Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Then you do not agree. If it bothered me that much, I would chose an establishment that provides the atmosphere I want. But to say an owner cannot provide the atmosphere he wants, is too restrictive and is taking away a right.

I am no longer a smoker, but I don't want someones rights taken away.

then you are still a smoker ... just a 2nd hand smoker.



there has to be some kind of compromise

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Laz

then you are still a smoker ... just a 2nd hand smoker.



there has to be some kind of compromise

Oh no, not at all. I just had two heart surgerys.

The compromise is, exactly like we both mentioned in previous posts. The owner of the establishment should have a right. If it is non-smoking, so be it, smokers should be able find a place they prefer. Likewise for the non-smoker, if it bothers him, go find someplace else.

Whats next Laz, are you willing to let them tell you your old lady can't give you a blow job in your own house? That might offend someone you know, where do you draw the line?


Seem silly to you? Let me tell you, 20 years ago these laws sounded just as far fetched.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Oh no, not at all. I just had two heart surgerys.

The compromise is, exactly like we both mentioned in previous posts. The owner of the establishment should have a right. If it is non-smoking, so be it, smokers should be able find a place they prefer. Likewise for the non-smoker, if it bothers him, go find someplace else.

Whats next Laz, are you willing to let them tell you your old lady can't give you a blow job in your own house? That might offend someone you know, where do you draw the line?


Seem silly to you? Let me tell you, 20 years ago these laws sounded just as far fetched.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Excellent, that was more like 50 years ago, but it sure makes my point, thanks.

[Frazod]

As long as we're talking about not smoking.....

How's the not smoking thing working for you, Ed?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by frazod

As long as we're talking about not smoking.....

How's the not smoking thing working for you, Ed?

Good, Tim, I choose to live.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Excellent, that was more like 50 years ago, but it sure makes my point, thanks.

The point is that as new information becomes available people should adjust their habits. Frankly though, I think you have to remove a lot of lawyers before you start removing a bunch of laws.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

- What a f**king joke.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Oh no, not at all. I just had two heart surgerys.

The compromise is, exactly like we both mentioned in previous posts. The owner of the establishment should have a right. If it is non-smoking, so be it, smokers should be able find a place they prefer. Likewise for the non-smoker, if it bothers him, go find someplace else.

Whats next Laz, are you willing to let them tell you your old lady can't give you a blow job in your own house? That might offend someone you know, where do you draw the line?


Seem silly to you? Let me tell you, 20 years ago these laws sounded just as far fetched.

that's why i said "i agree" when you talked about government keeping their dam noses out of things.

i don't want them in my bedroom and i don't want them telling me how to live.

Government has one job and that is protection imo

the question is, where does the government job start and end "protecting" people from 2nd hand smoke?


maybe ban smoking .... but then let owners apply/sign up to be a smoking establishment? That way people have the ability to assume "clean air" unless the front of the building says "Smoking establishment"

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's why i said "i agree" when you talked about government keeping their dam noses out of things.

i don't want them in my bedroom and i don't want them telling me how to live.

Government has one job and that is protection imo

the question is, where does the government job start and end "protecting" people from 2nd hand smoke?


maybe ban smoking .... but then let owners apply/sign up to be a smoking establishment? That way people have the ability to assume "clean air" unless the front of the building says "Smoking establishment"

The federal govt. has very limited duties. Protect your Constitutional rights, provide a common defense, and a common banking system being the biggies.

Your local govt. was supposed to be allowed to be as communist / fascist / anarchist as the locals wanted.

We f**ked that all up over a century ago.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

The federal govt. has very limited duties. Protect your Constitutional rights, provide a common defense, and a common banking system being the biggies.

Your local govt. was supposed to be allowed to be as communist / fascist / anarchist as the locals wanted.

We f**ked that all up over a century ago.

Exactly.

If a municipal entity wants to pass goofy laws, it's fairly easy to move to another. When states and the feds are doing it, you don't have a reasonable options other than to deal with it.

God bless Wake Village, TX!

[KC2004]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's why i said "i agree" when you talked about government keeping their dam noses out of things.

i don't want them in my bedroom and i don't want them telling me how to live.

Government has one job and that is protection imo

the question is, where does the government job start and end "protecting" people from 2nd hand smoke?


maybe ban smoking .... but then let owners apply/sign up to be a smoking establishment? That way people have the ability to assume "clean air" unless the front of the building says "Smoking establishment"

Laz I understand your bitch I really do but come on. Ok you walk into a bar that has smokers and its the smokers fault? Now if I was there i would do my best to keep the smoke away from you but come on man you walked into it and your bitching. Thats like walking into a crack house and complaining about the crack whores.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by KC2004

Laz I understand your bitch I really do but come on. Ok you walk into a bar that has smokers and its the smokers fault? Now if I was there i would do my best to keep the smoke away from you but come on man you walked into it and your bitching. Thats like walking into a crack house and complaining about the crack whores.

but the reality is that you can't "keep the smoke away"

blowing smoke away from a non-smoker doesn't do jack. The whole room gets exposed to smoke regardless of which way you blow it.

So you're saying that anyone that goes to a bar/restaurant/casino/ sporting event should "expect" to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke?


it's about choice ...


smokers take the position that "if you want clean air then you go FIND A Place with no smokers". It's like they have a constitutional right to pollute the air and everyone should just have to deal with it.


i say that smokers are the ones affecting others, so they should be the ones that have to "find a place" not the other way around.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by KC2004

Laz I understand your bitch I really do but come on. Ok you walk into a bar that has smokers and its the smokers fault? Now if I was there i would do my best to keep the smoke away from you but come on man you walked into it and your bitching. Thats like walking into a crack house and complaining about the crack whores.

Wrong

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Laz

That way people have the ability to assume "clean air" unless the front of the building says "Smoking establishment"

I agree with this Laz, at least the owner of the establishment has a choice.

Good example: Jan 1 the laws went into effect here. The bowling alley is really forced to become smoking police, they are not happy about it.