It's funny how being allowed to inhale toxic smoke is a right, but being able to leave my house *without* inhaling it isn't.

Again, you don't answer a simple question. What's wrong with letting the market decide?

If a Restaurant owner had asbestos, I suspect he'd have very few customers.

If a Restaurant owner allows smoking, I suspect customers would decide for themselves if they want to go or not?

No matter how much it may piss you off, tobacco consumption is legal in this country. As such, I think businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to allow it or not. If tobacco is ever declared a hazardous substance to the degree Asbestos is, then your comparison might be worth something. Right now, it's an apples and oranges argument.

I don't give a rats ass what they did in NYC, Chicago, Etc. That's fine for folks who live there, I don't. I certainly don't tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

BTW- In your other reply you still didn't explain who is "forcing" you to go to these places that allowed smoking. Could that be because it was a Bullshit statement? Why yes, yes it was.

There's nothing in the Constitution giving you the "right" to a smoke-free existence either. I really have no idea why you brought this up, but I thought I should make that point.

Oh, and GFY, moron. Thanks for playing. :D

Here's your sign.

The market should decide, but the onus needs to be on the proprietor declaring his/her place as a smoking establishment, not the other way. You'd be amazed at how much difference that little change would make.

I'd be fine with that, but idiots like Dane seem to think they should be able to decide for everyone else what an owner will allow or not allow on their property.

As I stated in the other thread, I began going to bars at age 18 and frequented at least 5 times a week up until the age of 27 in Kansas and Missouri.

Did I "Like" the smoking in bars? No. But it didn't prevent me from going. Once I moved to Los Angeles, I immediately noticed how smoking was barely present - it was almost as if smoking wasn't allowed but it hadn't been banned until 4 years later. People out here, on whole, are more health conscious.

I am happy that smoking in bars and restaurants has been banned in most countries across the globe but for me, smoking in restaurants and places that serve food is ten times more annoying than smoking in bars. If I spend $10 or $100 on a meal, I would most certainly enjoy it much more in a smoke-free atmosphere.

My problem has been that most restaurants seemed afraid to ban smoking for fear of being the first. If the table was suddenly flipped I think you'd see a few that went pro-smoking, but I think the majority would welcome the change and stay smoke free.

Hell, it seems to be working great for the IHOP in Shawnee. There would be empty smoking tables and a line waiting for non-smoking. Now the place can run at full capacity.

Cars may produce more poison but they don't back the tailpipe up to your face for an hour, either. I agree that we should do something about fossil fuels, however, it would be impractical to ban fossil fuels because greedy interests have made sure that we have no alternative. But why should a single mother have to choose between welfare and a waitress job with long term health hazards and no health benefits?

For people who think they have the right to subject others to the medical consequences of THEIR OWN unhealthy habits, their alternative is to take it outside. See how easy the solution is. There's a big difference between cars and cigarettes when viewed in the proper context, IMO.

Nope, that is democracy in action. The will of the people, in most cases the majority gets the rights, not the minority. :banghead:

Simplex, that's 2 statements in a row that is way off the mark. You think that a lack of a smoking ban is going to prevent you and your family from being able to enjoy a non smoke filled day? How have you guys survived all these years? The wheeze must be killing your children.

Come on dude, you know damn well that in the last ten years public smoking has taken care of itself. Half the restaurants in this country were non smoking before these bans started popping up. In the 70's? No. In the 90's, and this decade? Absolutely.

There are TONS of places that you can go that are non smoking facilities. What it sounds like, is that you want to go WHEREVER you damn well please, and people should do whatever it takes to make you happy.

Good news, you're allowed to be selfish in this country, just don't expect anyone to give a shit, when it's you that loses your rights. This isn't about smokers, it's about business and property owners.

Yep. [/thread]

I didn't mean to vote yes. That was an accident.


I wonder if, when we get communist health care in this country, if the gubment will just go ahead and ban tobacco altogether? It's a serious drag on the health care system, and once the government death-star takes over health care then smoking related illnesses will be everyone's problem. (well, they already are, but this would just be a more obvious pretext).

Rather than create a poor precedent by which the government tells private businesses in yet another way how they are allowed to run their business, why not just ban tobacco altogether?

Naw, let's stop trying to do better. Let's be content with the status quo even though it has negative consequences. That makes sense. And better yet let's get rid of all the regulations so that they can do with the OUR health as they damn well please.

That would be fine. We don't make room for that in these silly laws we pass though.

Do you really think the government is going try prohibition on tobacco? There is too much money in it for federal and local governments to do that. Besides, we all know or can read how effective prohibition of alcohol went.