StarGateWars Forums

Are **Filtered** stupid. Austin enacted one in 05 and now the state is looking to enact one.

http://www.kvue.com/news/Statewide-smok ... 70568.html


"Smoking is harming my body," said Martinque Falcon, who smokes. "I wouldn't subject anyone else to my second hand smoke. If I wasn't a smoker, I wouldn't want somebody to do that to me either."

Then don't go to the bar, or go to one that does not allow smoking inside.

That is what you get for becoming the United Socialist States of ameRica.
*drawling* Healthcare is important..

I don't see what's wrong with it, it's also effective in Europe. Nothing to do with USSR or anything either...I think the Soviets were quite a big bunch of smokers actually.
It's a matter of perspective, why should it be the smokers who impose the smoke to others?

Public inside-locations ban? Or outside in the street ban? The latter we don't have, and likely won't have.

Yup it's across Europe. Jim's point exactly. Why should non smokers have to go elsewhere. Smokers don't get precedent over others. It's your habbit you chose to do it.

Clarkey wrote:Yup it's across Europe. Jim's point exactly. Why should non smokers have to go elsewhere. Smokers don't get precedent over others. It's your habbit you chose to do it.

Indeed.

Mr. Falcon is totally right, and is responsible as a smoker and cares for non smokers, I applaud such a non egotistical stance of him.

Then don't go to the bar, or go to one that does not allow smoking inside.

It's exactly same attitude as people who yell on their mobile phone, heard from the other side of the train/avenue/park and scream to others to bug off and go elsewhere when those people ask them to tone down their yelling. The I don't give a damn about others attitude. At least this person doesn't have this attitude. Not a careless to others in spite of being a smoker himself. Which is good and responsible attitude to have.

Removed

Clarkey wrote:Yup it's across Europe. Jim's point exactly. Why should non smokers have to go elsewhere. Smokers don't get precedent over others. It's your habbit you chose to do it.

Like wise, it is my restaurant, it is my choice whether to be smoker friendly or not.

You talk of people forcing their habits on to others, yet that's exactly what this is doing. You are going to places where people smoke, then whining that it smells or whatever. And demand they change their ways for you. How would you like it if instead of a smoking ban, a law was past that forced everyone to allow smoking and did not allow segregation of smokers and non smokers?

[BoT] Jack wrote:

Clarkey wrote:Yup it's across Europe. Jim's point exactly. Why should non smokers have to go elsewhere. Smokers don't get precedent over others. It's your habbit you chose to do it.

Like wise, it is my restaurant, it is my choice whether to be smoker friendly or not.

You talk of people forcing their habits on to others, yet that's exactly what this is doing. You are going to places where people smoke, then whining that it smells or whatever. And demand they change their ways for you. How would you like it if instead of a smoking ban, a law was past that forced everyone to allow smoking and did not allow segregation of smokers and non smokers?

There was a time when smoking didn't exist, then it came to being and was forced on to those areas.

Kit-Fox wrote:Ahh yes, the old 'lets have equality for all' argument transformed in this case to 'lets all have clean air'

except the folks calling for it never stop at an equal balence but instead insist upon forcing their ways & views onto everyone else & it becomes not 'equality for all' but instead 'lets beat them over the head with what we dont approve of'

I'm sorry but breathing air is one of those things that all of us humans are forced to do. If we the evil non smokers who don't stand smoke could avoid breathing to let the smokers smoke as they want, maybe we would do so, either way whether we would or not isn't the matter, as we are all forced to breath. Smokers aren't banned, they have to smoke outside. However non smokers who for some reason cannot stand the smoke are sort of banned from places with smokers. It's not go out for five minutes then come back, it's no you won't get there.

As for the "equality for all"...me supporting this? Erm that's quite wrong. I'm 10% pro meritocracy for university and such things, and against giving free pass to all to get in there, but as I said, breathing air cannot be avoided or anything, so "banning" people from bars/clubs because they can't stand the smoke is WORSE than telling smokers to go outside for three to five minutes then come back. As those who can't stand the smoke couldn't get outside every time a smoker smoke as the smoke remains anyway.

How would you like it if instead of a smoking ban, a law was past that forced everyone to allow smoking and did not allow segregation of smokers and non smokers?

That would be nonsense, because that would be a real ban to people who cannot stand smoking. Unlike the splitting laws, or the ones saying no smoking. It would be as worse as banning smoking completely from streets and inside places.

Forced on by who? It's the choice of the business owner whether they will allow smoking or not. Nothing is being forced on anybody. You do not have to go to places that allow smoking and do not have separate ventilation systems.

The only thing being forced is for businesses to take on a policy they may not like by cities and states adopting anti-smoking laws.

Cole wrote:If we the evil non smokers could avoid smoking to let the smokers smoke as they want, maybe we would do so, either way whether we would or not isn't the matter, as we are all forced to smoke.

You do not have to patronize those places that allow smoking inside and do not have a separate ventilation system. It is your choice to visit them. If you do not like that a specific place does allow smoking, then complain to the owner/manager and try to get them to change policies. But do not enact laws that take away the rights of others because you do not like them exorcising those rights. And yes, it is the right of the property owner to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

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

[BoT] Jack wrote:Forced on by who? It's the choice of the business owner whether they will allow smoking or not. Nothing is being forced on anybody. You do not have to go to places that allow smoking and do not have separate ventilation systems.

The only thing being forced is for businesses to take on a policy they may not like by cities and states adopting anti-smoking laws.

Cole wrote:If we the evil non smokers could avoid smoking to let the smokers smoke as they want, maybe we would do so, either way whether we would or not isn't the matter, as we are all forced to smoke.

You do not have to patronize those places that allow smoking inside and do not have a separate ventilation system. It is your choice to visit them. If you do not like that a specific place does allow smoking, then complain to the owner/manager and try to get them to change policies. But do not enact laws that take away the rights of others because you do not like them exorcising those rights. And yes, it is the right of the property owner to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

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.

this law is stupid seriously ,Those Non smoker CHOOSE to go to those bars/Pubs its never forced.What is a bar without smoke,beers and peanuts? if they can't handle it then they must go to a restaurant and order some expensive wine!!!!


But yes i do agree on the smoking in the street being banned as I've walked to school a few times and walked past someone smoking and they made my clothes smell like smoke lol its not best to smell like in High School....

"You do not have to patronize those places that allow smoking inside and do not have a separate ventilation system. It is your choice to visit them. If you do not like that a specific place does allow smoking, then complain to the owner/manager and try to get them to change policies. But do not enact laws that take away the rights of others because you do not like them exorcising those rights. And yes, it is the right of the property owner to decide whether to allow smoking or not."

Exactly the government has No Right to Force public area's to go Green/Non Smoking.because in fact 60% of this world over 19 is a smoker right now they would just kill business unless they got a smoking area.

Nostra wrote: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 yet...yes I'm that lazy to not get my back getting a drivers license lol ) 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 (but as people do so, free they are to smoke in the streets where natural air refill exists...or also obviously at their home). 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, but well, it's another debate.

You do not have to patronize those places that allow smoking inside and do not have a separate ventilation system. It is your choice to visit them. If you do not like that a specific place does allow smoking, then complain to the owner/manager and try to get them to change policies. But do not enact laws that take away the rights of others because you do not like them exorcising those rights. And yes, it is the right of the property owner to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

Yes it means that the smokers have the upper hand ("if you don't smoke and don't stand it get the heck elsewhere"), for reasons I mentioned already. Going out for few minutes isn't same as being unable to enter at all the place.

this law is stupid seriously ,Those Non smoker CHOOSE to go to those bars/Pubs its never forced.What is a bar without smoke,beers and peanuts? if they can't handle it then they must go to a restaurant and order some expensive wine!!!!

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

But yes i do agree on the smoking in the street being banned as I've walked to school a few times and walked past someone smoking and they made my clothes smell like smoke lol its not best to smell like in High School....

Hmm even though I dislike smoking's smell, I would disagree with banning it in the streets, because in the streets you got the air and all, in the public buildings/clubs/restaurants etc you don't, unless the owner installs an expensive system to refresh the air. As a non smoker I would think it wouldn't be fair for smokers to ban it in the streets, unlike the bans of inside.

Exactly the government has No Right to Force public area's to go Green/Non Smoking.because in fact 60% of this world over 19 is a smoker right now they would just kill business unless they got a smoking area.

Screw the part out of 40% remaining ones who don't/can't stand it? (this remark of mine is also related to your first part of your post) Well after all you can still smoke in this place called the outside and the streets. So tobacco sellers can still sell their stuff and people can still consume it.

Cole wrote:

Nostra wrote: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 ?


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