Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

This brings me back to my original post, and the fact that your not FORCED to go to a Bar or restaurant that has smoking. Like I said, you probably just suck at life - or you were too lazy to bother looking for restaurants and bars that have no smoking in them. Especially restaurants, you don't have to look hard at all.

I find it more likely that your just out on your personal vendetta to rid the world of something you think killed your father. So you force your views on everyone else. THe difference is, however, your not forced into a smoking restaurant - but that law forces everyone to agree with Codey and his fascist views. Which BTW, I like how neither you nor eits has responded to my cancer link - and the irrefutable evidence that me and Amused were more or less right. The fact is, asbestos and second hand smoke were probably BOTH to blame. And who is to say that without the asbestos, the second hand smoke would have still caused the cancer.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

You aren't forced to go to a bar or restaurant, so it's all good.

no, but i choose to, and that choice involves going to the bar/restaurant of my choosing without breathing in cigarette smoke.

the tanning booth analogy just isn't cutting it.
if you wanna call for that then you also should call for a total ban on cigarettes.

I'm surprised you aren't wanting to impede on others peoples rights more by banning them also. So you are entitled to go to any bar or restaurant of your choosings that doesn't allow smoking. wooh, what a concept, being able to be able to choose. Nah, let's let the government choose for us, they have our best interests in mind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
how are you going to tell me that i'm wrong? you're just a turd sandwich shop owner and i'm going to be a doctor.

This is amusing. You're a brat kid mocking an established business owner while your little agenda in life is to be saddled with outrageous student debt and be a drug peddler for big pharma. And how many people do prescription drugs kill every year in the US? More than 100k. As many as alcohol, more than 2x as many as cars, 10x as many as illegal drugs, and more than 30x as many as ETS. But of course you see no hypocrisy. You're a brat kid -- "logic" is whatever you agree with, "illogic" is what you don't.

Vic, take a chill pill. try and stick to topic instead of just sticking it.

who cares if Amused is "an established business owner". does that give him the right to mock me, and REAL doctors and try to come off that he knows more than we do?
being a "business owner" doesn't give him the right to act like he does on the board.

I already explained this to you. You changed the subject first. Your personal experience is (1) statistically irrelevent to the subject at hand, and (2) across the internet, not credible. You invited yourself to be attacked the moment you brought it up. Now, I have NOT attacked you on this, but neither am I going to let you pretend that it is the topic that I need to stick to either.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
how are you going to tell me that i'm wrong? you're just a turd sandwich shop owner and i'm going to be a doctor.

This is amusing. You're a brat kid mocking an established business owner while your little agenda in life is to be saddled with outrageous student debt and be a drug peddler for big pharma. And how many people do prescription drugs kill every year in the US? More than 100k. As many as alcohol, more than 2x as many as cars, 10x as many as illegal drugs, and more than 30x as many as ETS. But of course you see no hypocrisy. You're a brat kid -- "logic" is whatever you agree with, "illogic" is what you don't.

Vic, take a chill pill. try and stick to topic instead of just sticking it.

who cares if Amused is "an established business owner". does that give him the right to mock me, and REAL doctors and try to come off that he knows more than we do?
being a "business owner" doesn't give him the right to act like he does on the board.

Like I said, read that cancer link I posted and then come back to me. Eits isn't a REAL doctor, he said hes in medical school. And how do you know, maybe hes a horrible student thats currently failing all of his classes.

And as I've said before - Amused has more right to be pissed at a law like this BECAUSE he is a business owner. He is the one that suffers, while you could have just gone to a non smoking restaurant. He would have no choice in the law, you always had a choice.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

This brings me back to my original post, and the fact that your not FORCED to go to a Bar or restaurant that has smoking. Like I said, you probably just suck at life - or you were too lazy to bother looking for restaurants and bars that have no smoking in them. Especially restaurants, you don't have to look hard at all.

I find it more likely that your just out on your personal vendetta to rid the world of something you think killed your father. So you force your views on everyone else. THe difference is, however, your not forced into a smoking restaurant - but that law forces everyone to agree with Codey and his fascist views. Which BTW, I like how neither you nor eits has responded to my cancer link - and the irrefutable evidence that me and Amused were more or less right. The fact is, asbestos and second hand smoke were probably BOTH to blame. And who is to say that without the asbestos, the second hand smoke would have still caused the cancer.

i don't suck at life. not at all. i don't think you are convincing anyone here that i suck at life or aren't looking like a big man because you tell a chick on an internet forum, "like i said, you probably just suck at life."
i get a kick out of you e-thugs. yeh, we know people who speak like you are aren't very happy with themselves. it's ok, we understand.

i am done speaking of my father and the cancer that killed him. you, Amused, or anyone else can keep rubbing salt in my wounds all you want. after all, it's a big accomplishment to put me in my place.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KK
I'm surprised you aren't wanting to impede on others peoples rights more by banning them also. So you are entitled to go to any bar or restaurant of your choosings that doesn't allow smoking. wooh, what a concept, being able to be able to choose. Nah, let's let the government choose for us, they have our best interests in mind.

This is the pro-ban argument in its entirety. We could choose for ourselves.... but no, some people might choose "wrong," therefore government must force everyone to choose "right." "Right" being the prevailing opinion of the special interest majority of the moment, this being the democracy of thuggery.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

You aren't forced to go to a bar or restaurant, so it's all good.

no, but i choose to, and that choice involves going to the bar/restaurant of my choosing without breathing in cigarette smoke.

the tanning booth analogy just isn't cutting it.
if you wanna call for that then you also should call for a total ban on cigarettes.

I'm surprised you aren't wanting to impede on others peoples rights more by banning them also. So you are entitled to go to any bar or restaurant of your choosings that doesn't allow smoking. wooh, what a concept, being able to be able to choose. Nah, let's let the government choose for us, they have our best interests in mind.

no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

You aren't forced to go to a bar or restaurant, so it's all good.

no, but i choose to, and that choice involves going to the bar/restaurant of my choosing without breathing in cigarette smoke.

the tanning booth analogy just isn't cutting it.
if you wanna call for that then you also should call for a total ban on cigarettes.

I'm surprised you aren't wanting to impede on others peoples rights more by banning them also. So you are entitled to go to any bar or restaurant of your choosings that doesn't allow smoking. wooh, what a concept, being able to be able to choose. Nah, let's let the government choose for us, they have our best interests in mind.

no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

what about banning smoking in cigar shops that allow smoking?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

This brings me back to my original post, and the fact that your not FORCED to go to a Bar or restaurant that has smoking. Like I said, you probably just suck at life - or you were too lazy to bother looking for restaurants and bars that have no smoking in them. Especially restaurants, you don't have to look hard at all.

I find it more likely that your just out on your personal vendetta to rid the world of something you think killed your father. So you force your views on everyone else. THe difference is, however, your not forced into a smoking restaurant - but that law forces everyone to agree with Codey and his fascist views. Which BTW, I like how neither you nor eits has responded to my cancer link - and the irrefutable evidence that me and Amused were more or less right. The fact is, asbestos and second hand smoke were probably BOTH to blame. And who is to say that without the asbestos, the second hand smoke would have still caused the cancer.

i don't suck at life. not at all. i don't think you are convincing anyone here that i suck at life or aren't looking like a big man because you tell a chick on an internet forum, "like i said, you probably just suck at life."
i get a kick out of you e-thugs. yeh, we know people who speak like you are aren't very happy with themselves. it's ok, we understand.

i am done speaking of my father and the cancer that killed him. you, Amused, or anyone else can keep rubbing salt in my wounds all you want. after all, it's a big accomplishment to put me in my place.

And with all that you don't address the real issue at all.

The fact that you always had a choice, and could have found non smoking restaurants instead of suppressing everyone elses rights to conform to your fascist ideals. So whats the reason then?? Like I also said in one of my prior posts, more and more restaurants were CHOOSING to go to non smoking any way. THere are companies around that started up with that as a selling point. The fact is there was restaurants and bars for people like you, and then for the smokers. But now the entire industry only supports the one type of customer.

This is a 100% valid argument, that you and the rest of your anti-smoking cronies have no retort for. And this is without getting into the fact that, as a whole - this will hurt the industry altogether, and thus the economy, jobs, and so on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

you rock

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

smokers go in the same damn restaurants they always have.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

WTF does smoking have to do with morals?

I prefer the freedom of enjoying a smoke free place to eat. Seems like most people do, including the people who work in those establishments.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

Oregon is considerably more enlightened than fascist California, where the dipsh!ts jog (for their health) outside in smog and pollution so bad the EPA issues a "health advisory" while cheering that smoking is no longer allowed in adult establishments that serve a known poison.
Ah... I used to love visiting LA. The first 2 days I would suffer nosebleeds and asthma attacks because of that thick bank of black smog.

:roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

outside for 3 minutes... oh no. either that or in their own houses.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

outside for 3 minutes... oh no. either that or in their own houses.

Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oregon is considerably more enlightened than fascist California, where the dipsh!ts jog (for their health) outside in smog and pollution so bad the EPA issues a "health advisory" while cheering that smoking is no longer allowed in adult establishments that serve a known poison.
Ah... I used to love visiting LA. The first 2 days I would suffer nosebleeds and asthma attacks because of that thick bank of black smog.

:roll:

This is funny coming from you, a guy who is not even open to the suggestion that we cut back on polution and instead says (paraphrased): "we either consume and use energy and technology as much as we want or we shiver outside in the cold like cavemen". For someone who's single-minded as you are about pollution and global warming issues it's hard to imagine you give a damn about the smog in LA.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

The statistics do not support the argument that this is a public health issue. Remember that we are still talking about BARS, whose entire reason for existence is to serve the public the poison that kills 100k people every year in the US, plus an additional 20k deaths from those people who drive home from these bars. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the bars should not be allowed to exist period.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oregon is considerably more enlightened than fascist California, where the dipsh!ts jog (for their health) outside in smog and pollution so bad the EPA issues a "health advisory" while cheering that smoking is no longer allowed in adult establishments that serve a known poison.
Ah... I used to love visiting LA. The first 2 days I would suffer nosebleeds and asthma attacks because of that thick bank of black smog.

:roll:

Can't win the argument so you resort to bashing the state of California...nice. :roll: If you dislike CA then don't come here. Fact is the air quality here is quite good I've lived here for 16 years and can't remember the last time I heard of a smog advisory (so long as stupid smokers aren't throwing their lit butts out the window and starting forest fires).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
This is funny coming from you, a guy who is not even open to the suggestion that we cut back on polution and instead says (paraphrased): "we either consume and use energy and technology as much as we want or we shiver outside in the cold like cavemen". For someone who's single-minded as you are about pollution and global warming issues it's hard to imagine you give a damn about the smog in LA.

I have never used a phrase like that before... not even paraphrased. Pollution is a case of causing legitimate harm to others -- I am against it as much as reasonably possible. Global warming is junk science caused by jumping to conclusions from insufficient datasets. Your mistake in logic here is that by thinking that because I am pro-technology that I am also pro-pollution.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.