Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

second hand smoke kills.

name one person who has died from second hand smoke.

second hand smoke causes cancer just as it can cause cancer in the smoker himself.

you want a list of people who have died from smoking related cancers?

read

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

Okay. I'm going to try and make this simple and show you the point that we're trying to make with out resorting to insults and being condecending. that just doesn't work.

Your house is private property right? You're allowed to smoke there if you please.
A business is private property also, right? Then why is the gov't allowed to regulate smoking in there? This is the point we're tying to make. It is sole discretion of the owner of the business as to if he wants to allow smoking. If the customers don't like his desicion, they reflect that by not frequenting said business.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade
like i've said, i have a right to go to those places and have them be smoke free. remember i have a some carbon minoxide i'd like to blow into public establishments too, but.... i would be arrested wouldn't i? why? because people have the right to be there without toxic chemicals being spewed into the air.

and no, the government has no right to tell me not to smoke on my own property when i am having a party with friends, and this will never happen. so your argument there is flawed. save the "slippery slope" analogy and the impending armageddon for some other issue.

we have had this smoking ban in NY since 2003 and there has been no adverse affect on businesses as was decried. so what is your issue with it now? smokers are still going out to bars.

i take offense to you calling me selfish in my opinion of this smoking ban in bars and restaurants. one could say the selfishness has been stopped thanks to this law.

Show me from where you derive the "right" to enter private property.

You have no such right. Business are PRIVATE property. Not public. You have no "right" to do business with them. You enter their property by their invitation. If they choose to allow smoking, that is THEIR choice. YOUR choice is to not enter their business.

And I have no idea why you fear carbon monoxide so fscking much when you can't even spell it.

moshquerade, you still haven't answered his question.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

Okay. I'm going to try and make this simple and show you the point that we're trying to make with out resorting to insults and being condecending. that just doesn't work.

Your house is private property right? You're allowed to smoke there if you please.
A business is private property also, right? Then why is the gov't allowed to regulate smoking in there? This is the point we're tying to make. It is sole discretion of the owner of the business as to if he wants to allow smoking. If the customers don't like his desicion, they reflect that by not frequenting said business.

i understand that. but it doesn't change my opinion or any of the facts i have presented.
and i appreciate that you don't feel the need to be condecending.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

second hand smoke kills.

name one person who has died from second hand smoke.

second hand smoke causes cancer just as it can cause cancer in the smoker himself.

you want a list of people who have died from smoking related cancers?

read

No, name one person that you know that has died of second hand smoke.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

That, my misguided friend, is the HEIGHT of arrogance.

Arrogant:

Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

Yep, you think you know better, therefore you feel the right to force others to conform to your rules.

And the notion that second hand smoke kills is laughable at best. The EPA study was jury rigged. The majority of studies on the subject find no, or negligible increase of disease among those exposed to heavy, constant ETS. And there are NO studies that show harm from occasional light exposure.

But then, you've never fallen for hype now, have you?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade
like i've said, i have a right to go to those places and have them be smoke free. remember i have a some carbon minoxide i'd like to blow into public establishments too, but.... i would be arrested wouldn't i? why? because people have the right to be there without toxic chemicals being spewed into the air.

and no, the government has no right to tell me not to smoke on my own property when i am having a party with friends, and this will never happen. so your argument there is flawed. save the "slippery slope" analogy and the impending armageddon for some other issue.

we have had this smoking ban in NY since 2003 and there has been no adverse affect on businesses as was decried. so what is your issue with it now? smokers are still going out to bars.

i take offense to you calling me selfish in my opinion of this smoking ban in bars and restaurants. one could say the selfishness has been stopped thanks to this law.

Show me from where you derive the "right" to enter private property.

You have no such right. Business are PRIVATE property. Not public. You have no "right" to do business with them. You enter their property by their invitation. If they choose to allow smoking, that is THEIR choice. YOUR choice is to not enter their business.

And I have no idea why you fear carbon monoxide so fscking much when you can't even spell it.

moshquerade, you still haven't answered his question.

it's private property open to the public.
my home is private property that is not open to public.

therein lies the difference.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

Okay. I'm going to try and make this simple and show you the point that we're trying to make with out resorting to insults and being condecending. that just doesn't work.

Your house is private property right? You're allowed to smoke there if you please.
A business is private property also, right? Then why is the gov't allowed to regulate smoking in there? This is the point we're tying to make. It is sole discretion of the owner of the business as to if he wants to allow smoking. If the customers don't like his desicion, they reflect that by not frequenting said business.

i understand that. but it doesn't change my opinion or any of the facts i have presented.
and i appreciate that you don't feel the need to be condecending.

okay, I'm done with this topic then. Its a difference of opinion that words are not going to change. I agree to disagree with you.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

That, my misguided friend, is the HEIGHT of arrogance.

Arrogant:

Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

Yep, you think you know better, therefore you feel the right to force others to conform to your rules.

And the notion that second hand smoke kills is laughable at best. The EPA study was jury rigged. The majority of studies on the subject find no, or negligible increase of disease among those exposed to heavy, constant ETS. And there are NO studies that show harm from occasional light exposure.

But then, you've never fallen for hype now, have you?

i'm done. i don't agree with you.

cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. that is not a rigged suggestion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

second hand smoke kills.

name one person who has died from second hand smoke.

second hand smoke causes cancer just as it can cause cancer in the smoker himself.

you want a list of people who have died from smoking related cancers?

read

Mercola??? Good gawd woman, the man is a quack selling snake oil. You could have at least pulled out the infamous EPA report. At least that would have given the appearance of credibility.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

Okay. I'm going to try and make this simple and show you the point that we're trying to make with out resorting to insults and being condecending. that just doesn't work.

Your house is private property right? You're allowed to smoke there if you please.
A business is private property also, right? Then why is the gov't allowed to regulate smoking in there? This is the point we're tying to make. It is sole discretion of the owner of the business as to if he wants to allow smoking. If the customers don't like his desicion, they reflect that by not frequenting said business.

i understand that. but it doesn't change my opinion or any of the facts i have presented.
and i appreciate that you don't feel the need to be condecending.

okay, I'm done with this topic then. Its a difference of opinion that words are not going to change. I agree to disagree with you.

that's fine. i have a whole lot more respect for someone who can go that route. :thumbsup:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

second hand smoke kills.

name one person who has died from second hand smoke.

second hand smoke causes cancer just as it can cause cancer in the smoker himself.

you want a list of people who have died from smoking related cancers?

read

Mercola??? Good gawd woman, the man is a quack selling snake oil. You could have at least pulled out the infamous EPA report. At least that would have given the appearance of credibility.

you want facts from the American Cancer Society? oh, that's a sham too.

sheesh

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

Yeah, I know... but if I can make at least one selfish, spoiled, nanny-state bastard at least THINK...

Oh who the fsck am I kidding. You're right.

really, your arrogance isn't going to help influence anyone.

MY arrogance? I would NEVER think to tell private property owners what they can, and cannot allow to satisfy my own personal, selfish preferences. Instead, I would choose to do business with owners who cater to my preferences... not force them to comply.

It is you, and the myopic folks who believe as you do who are the arrogant ones here.

no dear, i am not arrogant for wanting to go to a bar/restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke. arrogance is those who feel they should be allowed to force that upon me.

really is it so bad that someone simply can't go outside and puff?

That decision should be, and always has been at the sole discretion of the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

Again, this has nothing to do with smokers. Your beef is with property owners who allow smokers to smoke on their property.

And, yes, you are arrogant for wishing to force property owners to conform to your personal preferences.

how many times do you want to repeat yourself and make me repeat myself? :roll:

second hand smoke kills. seat belts save lives. some people are too stupid to realize this on their own, and so unfortunately the government has to step in to save these people from themselves and ourselves.

call that arrogant all you want. i'm not buying your rant.

That, my misguided friend, is the HEIGHT of arrogance.

Arrogant:

Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

Yep, you think you know better, therefore you feel the right to force others to conform to your rules.

And the notion that second hand smoke kills is laughable at best. The EPA study was jury rigged. The majority of studies on the subject find no, or negligible increase of disease among those exposed to heavy, constant ETS. And there are NO studies that show harm from occasional light exposure.

But then, you've never fallen for hype now, have you?

i'm done. i don't agree with you.

cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. that is not a rigged suggestion.

So is car exhaust. Diesel exhaust is FAR worse.

Hell, cooking starchy foods creates carcinogens.

Honey, nearly everything in our day to day lives is a carcinogen. What makes one dangerous is the DOSE or amount of EXPOSURE. We are exposed to carcinogens everyday with no harm. Know why? Because you are not exposed to ENOUGH of them to cause cell mutation.

You're done because you don't have an argument

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

second hand smoke kills.

name one person who has died from second hand smoke.

second hand smoke causes cancer just as it can cause cancer in the smoker himself.

you want a list of people who have died from smoking related cancers?

read

Mercola??? Good gawd woman, the man is a quack selling snake oil. You could have at least pulled out the infamous EPA report. At least that would have given the appearance of credibility.

you want facts from the American Cancer Society? oh, that's a sham too.

sheesh

The ACS uses the same flawed report everyone else uses. The cherry picked EPA report that took a MINORITY of flawed studies claiming harm, and gathered them together as if they were proof... even though the majority find no, or negligible increase in disease.

It's quite fitting that you use the confused emoticon. You've been confused about every point in this topic from private property, to carbon "minoxide," to carcinogens.

 

[foodfightr]

Originally posted by: Anubis
good, its illegal in MA and in NY

its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Great to be able to go to the bar and not reek of ass when you get home
its also funny to watch people freeze their asses off in boston in febuary smoking outside bars and clubs

and IN

 

[fstime]

I think second hand smoking is a load of BS.

I also believe it's up to the owner to decide weather he wants a smoke free area.

Don't want to be around smokers? Dont go there.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: epsilon
Attn. Smokers.


You have a drug addiction. A drug addiction that gives other people cancer. You have no rights. If you want to work on those tumors do it in a place where it doesn't effect me. That is all.

As has already been pointed out, from where do you derive the right to tell property owners what they can, and cannot do on their property?

You don't like it? Fine, don't go into a business that allows it. I no longer smoke and won't go into a business that reeks of smoke... but I would never dream of telling a business owner he can't smoke, or allow others to smoke on his PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Finally, the idea that occasional, light exposure to tobacco smoke causes cancer is absurd. Even the cherry picked minority of studies that claimed to show harm that were used by the EPA to create their fraudulent report only showed a nearly negligible increase in disease among those exposed to heavy amounts of smoke in enclosed areas on a daily basis all day long. NONE have showed any increase among people exposed on an inconsistent basis to light whiffs of smoke.

The mindless panic over ETS is simply sad... and not led by any true fear of disease, but by a simple dislike for the smell.

helps cause and worsen asthma, helps transfer pneumonia diseases, causes second-hand smoke health differences (whether you like admitting it or not), and makes others smell bad. what gives them the right to impose their habit on others? might as well be a republican...

it's easier just to NOT do it in public areas, unless they can figure out a way to keep smoke contained in your own bubble and not bother others.

A private business is NOT a "public" area. It is private property and you are there by invitation and the good graces of the property owner.

Oh, and there is NO evidence that ETS, or even PTS causes asthma. In fact, as the rate of smoking and exposure to ETS has plummeted to all time lows and is still falling, the rate of asthma and asthma related deaths are at an all time high and rising. There is an inverse correlation between the rate of asthma and ETS/PTS... this alone blows any theory that tobacco smoke is the cause of asthma out of the water. Sure, it may give people attacks who have pre-existing asthma... but then, so can perfume.

Asthma is an auto-immune disorder that can be aggravated by environmental conditions... not a disease caused by environmental conditions. And just with any allergy or autoimmune disorder, it is up to the individual to avoid those things that cause them discomfort. It is not up to the world to conform to their needs.

and Amused attempts to blow smoke in all of ATOT's face.

dude, cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. i don't want to breath in that sh!t.
how would it be right for me to go into a bar just the same and spew carbon minoxide all over? not enough to kill people, but to make them feel ill. it wouldn't be right. you get the idea.

You are exposed to carcinogens all day long. In your foods, in the air, in your car, in your home.

People hear "carcinogens" and jump to ignorant knee-jerk reactions. The fact of the matter is, the dose makes the poison. You stand more of a chance getting cancer from sitting behind a semi truck in traffic every rush hour than you do from occasionally getting a whiff of smoke in a non-smoking section, or going to a bar every weekend.

Finally, again, if you don't like smoke, don't go somewhere that allows it. It's that simple.

BTW, I don't smoke and do not like the smell.

and the award for the persistantly horrible logic by any atot member goes to:

*drumroll*

amused.

this guy CONSTANTLY comes out with the worst argument to support imposing subjectively disgusting habits upon others

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

 

[LennyZ]

Screw smokers,I hope they all die from lung cancer.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: LennyZ
Screw smokers,I hope they all die from ling cancer.

To die from ling cancer, they would have to have lings. I don't believe they do.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: epsilon
Attn. Smokers.


You have a drug addiction. A drug addiction that gives other people cancer. You have no rights. If you want to work on those tumors do it in a place where it doesn't effect me. That is all.

As has already been pointed out, from where do you derive the right to tell property owners what they can, and cannot do on their property?

You don't like it? Fine, don't go into a business that allows it. I no longer smoke and won't go into a business that reeks of smoke... but I would never dream of telling a business owner he can't smoke, or allow others to smoke on his PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Finally, the idea that occasional, light exposure to tobacco smoke causes cancer is absurd. Even the cherry picked minority of studies that claimed to show harm that were used by the EPA to create their fraudulent report only showed a nearly negligible increase in disease among those exposed to heavy amounts of smoke in enclosed areas on a daily basis all day long. NONE have showed any increase among people exposed on an inconsistent basis to light whiffs of smoke.

The mindless panic over ETS is simply sad... and not led by any true fear of disease, but by a simple dislike for the smell.

helps cause and worsen asthma, helps transfer pneumonia diseases, causes second-hand smoke health differences (whether you like admitting it or not), and makes others smell bad. what gives them the right to impose their habit on others? might as well be a republican...

it's easier just to NOT do it in public areas, unless they can figure out a way to keep smoke contained in your own bubble and not bother others.

A private business is NOT a "public" area. It is private property and you are there by invitation and the good graces of the property owner.

Oh, and there is NO evidence that ETS, or even PTS causes asthma. In fact, as the rate of smoking and exposure to ETS has plummeted to all time lows and is still falling, the rate of asthma and asthma related deaths are at an all time high and rising. There is an inverse correlation between the rate of asthma and ETS/PTS... this alone blows any theory that tobacco smoke is the cause of asthma out of the water. Sure, it may give people attacks who have pre-existing asthma... but then, so can perfume.

Asthma is an auto-immune disorder that can be aggravated by environmental conditions... not a disease caused by environmental conditions. And just with any allergy or autoimmune disorder, it is up to the individual to avoid those things that cause them discomfort. It is not up to the world to conform to their needs.

and Amused attempts to blow smoke in all of ATOT's face.

dude, cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. i don't want to breath in that sh!t.
how would it be right for me to go into a bar just the same and spew carbon minoxide all over? not enough to kill people, but to make them feel ill. it wouldn't be right. you get the idea.

You are exposed to carcinogens all day long. In your foods, in the air, in your car, in your home.

People hear "carcinogens" and jump to ignorant knee-jerk reactions. The fact of the matter is, the dose makes the poison. You stand more of a chance getting cancer from sitting behind a semi truck in traffic every rush hour than you do from occasionally getting a whiff of smoke in a non-smoking section, or going to a bar every weekend.

Finally, again, if you don't like smoke, don't go somewhere that allows it. It's that simple.

BTW, I don't smoke and do not like the smell.

and the award for the persistantly horrible logic by any atot member goes to:

*drumroll*

amused.

this guy CONSTANTLY comes out with the worst argument to support imposing subjectively disgusting habits upon others

No one is imposing anything on you without your prior permission. You KNOW when an establishment allows smoking, and can make your choice to not enter.

This is not a matter of people imposing their habits on you, but YOU imposing your preferences on property owners.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

WTF is a "public health infringement?" No one is infringing on your rights. You have no rights on someone elses property. If something is happening there that you do not like, your only recourse is to leave. But no... you seek to force private property owners to make you comfortable.

This has been discussed time and time again when someone whines about the lack of freedom of speech on these forums. These forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner gets to control what is said, and not said.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

WTF is a "public health infringement?" No one is infringing on your rights. You have no rights on someone elses property. If something is happening there that you do not like, your only recourse is to leave. But no... you seek to force private property owners to make you comfortable.

This has been discussed time and time again when someone whines about the lack of freedom of speech on these forums. These forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner gets to control what is said, and not said.

how many times are you going to repeat THE SAME DAMN THING!?!?!
face the fact that some people do not agree with you and nothing you say is going to change that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: UglyCasanova

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

you guys can stick those thumbs up your asses if you think public health infringement takes a back seat to private property rights.

WTF is a "public health infringement?" No one is infringing on your rights. You have no rights on someone elses property. If something is happening there that you do not like, your only recourse is to leave. But no... you seek to force private property owners to make you comfortable.

This has been discussed time and time again when someone whines about the lack of freedom of speech on these forums. These forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owner gets to control what is said, and not said.

how many times are you going to repeat THE SAME DAMN THING!?!?!
face the fact that some people do not agree with you and nothing you say is going to change that.

I'm waiting for a valid argument against it. I hoping someone can make one if I challenge these notions.

How many times are people going to repeat the same failed argument made over and over in this thread that I and others have shreded? I note you don't ask that question...

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
yay for fascism ++

????????????


bars and clubs have been smoke free in mass for almost 5 years......welcome to the 2000s. The internet bubble bursts around 2001, just so you know