attack. However ONE cigarette causes damages and while a couple of people may be wearing cologne in a restaurant, if it is a smoking establishment, the smoke will hang heavy.

No, you're wrong. For many, just being around someone with perfume or cologne can be every bit as bad as being around a smoker can for you. Often, just the severe headaches they can cause can be disruptive enough to ruin a meal.

in huge quantities this is true, and in asthmatics heavy perfume can cause an attack. However ONE cigarette causes damages and while a couple of people may be wearing cologne in a restaurant, if it is a smoking establishment, the smoke will hang heavy.

Also, smoke eaters and air curtains can make the smell and the harmful effects pretty much null and void.

Just not willing to find the easy solution, huh? What's wrong with the things I proposed?

 

 

Aren't laws always changing? We know that second hand smoke kills people. We know someone who wants to smoke can walk outside. Smokers know they are hurting and possibly killing people by not walking outside yet they continue to do it. Why shouldn't the government step in? I hate the idea of big government, but to me this is crazy.

Also, smoke eaters and air curtains can make the smell and the harmful effects pretty much null and void.

 

You must not go to a lot of bars with smoke eaters.

If you own a bar/restaurant are you legally allowed serving rat poison in your food? It's your choice right? Who should get to tell you what rules and laws you want to follow.

This is the worst "argument" I've seen yet. :lol:

You must not go to a lot of bars with smoke eaters.

My choice, as is yours.

 

Air curtains do a heck of a job.

Weak, weak, weak!

 

The owners of businesses are already required to follow many laws that are in the best interest of the general public that they serve and the employees who work in those businesses. Smoking bans across the nation are becoming law of the land due to the know and proven health hazards of breathing second hand smoke!

 

Strange, but I have never met a smoker who hopes their child smokes one day or demands that his child be allowed to smoke in their classroom or that the teacher in their child's classroom, should be allowed to smoke while teaching their child.

 

Funny but why is RTS and his band of business owners not fighting to allow teachers to smoke in the classroom, don't they have rights too, I mean if it's not a health concern why not?

If I can open up a place RTS can move out of his/her neighborhood.

 

Apples to oranges. If RTS didn't already live in said neighborhood then then it's more comparable. He then has the choice of whether or not to buy in that neighborhood.

This is the worst "argument" I've seen yet. :lol:

 

I think it was just as bad and extreme as your purfume argument. It was a dumb extreme example. I noticed you haven't said a word about the drinking and driving and about theoldguy saying they have to other laws. Don't laws change when information is gathered that something could harm the public? Should no laws ever be added or changed?

Aren't laws always changing? We know that second hand smoke kills people. We know someone who wants to smoke can walk outside. Smokers know they are hurting and possibly killing people by not walking outside yet they continue to do it. Why shouldn't the government step in? I hate the idea of big government, but to me this is crazy.

We know there are studies that say it kills people. We also know there are studies that say the opposite or that the data is incomplete. We also know that studies are constantly changing. We also know that people well in to their eighties have been exposed to second hand smoke for the vast majority of their lives with no ill effect.

Funny but why is RTS and his band of business owners not fighting to allow teachers to smoke in the classroom, don't they have rights too, I mean if it's not a health concern why not?

 

Can we please stop with the ridiculous comparisons. Do the kids have a choice to be in the room?

... People that overeat, don't exercise, drink alcohol are examples of things that increase insurance costs. Should we ban buffets? How about alcohol? Should we make it mandatory that everyone gets a select amount of exercise daily? Where do people draw the line? ...

New York City is attempting to ban salt from the tables of restaurants. San Francisco is banning Happy Meals at McDonalds. Do you believe a line exists now? That ship has sailed. It's just a matter of how far it we let it go before we sink it.

xxxx

I think it was just as bad and extreme as your purfume argument. It was a dumb extreme example. I noticed you haven't said a word about the drinking and driving and about theoldguy saying they have to other laws. Don't laws change when information is gathered that something could harm the public?

:lol: How in the world can you compare the two. It's a fact that people are allergic to perfume and cologne and that it cause them problems. We also know that rat poison will you, immediately. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

 

I think woodsrider explained the drinking example quite well. I'm getting ready to address theoldguy's post.

We know there are studies that say it kills people. We also know there are studies that say the opposite or that the data is incomplete. We also know that studies are constantly changing. We also know that people well in to their eighties have been exposed to second hand smoke for the vast majority of their lives with no ill effect.

 

In my younger days I was drunk and chose to drive on occasion. I didn't hurt or kill anyone. Maybe I should go back to putting people in danger. If this law passes and it should the smokers can walk outside pretty easily without potentially harming anyone else. Show me 80 year olds that survived second hand smoke and I can show you some 40 year olds that didn't.