the problem is that it creates pressure on owners to legislate themselves at the risk of their business.

it should be reversed ... the pressure should be to "allow smoking" not prohibit it. Since smoking is the invasive action.

ban smoking .... then allow business to apply for permission to be a smoking establishment.

any business that does apply has to have signs up stating that it's a "smoking" environment.

What, you dont like kissing a girl that tastes like an ashtray???

i think everywhere should allow nudity ..... if people don't like seeing nude people they should go someplace that prohibits it.

legislation that prohibits nudity everywhere is just one-sided and unfair.

I would love for it to be that way but it is not because the "clean air" people won't allow it...so back to my irresponsible legislation and these are bad laws

honestly at this point you could make a fortune by owning/operating a bar/restaurant that allows smoking

Oh, my God!!!! They already have them!!!!

http://www.nicosphere3000.com/home_frameset.htm

FAX

I don't necessarily disagree

if anything nudity should be allowed before smoking since nudity doesn't physically harm the people around you ..... unlike smoking.


weird example i know ..... but the reality is that smoking bans are laws that actually protect people from direct harm from others.

it's a more constitutionally valid law than many other laws on the books imo.

Seems like a decent compromise.

That's no solution, Mr. Laz. Realistically, if the smokers walked around naked, where would they keep their cigarettes and lighters stuff?

FAX

I'm sure there's 'a place' they can keep them, Mr. Fax.

Actually, the closest thing to people screaming out for bans is minorities playing the race card.

If I'm a minority, and don't like a person, and that person isn't a minority, I can scream RACISM! he called me [insert derogatory racial slur here] OMG I CAN'T DEAL WITH THE SHAME O MY ANCESTORS, and the person will more often than not, in today's society, be fired/removed/whatever. So what if he didn't say anything? I'm happily rid of him. Yay.

When it comes to smoking, there are non-smokers who hate the smell of smoke. Fair enough - I don't like it, either. But instead of being tolerant, or even attempting to compromise, these people say OMG SECONDHAND SMOKE IS KILLING ME ACK COUGH HELP I'M DYING O SAVE THE CHILDREN, and now smokers have to practically crawl down in a sewer across the street to enjoy a cigarette.

Is smoke harmful? Sure. EVENTUALLY. Like every other goddamn pollutant we breathe in every day. How long to do you have to breathe smoke in before it has any effect on your health? Minutes? Days? Hours? Months? Years? Decades? Well, all the experts are a bit fuzzy on that point, since there's no way to quantify it. Again, I was raised by smokers, smoked myself until age 40, breathed in their smoke, my smoke, and even :eek: MY OWN SECONDHAND SMOKE OMG :eek: and yet here I am today, cancer-free and readily employable.

Expert: Secondhand smoke is harmful.
Me: How harmful?
Expert: It increases your chances of dying horribly by a factor of 10!
Me: Really? From what to what? Can you quantify that?
Expert: YOU CARE NOTHING FOR MY WELL-BEING!

(Sort of like trying to pin down a bible-thumper on a point of science. I have my faith, dammit!)

:deevee:

So play the secondhand smoke card all you like, but at the end of the day, if I'm a smoker, I know you just don't like the smell of smoke, and all this disingenuous health concerns crap is just a means toward the end of you intolerantly telling me what I can and can't do.

But its not intollerant for you to force me to breath toxic substances?

Bars/Restaurants - owners choice. seperate area for non-smokers.

Key is still Proper ventalation. Smoke filter equipment.

Believe me, I would start smoking again in a second if I could blow smoke in your face and actually harm you by doing so.

Burn any good books lately?

books?