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?

:lol: I didn't know I had a "band", awesome! :banana:

 

Are you serious? Smoking is illegal under the age of 18. Teachers, like parents, are supposed to set an example. And, as pointed out, kids have no choice but to be in school.

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.

Bingo! Alas, it will never sink in.

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.

 

Salt and happy meals are far different. If I'm at a restaurant and someone at the table next to me uses salt it can't hurt me. If someone sitting next to me smokes it can hurt me. If I go to McDonalds and someone orders a Happy Meal it can't hurt me either. To compare those situations is wrong and unfair.

:lol: I didn't know I had a "band", awesome! :banana:

 

Are you serious? Smoking is illegal under the age of 18. Teachers, like parents, are supposed to set an example. And, as pointed out, kids have no choice but to be in school.

 

Some people have no choice but to work in Restaurants and Bars......

 

So why do they have to set an example in the classroom and at home but not in the Restaurant/Bar? Children do go out to eat and do go into bars!

 

Come on RTS you can do better than that!

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.

Horrible comparison, plain and simple and you know why. We've already seen on member in this forum has already complained about people smoking OUTSIDE of an establishment. It never ends with some people, they constantly want more their way.

You're right, but is there rock solid proof that those younger people that died or were harmed from second hand smoke? Other than asthmatics, that is. We know for a fact that drunk drivers kill people by their act and we know it's generally immediate. You can get lung cancer and never be around second hand smoke.

Some people have no choice but to work in Restaurants and Bars......

 

So why do they have to set an example in the classroom and at home but not in the Restaurant/Bar? Children do go out to eat and do go into bars!

 

Come on RTS you can do better than that!

I can't believe you just said that. No, they absolutely don't have to in that setting. It's the parents responsibility to keep their kids away from smokers if they're concerned about their health. We're back to the very simple choice idea again.

I know of no one that was ever forced to take a job anywhere. Work in an environment that's non-smoking already if it's that bothersome to you, simple as that.

Horrible comparison, plain and simple and you know why. We've already seen on member in this forum has already complained about people smoking OUTSIDE of an establishment. It never ends with some people, they constantly want more their way.

You're right, but is there rock solid proof that those younger people that died or were harmed from second hand smoke? Other than asthmatics, that is. We know for a fact that drunk drivers kill people by their act and we know it's generally immediate. You can get lung cancer and never be around second hand smoke.

 

I don't agree with the poster that complained about the outside smoker.

 

My point and I probably didn't get it across well enough is that bar and restaurant owners have laws to follow and some of them go into place after they started their business.

I don't agree with the poster that complained about the outside smoker.

 

My point and I probably didn't get it across well enough is that bar and restaurant owners have laws to follow and some of them go into place after they started their business.

 

You didn't get your point across because you used awful examples.

Salt and happy meals are far different. If I'm at a restaurant and someone at the table next to me uses salt it can't hurt me. If someone sitting next to me smokes it can hurt me. If I go to McDonalds and someone orders a Happy Meal it can't hurt me either. To compare those situations is wrong and unfair.

Don't eat in a restaurant that allows smoking and they can't hurt you either. There are so many choices these days of smoke free environments which is a wonderful thing. You don't need to have all of them smoke free. Why is that so hard to understand. Why be so selfish to think they all need to be smoke-free?

Was it always illegal?

 

I can't be affected by what others chose to eat in a restaurant though. End of story.

 

Lets see...You want the Government/Health Department to protect you from second hand smoke and Food poisoning in a business owners restaurant,but you don't want the Government/Health department to protect you from foods that can give you a heart attack or diabetes that is served in a business owners restaurant?

I don't agree with the poster that complained about the outside smoker.

 

My point and I probably didn't get it across well enough is that bar and restaurant owners have laws to follow and some of them go into place after they started their business.

That's fine and I understand that. But the fact remains that we don't need to make all establishments smoke-free. A ban is the wrong thing to do. There is no reason that there can't be restaurants where people can smoke just like there are restaurants that are completely smoke-free.

Lets see...You want the Government/Health Department to protect you from second hand smoke and Food poisoning in a business owners restaurant,but you don't want the Government/Health department to protect you from foods that can give you a heart attack or diabetes that is served in a business owners restaurant?

 

No. Again, I can't be hurt by someone next to me using salt.

That's fine and I understand that. But the fact remains that we don't need to make all establishments smoke-free. A ban is the wrong thing to do. There is no reason that there can't be restaurants where people can smoke just like there are restaurants that are completely smoke-free.

 

There is no reason people can't walk outside. I'm not sure where you live but close to where I live one bar/restaurant and maybe two are smoke free.

No. Again, I can't be hurt by someone next to me using salt.

 

You can't be hurt by someone smoking in a bar that you don't go in.

No. Again, I can't be hurt by someone next to me using salt.

 

But if you do eat the salt you may get high blood pressure.Everything the business owner serves has salt in it.Should the government make the business owner remove the salt to keep you safe?Or should you choose to eat somewhere else that is salt free?