Public smoking bans

[Cole]

So ... if I dont drive a car, ... could you all please take your verhicles somewhere else ? its bad for my lungs

Smoking unlike driving (I don't drive btw) isn't something required for many people to go from a place to another. In fact, smoking is quite the unneeded thing and you can perfectly live without doing so. You can say same for cars, but I would tell you that many jobs require it. I would agree something must be done with pollution of cars though.

One could can walk there, take a bicycle, an electrical train for all I care, a job closer to home perhaps ... lots of reasons, all are personal choices
Laws like these cut down severely in the personal 'needs' of people who do like to smoke. Whats next, forbid drinking in bars ?

What you say is indeed doable in the center of capitals/big cities (they do that in Amsterdam center), but when you live far from your work (suburbs, countryside, mountains...), you don't really have a choice. It would require to have a much more dense public transport infrastructures to be doable in a country scale. Imagine the spendings...and the taxes to have it paid. Yummy?

Why would we forbid drinking in bar? Drinking is drinking, whether it's soda, vodka or water, and the only troubles it causes to the world outside of self are the behavior not the damaging of air (that I remind we must all breath), THUS fact in many countries you cannot drive while drunk, and can get arrested if you act like a -drunk- fool.

[Jack]

I got my post wrong for some reason (what you quoted) I meant that we cannot restrain ourselves not to breath, but posted "smoke" instead. That now probably makes more sense.

My point still stands. No one is forcing you to smoke. You do not have to go to those places that allow it. You can choose to go elsewhere.

Ah yes, awesome! You don't/cannot stand smoking, you don't party, at all. Nice way to think! Nope, rather some ban people to come by just because they cannot stand smoke, rather than spend few minutes outside every few hours.

There are bars and restaurants that do not allow smoking. Which is their right. Why do you not just go there?

In Texas, it is legal to carry a gun concealed if you have a license to do so. There is a law that allows businesses to ban licensed gun carriers from using their property. There is no legitimate safety concern. It has been proven time and time again that Concealed Handgun License(CHL) holders are among the least likely to commit any crime whatsoever. And there are numerous times when CHL holders have saved the lives of people being attacked/robbed. So one could very easily argue that allowing CHL holders in your business not only does not bring any danger, but actually makes it safer. But that is not my point.

My point is that I seek to obtain a CHL, I am waiting for my application to be processed. And I plan on carrying everywhere that is legal. However, I would not seek to change the laws that allow businesses to ban me from their property. It is their right to do so. Who am I to tell them how to run their business? I can always just go some place else. Why is it that you can not do the same?

Laws like these cut down severely in the personal 'needs' of people who do like to smoke. Whats next, forbid drinking in bars ?


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

Actually... People have been arrested for public intoxication while inside of a bar and while getting into a cab to go home from the bar they just got drunk at.

[Cole]

I got my post wrong for some reason (what you quoted) I meant that we cannot restrain ourselves not to breath, but posted "smoke" instead. That now probably makes more sense.

My point still stands. No one is forcing you to smoke. You do not have to go to those places that allow it. You can choose to go elsewhere.
I can choose to go elsewhere, you mean by that, nowhere. Because from what I remember, before this ban, every single place allowed smoking, and minority -restaurants mainly- had a "non smoker" area, which was more symbolic than anything.

Ah yes, awesome! You don't/cannot stand smoking, you don't party, at all. Nice way to think! Nope, rather some ban people to come by just because they cannot stand smoke, rather than spend few minutes outside every few hours.

There are bars and restaurants that do not allow smoking. Which is their right. Why do you not just go there?

Those who do so do so now because law states so, I recall before the law was put in place, non smoking areas were minority, and the smoking area always existed (well, <2-5% of "fun" places were totally no smoking at all). Which means, very few places to go to where non smoking areas existed, and almost nowhere with "no smoking". That was quite the feeling to be an excluded person from almost everywhere. Much worse than having to go outside for few minutes and then coming back in.

In Texas, it is legal to carry a gun concealed if you have a license to do so. There is a law that allows businesses to ban licensed gun carriers from using their property. There is no legitimate safety concern. It has been proven time and time again that Concealed Handgun License(CHL) holders are among the least likely to commit any crime whatsoever. And there are numerous times when CHL holders have saved the lives of people being attacked/robbed. So one could very easily argue that allowing CHL holders in your business not only does not bring any danger, but actually makes it safer. But that is not my point.

My point is that I seek to obtain a CHL, I am waiting for my application to be processed. And I plan on carrying everywhere that is legal. However, I would not seek to change the laws that allow businesses to ban me from their property. It is their right to do so. Who am I to tell them how to run their business? I can always just go some place else. Why is it that you can not do the same?

For reason I already stated. There.was.likely.no.bar/pub/club/discotek.in.France.that.was.for.no.smoking. The only thing available was the symbolic "no smoking area" in restaurants. Partying in restaurants hmm that'd be odd.

[noone]

Why would we forbid drinking in bar? Drinking is drinking, whether it's soda, vodka or water, and the only troubles it causes to the world outside of self are the behavior not the damaging of air (that I remind we must all breath), THUS fact in many countries you cannot drive while drunk, and can get arrested if you act like a -drunk- fool.

Whats the death rate again for the last 10 years for 'none' drinkers killed by a person drunk driving ?

A lot more then second hand smoke will kill in a 100 years

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Cole]

Why would we forbid drinking in bar? Drinking is drinking, whether it's soda, vodka or water, and the only troubles it causes to the world outside of self are the behavior not the damaging of air (that I remind we must all breath), THUS fact in many countries you cannot drive while drunk, and can get arrested if you act like a -drunk- fool.

Whats the death rate again for the last 10 years for 'none' drinkers killed by a person drunk driving ?

A lot more then second hand smoke will kill in a 100 years

Probably yes, but the difference is, you have to "get out of line" and break the law to do that, drink carefully and responsibly and that won't happen. Sure, people don't drink carefully and that's why it happens, but I never said smoking should be banned altogether anyway. Under specific conditions, same as driving after drinking alcohol is punished by law.

For smoking issues, the issue is to smoke inside in public areas. If you smoke outside it's ok. It's not only a matter of slow death, but a matter of strong inconvenience upto allergy for some people. Due to lack of air refilling and all.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Cole]

Ahh Cole its so cute when you cant understand quite simple points.

lets break it into simple bite sized chunks for you shall we?

It's cute too for me when you post like I'm a retarded illiterate while you, are part of the finest. Ah, this must feel good on this high horse of yours!

- The non-smoking crowd, dont want smokers around them & so they go about lobbying for laws

Yes, I know that.

- They get anti-smoking laws installed for various situations, some of which are quite acceptable

Yes I know that.

- The non-smoking lobbyists then continue for smoking to be banned in a whole variety of situations that quite frankly is non of their business.

Such as? Examples please, it's vague.

- All the while they are lobbying the non-smokers are telling everyone how they are all for freedom of choice about whether a person smokes or not & yet seem to fail to understand that by banning smoking on what are essentially private properties (such as shopping malls, bars and lots of other places) they are removing freedom of choice from those who might want to smoke & making smokers all the more militant & less likely to be non-smoker friendly and lets face it there are lots of bars, shopping malls & other places that will cater to non-smokers as much as there that will cater to smokers, you dont need laws for this!

IF it was like Jack said, such as places for non smokers and places for smokers I might agree with you, but in France, for clubs/bars/restaurants etc...it was NOT the case as I said already no idea how often! Now if Texas has places for non smokers already, then I might agree to some extent this law might not be needed.

Did you get it this time??

Yes I see your points, because as crazy as it might be for you, I can read!

Except the bill isnt really about public spaces, its about privately owned & controlled spaces that the public is premitted access too.

so it should be the choice of the owner & if you dont like that then take your money elsewhere, how is this hard to understand??

Answered that a thousand times already, HOW HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND?

Also,

Now if Texas has places for non smokers already, then I might agree to some extent this law might not be needed

I don't see what's wrong with it, it's also effective in Europe. Nothing to do with USSR

There's a contradiction in terms if i ever read one lol!

It's not (yet?) a subject about the degree of truth of the NWO, shadow governments within governments (such as USSR=EU) and all though.

[[KMA]Avenger]

I don't see what's wrong with it, it's also effective in Europe. Nothing to do with USSR

There's a contradiction in terms if i ever read one lol!

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[[KMA]Avenger]

My 2 cents,the decision should be down to individual bars, clubs, restaurants and businesses if they allow smoking or non smoking. by the same token, smokers and non smokers alike can then make the decision to go to Bills bar which allows smoking or Joe's which doesn't.

Govt can kiss my hairy Greek backside and eff off telling me i cannot have smokers on my premises...and if anyone is offended by my comment...you are welcome to join the Govt in examining my rear end

[Cole]

well cleary you didnt get it the first time, or you would have understood the 'equality for all' similarity of all this & not blathered on about universities & meritocracies etc etc & i wouldnt have had to post again putting it in simple terms

It doesnt matter if there were or were not places for smokers & non-smokers to be seperate, you still dont need laws for this. If all these health programs are as effective as those in power claim etc, then society will change it views on smoking & non-smoking places will appear, again all with out the need for such anti-smoking laws

I am not them (read: the lobbies), and thus I agree only to a certain extent with them. But as I agreed to an extent with them, I thought (might have been wrong though) you contained me within this, your point being posted as a global argument towards any person with any kind of position who would more or less or totally agree with Mr Falcon's point of view.

It does matter, if there are almost no places for non smokers (which I kept pointing out to show that I could hardly have gone to a non smoking place if I wanted to avoid smoking), that means there's something quite wrong. Because it means, in this particular case "smoke/accept the smoke or be lost". Means owners prefer to have smokers and miss the amount of non smokers not liking smoke. Some of these owners will argue adding tech to prevent the smoke or anything to split or such would cost them more and they are happy as it is (and couldn't care less/cannot do otherwise if some people cannot get in, for various reasons)

As for the view on smoking, people start because friends or whoever bring them into this, and the future smoker falls into this and gets used to smoke. After short while he/she gets addicted and therefore only the level of danger can, in future, convince him/her to try to stop (when person becomes worried about self health). But thing is, for teens the forbidden/dangerous things are quite the attractive things as parents often say no. It means for (pre)teens let's do it, with added to that the influence of friends who smoke already or start to. I think the issue of smoking is purely sociology factors based. But some like me resisted the influence of friends, but it's not the case of all.

[Empy]

I think Minnesota was one of the first states to put a state-wide ban on public smoking (and of course in this case public means restaurants, malls, etc). I quite agree with it. People who smoke can still do so outside, or in their home, whatever. The point is when I'm going about my daily life, doing what I do, it's not fair to me to be breathing in some god damn carcinogens when I'm not choosing to smoke. It may not be fair to smokers to limit where they can smoke, but it's the reality we live in that their right to smoke where it contributes to the death of other people is limited. I for one say, good. Just because these other people want to choose suicide because it feels good, doesn't mean I should be subjected to it as well. It's an issue of public health.

[Jack]

Then don't go to those places that smokers congregate.

[Ashu]

Then don't go to those places that smokers congregate.

Like outside?