Cannabis has been illegal for a long time. It's not even remotely as addictive as tobacco either. Yet it is illegal. So in reality the same liberty was violated by the government a long time ago. 2nd hand smoke really is bad though if you are around it a lot. I think it's negligent for parents to smoke inside around their kids. I know people who have asthma and ear/sinus problems because their parents always smoked in their houses.
Sorry girl, but property rights aren't the same for a residence and a business. What you do in your own house is one thing, but bars and restaurants are PUBLIC accommodations and have always had to follow additional health codes. Smoking bans are nothing new in that respect.
I think these smoking bans, especially the ones aimed at bars and pubs, are a bid to drive these businesses under. There's nothing government hates more than the small business owner. They want individuals to have to work for corporations rather than to own their own business. What better way to accomplish this than by putting onerous burdens on the small business owner?
The passive smoking fraud explained. It all comes down to the fact that "the dose determines the poison". Cigarette smoke may contain as many as 4000 toxins but you're exposed to about 10000 of even worse toxins everyday while eating,drinking, driving etc. A few of us realize that.
I agree with you 100% on this as far as the whole banning smoking thing. Where I disagree is the fact that second hand smoke is not bullshit. Don't get me wrong. I still don't support gov't regulation on it. Penn and Teller's Bullshit show on showtime did an episode on it. They later stated that they were wrong on that subject. Second hand smoke isn't bullshit.
Penn and Teller only admitted to being "wrong" about that due to pressure put on them by the executives at ShowTime who were responding to angry letters and outcry from the the Antis about how wrong they were. You are not allowed to disagree with the "conventional wisdom"! They probably would have lost their job if they hadn't.
Hey there cheerfulchaos. None of this really matters as far as whether or not to let businesses allow their customers to smoke in their facilities. They should be allowed. If you don't like smoke. Stay out of these businesses. Is the way I feel about it. Like smoking these are all choices that have to be left up to the individual.
"So quit your whining and dont be so damn lazy to walk ten feet to the door."
I've been argueing this whole time that what you support is an act of aggression. The resturant owner's obligation to keep smokers ten feet away from the door may be a small one but that doesn't change the fact that he was aggressed against. What are you going to do, threaten to murder any restuarant owner that decides to let smokers in? That is ultimately what it comes down to.
"in your opinion casinos should be allowed to cheat."
Complete strawman. Why would people go to a cheating casino? Implicit in the transactions at the casino is that the casino is not cheating. That would be fraud.
A smoking bar is not an act of fraud. Only an idiot wouldn't know that bars tend to have unclean air.
"ANd it is a public hazard you are serving the public making it a public hazard you dumb fuck."
That is not what a public hazard is. A public hazard is a hazard IMPOSED upon the public. Key word: Imposed. The bar is not pointing a gun at you forcing you to come to their smoking building. Therefore it is not a public hazard.
"YOu are a fucking idiot regardless if it is a private establishment you still have to abide by goverment law."
The government is a group of individuals. Individuals can be wrong about some things. Stop with these bullshit appeals to authority and please appeal to reason.
And quit with these bullshit appeals to authority. We are currently debating the authority of the government in regard to smoking buildings. Quoting the governments statutes to me is like quoting the bible to an atheist.
"about public health safety if you are serving the subject you must abide by the laws regardless of who owns it. It is only private establishments that should not have to follow the health laws"
1)They are private establishments
2)It is not a public safety hazard because a)The air would only be unclean in or directly next to the building. b)Only an idiot wouldn't know that bars tend to have unclean air
"yeah but how about the workers it is illegal to leave harmful substances lying around like acidic bleach but your logic is that you should be allowed to inhale them."
So what of the workers? Who the hell are you to put them out of a job just because you don't want them to breathe in dangerous fumes? They own their bodies. Not you.
The same reports that claim second hand smoke increases risk by 14% or so... at 95% confidence levels include risks less than and equal to RR of 1. An RR of 1 is zero increase in risk. If 10 in 100,000 people might be affected by Lung Cancer or COPD who do not smoke in a year, at 0% (low 95% error) 14% (mean) and 44% maximum, means that zero, 1 or 4 additional people might be affected. WIth such low numbers it is not possible to say with certainty that a cause and effect relationship...
...exists because of the potential for sampling error because of the rarity of these diseases existing in nonsmokers, and the decidedly small sample size.
The secondhand smoke case is speculation based on observation alone, and is not a scientific fact. The anti-smokers are using this fraud not to protect society from a non-existent danger, but to demonize a segment of the population in their crusade to make smoking socially unacceptable.
What logic is this? So if I open upon up a smoking bar I'm all of a sudden lowering the quality of life of everyone in the whole city? There is no public safety hazard. There is only a safety hazard for those that walk around the bar WHICH THEY SHOULD KNOW FULL WELL THAT THE AIR IS UNCLEAN.
Funny that " joints to lock up and his muscles to constrict (sp)" ar not symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.
Dose makes the poison. Cigarette smoke is not an allergen. The maximum dose that a passive smoker can get equals about a cigarette a week which is harmless.
You are ignorant and a hypochondriac. You have not studied both sides of the issue and only listened to freedom killing propaganda, because you are a sheep.
Public safety is not the issue because tobacco smoke is not a health hazard. No one has ever been harmed by tobacco smoke through indirect contact, unless they died in a tobacco barn fire.
Your friend might be experiencing psychosomatic effects as a result of his hypochondria, but it is all in his head and has nothing to do with cigarette smoke.
The increase in asthma is a direct result of more energy efficient buildings which retain more airborne pollutants than earilier buildings. Best solution would be to install good ventilation and filtration, which would make everyone healthier.
Did you know that laughter is one of the top triggers for asthma?
No, I must not abide by government health laws. We are talking praxeology here. If you just going to assume that the government position is okay without any appeal to reason then there is no point in argueing with you.
I'm not minimizing it, I'm stating a fact. When the smoke reaches another building it is allready so dilluted that only an asshole would complain about it.
I'm not talking about smoke in the bar I'm talking about smoke that travels from one building to another answering your arguement against owning airspace. By the time the smoke reaches another building the smoke is allready so dilluted with the air that complaining about it would be an act of nit picking.
When he sells food that is unsafe he is commiting fraud. A smoking bar is not an act of fraud. You should know full well that bars tend to have unclean air.
If cigarettes are so dangerous that a person can be seriously harmed from just a whiff of smoke, they should be outlawed, if they are safe enough for sale they are safe enough for public use.
No one has ever been hurt by second hand smoke, ever. Its a hoax.
No one is allergic to cigarette smoke because smoke has no proteins in it. Anyone who can die from just one sniff of tobacco smoke should be living in a plastic bubble, because all the same stuff is in all smoke including car exhaust.
Bacteria causes food poisoning, it cannot be tasted or smelled. Everyone can smell cigarettes, and if they believe that they are endangered by cigarettes, an irrational belief based on junk science, then they are free to leave. No one forces you to enter a bar, you do not own the bar, the bar is not public property, but the private property of the owner.
If cigarettes are so dangerous as to kill bystanders, then they should be outlawed, but so long as they remain a legal product....
Wrong, ownership of the airspace is fundamental to property rights. Who says air cannot be controlled? What do you do in the summer and winter, just burn and freeze, or do you turn on the heat and AC? The air inside a building belongs to the owner of the building. Bars are private property, not public property, they belong to someone, that someon is the owner who has exclusive rights to his property because it belongs to him, not the public. Nazis did not get this concept either.
My mouth belongs to me, by putting a booger in my mouth you would be assulting me, a criminal act.
The air space inside a bar does not belong to either me or you, but belongs to the owner, exclusively. You have no right to breath his air and no one is forcing you to be in a bar. Since the air is the owners property, and cigarettes are legal products, the owner has the right to allow or disallow smoking if he chooses. Its called property rights, and freedom is choice.
The government needs money for SCHIP, and you non smokers are effectively boycotting the new universal health program for ALL CHILDREN. Non-smokers, non drinkers, are, through the sin of ommission, depriving our youth of health coverage! Shame on you! lol
People who drive cars are endangering my health. I want a driving ban! No driving cars within 15 feet of smokers, 15 feet from the door of a bar, full of drinkers, not smoking! Also a farting ban, it smells bad and releases "greenhouse gas" into the atmosphere! Foods that cause farting need banned, When someone starts their car, the emissions spead through the air, endangering CHILDREN! Driving is child abuse! Your right to drive to work kills.
I am totally against smoking indoors. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but should not be allowed to interfere with other peoples lives while doing it.
You do not own the air indoors, the owner of the building owns the air, not you and you have no right to breath it, and no one is forcing you to do so.
There is no evidence that second hand smoke hurts anyone. Junk Science on the other hand is a killer, just ask a Jew or a Negro.
I say to all affected smokers, fight the bans! While smokers are allegedly a minority (visual evidence, to me, seems to differ) we certainly aren't the minority in the bar scene. Even if we were, people aren't going to these places for their health - slamming shots and scarfing down fried food!
In the mean time, if you still want to smoke in the bar, check out electronic cigarettes. They are a tobacco-free niccotine source, and generally unaffected by these bans. Check out my site for details.
If all non smokers simply denied patronage to all smoking establishments your problem would be solved, within months all savvy business owner would invariably become non-smoking. But you (for some reason (parenting I presume)) feel that you have a right to enter another citizens property and demand that the surrounds are to your standards. Simply put, if you dont want smoke around you, dont fucking go to a bar that allows smoking.
Your logic is completely nonsensical, ethically, you do not have to positive right to dismantle the surrounds you freely choose to visit simply because you are part of the majority. If this was common practice: Blacks would still be slaves, Jews would not exist, and Rocky Balboa never would have won a fight. You do, however, have to right to dismantle the areas you contribute to, such as, sidewalks and government (National) owned buildings.
Both of which (as a smoker) I believe are completely plausible, and completely reasonable requests by non-smokers. But, the foundations of freewill and liberty explicitly state that personal ownership and individual liberties allow us, as Americans, to partake in any activity we wish to, regardless of the negative consequences to our own health. Granted, we cannot enforceability contribute to any degradation to another persons health against their own free will.
But in the case of smoking in privately owned public places, you are not forcibly required to be there, thus using your said choice and your free will. A choice I believe you are inherently granted, and a choice of mine I wish was respected.
Haha. This is just hilarious. She has no idea of the adverse effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Her arguement is, if you want to expose numerous individuals to a known carcinogen it is your legal right to do so, really.
Amen to this video. I could almost understand the health side of this issue but the overtaxing and restrictions are just bullying. Why don't they overtax fastfood and take elevators out of buildings under 10 stories tall, or no parking near a food court. At what point is this just discrimination?
Next thing you know they will be taking away the right of nonsmokers, so that they can't go into fine dinning resturaunts and spray toxic paint into the face, food and clothing of smokers. Paint is not illegal. I see no signs saying "no spraying toxics". Smokers are not addicted they smoke for fun. What about our fun? We spray toxics into the faces of smokers for fun. If they did not die of our toxics, they would of died of smoking anyway. Don't let them take away our right to spray toxics.
What the health nazis don't realize is taht life is short! Who gives a shit about secondhand smoke? Once you age, your body is gonna be going through far worse and agonizing things. Just deal with it and STFU. Stress kills.
I agree completely , the smoking ban is crap , this idea is further expounded by me on you tube if you type in simonious1967 you can see my video too Oh and by the way and PS I am from the UK , Wales to be exact
Robert Curran (the Councilman you mention) is an EX-smoker who wants to tell everyone what to do since HE stopped! We held off the God damn Nazis in Balt. as long as we could....
They should put a ban on these whiners that don't want to smell the smoke. If they don't like it, plug their noses, or get the hell out of the bars. Or get a gas mask. The smoking bans also kill business. Here in Wisconsin, people are always telling me how the Smoking Bans are bullshit. It's a COMPLETE invasion of the right to life, liberty and pursuit. If people don't wanna be exposed to secondhand smoke, they can get the fuck out of the bars. This is NOT a free society. It's a police state.
If people want a smoke, they should be able to get one. It's these fucking whiney ass people that don't want to smell it. If you're one of those people, please shut up. If you don't wanna smell it, don't go to the bars. Or go outside. This is America, not Nazi Germany. Get a gas mask if you don't like secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke really kills people, but it's not on the scale they say it is. Just like global warming.
All smoking bans are based on lies perpetuated by the Pharma sponsored World Health Organisation.
Anti-tobacco is corrupt and is not interested in health. If they were they wouldnt have put a stop to the development of Less Harmful Cigarettes in the 70's. The Institute of Medicine itself, recognises that within 20 years of development cigarettes would have been no more harmful than soft drinks.
Unless it is a private club, it a bar or restaurant is not like someone's home. They are offering their product or service to the public. I will tell you that this is all going to a class action lawsuit, suing the owners like the flight attendants did back in the 1980's. The air belongs to everyone. Get over it.
Honolulu gross liquor sales from late night bars; 2003 = $34.1 million 2004 = $34.8 million 2005 = $35.1 million 2006 = $36.4 million 2007 = $29.27 million post ban -20% RAW Number of stand-alone bars 2003 = 366 2004 = 357 2005 = 359 2006 = 349 ( ban in November ) 2007 = 329 ! A RECORD DECLINE! That's with some places letting people brake the law just to survive. :(
I love it now that I can wear a jacket out on a cold night and into a bar, because I know that it won't be coming out smelling like a bag of assholes. Hey, states all over the US have been doing this for far, far longer. It was only a matter of time.
How did Black People end the discrimination waged against them in the south by the Public Transportation System? Boycott! Works Every Time. So next time you see an empty, 'Smoke Free' bar and grill, with the throngs of non-smokers (who they are still waiting for to show up), walk on with your head up high, and keep your money, and your tax dollars in your pocket. Thank You! Cheers!
Get over yourself! Smoking is not a right in public places. It is not a constitutional right. We all have the right to clean air. And yes, because you want to smoke in bar or restaurant, does not give you the right to tell a non-smoker to go to another place to live, drink, eat, or enjoy the company of others.
Yes but it works both ways. Non smoking isn't a constitutional right! A Non smoker therefore cannot tell a smoker to go to another place to live, drink, eat or enjoy the company of others either... so you get over yourself!
Oh by the way. Non-Smokers has prevailed and have changed the laws in many public places regarding smoking. We have sent smokers outside and as dumb as they are, they smoke in the middle of winter in the freezing weather. We have for many years, created "smoking" sections, but they do not work, part battle won by the smoker, but not for long. Smoking bans are on the rise and it is a loosing battle for the smoker. Anyone with brains knows smoking causes heart & lung diseases and it causes cancer.
Yes we all know smoking is bad for you. But it's the right of the owner of the resteraunt to make the smoking rules. His resteraunt is the same as his house. You can't tell people not to smoke in their house. If there is so much demand for non-smoking bars then bar owners would figure that out on there own, and you would see plenty of non-smoking bars without there being that stupid law.
You really are idealistic, aren't you? I don't know of a single pub, restaurant or club that has ever voluntarily imposed a smoking ban. So, I just never went to those places because I just found it too unpleasant. Now that the ban's in place, I actually enjoy going for a drink in a pub. They've gained a customer. Smokers say it's their right to poison their lungs. I say it's my right to breathe clean air. Without the ban, their right to poison gets precendence. Does that make sense to you?
The solution to this problem is very simple. If cigarette smoke is a legitimate danger to a person't health, all smoking resteraunts should have to place a sign in their window saying "smoking allowed, enter at your own risk". That way nobody's rights are being violated. You have been warned, and have the choice to take the warning seriously.
As I said, not allowing someone to smoke in their privately owned pub is the same as not allowing them to smoke in their home. You cannot seperate them.
Ok, you're right. I'm being selfish because I'm always torn between wanting to chill with my friends and wanting to get the hell out because I'm choking on smoke. With the ban at least we all have a good time and the smokers are happy to go out for 5 mins when they need a fix. Why should only the smokers get to have a good time? I think the ban is more balanced: I can breathe clean air and the smokers can still poison themselves outside, which they do without complaint around here.
Suppose you go to a friend's house for a party, and there are smokers there. Do you think it's fair to call the fed when you are bothered by the smokers? Should it not be up to the owner of the house to decide if smoking is allowed? Nobody is forcing you to be at the party, and nobody is forcing you to be in the resteraunt. I too hate being around smokers, but I would never suggest such an unjust law.
Just been to a dinner party. House owner is a charming lady of 76 with lung disease. 5 of the guests promptly lit up. She protested mildly but let it go. Then she leant over to me and said, "They know I detest it, but they smoke all the same". I said: "You can say No". She just shrugged. I'm not going to argue with you about unjust laws. It's a question of common decency. Explain to me why I must suffer because you can't control your addiction?
You don't have to suffer. Nobody is forcing you to be there, and it's private property. And I don't have an addiction, I'm not a smoker.
Just because an old lady doesn't care enough to kick people out of her house, doesn't mean it's the government's duty to stick up for everyone who doesn't like smokers. It's a private affair.
Ok, I confess. Smoking is my pet hate. I can't enjoy myself when I'm choking and I generally find smokers thick skinned and insenstive. I live in student res and my ex-roomie smoked in the room every morning at 7am despite my asking him to go out. We had many arguments but he said I should be considerate of his need! I absolutely support the ban for selfish purposes.
Initially I couldn't figure out why the government was considering the ban because the taxes on cigarettes generate enormous revenue for the government. Then I learned that providing health care to people with smoke-related disease is costing the government more than they make. So, it's got nothing to do with civil liberties. It's a simple cost-benefit calculation. But then, under McCain's deal there will be no public health care, so gone will be the incentive for the ban. Good thing he'll lose.
These "cost-benefit" calculations are a sacrifice of individual rights though. Firstly, the government takes it upon itself to provide healthcare, then dictates how people can live their lives so that they can save money on this service. This is immoral. Suppose the government decided to provide people with internet (which is already happening in places). They make a rule, to save money, that people can only download a certain amount daily. Is this fair? How is this different from your example?
If you have the right to stand in front of places I patron and pollute my air...I have the right to support a smoking ban and fuck up your day as well. ;-)
No, no no you have me all wrong. I hate big government. I hate all the rules we have to live by these days. I hate traffic cops sitting by the road waiting to bust me for speeding 45 in a 35. It's all quite silly sometimes. I also hate second hand smoke from cigarettes.
The people will come back to the bars and restaurants when they get used to the new laws!!
You should try some marijuana, cigarettes has stressed you out!!LOL!!
Small bar owners were lied to and told that if smoking bans were passed there would be an increase in business because more people don't smoke, but the truth is, health concerns aren't a priority for people who drink alcohol. Most bar regulars smoke and business plummeted. The ironic thing is many of the non-smoking employees that the laws were made to "protect" lost their jobs as a result of a law they didn't even want. Fascism doesn't work for anybody.
I'm simply equating the connection between smoking bans and legal marijuana because we have a need for both pieces of legislation. Most people do not want smoking allowed in public places. So let's have smoking bans. America desperately has a need for drug law reform. The war on drugs does not, cannot work. So I advocate for legal marijuana for a multitude of reasons. Smoke shops are the cure for both, a compromise that can work with sensible policies toward both problems.
Don't even start with that nanny state crap. Good legislation has nothing to do with big brother mentality. Keep this in context, we are simply talking about public places of business. I totally dosagree with certain areas of California banning smoking in public parks. I think it's ridiculous, but business owners in the restaurant and bar business have proven over the last 60 years they will not invest in ventilation systems. And we have never had a need for laws that allow smoking!!
Wrong. If I own a business, say a corner market, it's my own private property. I don't have to admit any customer that I don't like, for any reason.
If I choose to allow smoking inside my hypothetical corner market, you have no right to demand I do otherwise - and any attempt to legislate me into compliance with your ideals is a violation of MY rights. If you dislike smoke so much, you are free to patronize other businesses.
The only public locations are government buildings.
Many states do not agree with you and most states will introduce smoking bans soon. You may choose to not allow some people into your establishment for any reason but you had better be careful with that one also. And be prepaired to get sued once in awhile with that attitude. Things are changing in America and you've got to change with them or you stand to lose everything. Smoking bans are for the good of everyone!! Some business owners feel they are being violated, too bad.
The U.S. as a whole is losing personal and business rights..well right and left. It is the wave of the future. While we all hate losing our rights in one way or another, just look around. It's happening everywhere. I hate the way the government is taking our rights in the name of freedom called the "patriot act". Some people will tell me, "too bad, if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to hide." Ha!! Laughable! Smoking bans are just another right you are losing, better get used to it.
Who's whining, we're simply discussing very good legislation......Smoking bans in public places. You are welcome to smoke outside, in your home, next to a river while camping...who cares. It's public places we're talking about, not making cigarettes illegal. It is a choice, and I respect that for anyone, just not in public indoor locations, that's all. It's good legislation....another good law would be to initiate legal marijuana and set up smoke shops for all smokers.
And that's a bad thing? My point is that like the sixties and seventies, without smoking bans, I simply cannot go anywhere. Smokers will hastle an owner of a restaraunt until he gives in for the business. Smoking bans are the only voice left. But I am not at all against smoking shops as long as marijuana is allowed. Without legal marijuana I am totally against public smoking of any kind, it's only fair!!
If the world is fucked up because the government is telling people to be more healthy according to you, you're fucked up. Guess what, change needs to happen and I'm against the government most of the time but this sale of toxic carcenogenic filth to people needs to stop, and if millions have to go through a withdrawl, so be it. Quit whining and think about the health of subsequent generations that will think it's okay to smoke because of people like YOU!
Smoking is a personal choice. The government shouldn't tell people what to do with themselves.
What next? Cheeseburgers are bad for you too. would you be okay to banning those?
It's about your personal life. Educate people about how horrible smoking is and they may CHOOSE to quit. If they don't that's not your problem. Get over it.
Still don't get it, do you? Didn't think so. Try again: Let's start banning something you enjoy for all the right reasons.
No one is denying that it's a choice. Name one thing that isn't a choice in human action. Theft, murder, rape, are all choices but we think of them as bad. Why shouldn't I think of smoking as bad? Because you choose it? That's a load of shit. Yes, I think cheeseburgers should be banned too. I like to put my mind in conformity with reality and accept that what is bad for me ought not be done as it hurts myself and those around me that care for me. You're already trying to ban that!
You can't equate eating cheeseburgers with crimes like murder. Get real.
Smoking IS BAD. FYI I don't smoke. I just respect someone's right to choose. What I hate about smoking bans is the precedent for banning self-destructive behavior in the name of "safety".
Ban cheeseburgers? Are you kidding? What would it be "legal" to eat, then? Anything you eat could make you fat! Seriously.
You must hate freedom. Go to Red China for the social conformity you like. Wouldn't that make you happy?
Now that we have banned smoking in public places (thank goodness), a fair compromise might be to allow smoke and coffee shops specially licensed to sell marijuana. The tobacco smokers would be welcomed as well as those that choose to smoke the safest mind altering substance known to man. I've been to Holland and it works quite well. I just wish those Dutch folks would quit smoking in restaurants and other public places.
We that support smoking bans have no beef against those who smoke. "smokem if ya gottem." I say it all the time at work. I happen to work outside. I feel smoking bans are a fair compromise. I don't hastle people who smoke outside at all. Just don't make me a smoker when I choose not to. When people smoke indoors they force everyone in the vicinity to become a smoker. You have no arguement here. You are just wrong from start to finish.
I agree with you i have no problems with smokers or nonsmokers or people who say smoking is unheathly, because it is. I disagree with the smoking ban because it doesnt give restaruant and bar owners the right to choose whether or not their own property is smoking or nonsmoking. it doesnt even give them the option of a smokers section or room. i think owners should be able to put up a sign that says This establishment is a smoking area. that way it is up to the bar owner not the government.
That's probably the toughest part about it. There really is a strong arguement on both sides as far as restaurants and bars choosing if they want smoking or not. One point though, smokers will push an owner for smoking all they can. After all they feel pretty strongly about polluting everyones air. I still think the only fair compromise would be to set up smoke shops complete with legal marijuana, no doubt they'll welcome cigarette smokers. We'll call them........haha coffee shops.
You're probably right. Without any smoking bans as it was in the 70's, it's me that shouldn't travel on airplanes, eat at restaurants, go bowling, watch a movie, go to a public restroom anywhere, go to the supermarket, hell, even walk down the halls at school for they too had smoking in the teachers lounge, or even go home after school because back then all parents that smoked sure as hell weren't going to go outside for the sake of their childrens health. You're right, I'm the freak!!
Hey I'm all for the smoking bans and here's why. Smokers are selfish pricks for the most part. They took the liberties they chose to for sooooooo long regardless of it bothering anyone. They would blow it in your face if they thought it might bother you. They would smoke on airplanes, restaurants, rest rooms, in the work place. Anywhere they chose, and the smaller the space the more they'll smoke. Payback time!!!
Would you be for opium dens? How about a bar that allows marijuana smoke?
I mean.. it is indeed the OWNER'S property..
If no..
Does that mean.. if cigarettes become illegal you would support a ban on smoking (cigarettes) from businesses?
Tbh.. I would be for this.. HOWEVER I notice most smokers join together under the banner of "property rights" and "my body!" But when it comes to ILLEGAL drugs.. they run from that banner, like pigs from a gun
Almost ALL of the pro-smoking people are histrionic girls. I think they take that position because of nicotine sulfide's deppressant effect and their addiction to it to keep their emotions in check.
Almost ALL of the pro-smoking people are histrionic girls. I think they take that position because of nicotine sulfide's deppressant effect and their addiction to it to keep their emotions in check.
EXCELLENT VIDEO. For those of you who dont want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't go near it - simple really. WISH EVERYONE WOULD STOP SAYING SHS IS DANGEROUS. ITS NOT. ITS B.S. Keep up with the videos angrygirl :)
I just bet all of you against this ban are democrats. Got news for you..the dems pushed this thru! Best thing they have ever done. Smoking sucks. You are a cute girl, but you probably get ugly with a cig in your mouth...and stinky.
Yeah you're right the government shouldn't be able to say you can't do something as harmless as smoke on your private property, oh wait?
What if people who don't want to die a slow horrible death want to hang out in bars? You're advocating their loss of rights too (they have the right to live right?).
The government shouldn't be able to tell you not to do heroin. Or murder people. Hell, it gets the job done faster right?
The government shouldn't bea ble to tell you not to do heroin..
"What if people who don't want to die a slow horrible death want to hang out in bars?" What if i wan't to go to my aunts house.. but she smokes. Should I have the right to ban smoking in her house? Based on MY comfort?
Ps. I would support making it so minors can't go into a smoking establishment.
Ok, so then let's go out together to the bar and have a good time! You can blow secondhand smoke in my face because it's your right as an individual, and I'll stab you in the lungs because it's my right as an individual, and we'll have a gay ole time! Hooray!
Haha this girl looks like 12 and she talks like she is a big smoker! 2nd hand smkoking is worse than smoking urselfs! U have probably felt it at the trainstation or the bus stop!
You said, "If people want to expose themselves to something that is potentially life-threatening, they have the option to do that." OK, and since you brought up civil liberties and individual rights, it's only fair that I as a non-smoker should be awarded the same exact argument? Right? What about those of us who are subjected to second hand smoke who DON'T want to expose themselves to something that is potentially life threatening. Do we have the option to do that?
this aint about health.. it's about a bunch of Evil uptight freaks.. they want to go out and have a good time, but they have to be able to control the environment first so they feel safe and comftorble... not knowing the rest of us are going out and having fun to get away from evil nuts like these guys. they should stay home and hide under the bed where they feel they are safe.
If we wan't to "go out" and have a good time and meet new people,without second hand smoke..
We should organize little parties.. like open houses for non smokers..
It sounds like it has potential for a good time! "For a non smoked filled environment.. come to my house.." Then next week hold it at someone elses house!
If you smoke and/or are hooked on cigarettes: You are a slave. A slave to the big-wigs who only want you hooked. So, now bring the sarcastic jokes, then take a smoke-break and pay $5 a pack for your own slow death. Quit smoking just to stick it to the soulless tobacco barons.
Honolulu gross liquor sales from late night bars; 2003 = $34.1 million 2004 = $34.8 million 2005 = $35.1 million 2006 = $36.4 million 2007 = $29.27 million post ban -20% RAW Number of stand-lone bars 2003 = 366 2004 = 357 2005 = 359 2006 = 349 ( ban in November ) 2007 = 329 ! A RECORD DECLINE!
It's a trick. The government knows that the majority of people are non-smokers. They also know non-smokers hate smokers. They allow the majority to feel they have a say in government by creating fear in the non-smokers and then supporting them. But behind while you are watching one hand the other is taking all your rights away.
Sort of. I say it's important for the government to be able to tell us what to do. The second hand smoke thing is minor, you're right. But think about other health related laws like, about what can and can't be buried in a landfill, or poured into a lake. If the government didn't put it's foot down, neither would anyone else.
Well said; the second hand smoke - health and safety argument is a red herring. This comes down to people's right to associate and congregate in the manner they (those congregating) see fit
Right on. Governments only have rights that we The People can give them. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
However, there is an argument to be made that second hand smoke constitutes a 'harmful or offensive touching' in which case there is a crime because of intent to cause the touching and the harm caused to the victim's body. Nevertheless, I'd personally rather deal with that than the Nazi government under Hitler that instituted the first cigarette smoking ban!
I love anti-gov girl. I hope she makes a lot more videos. I'm sure pantzofdoom will get his wish and have total Government takeover of our lives from craddle to grave. But it is still nice to know there are some true dessenters still left.
With respect, nicotine is too unstable. That's the reason that SHS/ETS studies can only try to measure a metabolite of nicotine (cotinine). Employees aren't really getting any equivalent of mainstream smoke--but they do get other contaminants from alcohol, cooking, wood burning, exhaust.... It's never been about cleaning the air. SHS/ETS is 95% water vapor--governments are effectively banning water vapor...LOL. The whole mess was invented by NAZIs,--honest! Heaven help us!
You're forgetting about employees who work in places of business that permit smoking. I used to work weekends in a cafe/bar and the smoke hurt my throat and lungs even hours after I left. After the ban, the problem went away. If you want to smoke just step outside. Be considerate of the vast majority who do not smoke and don't appreciate it.
But of course, you could have just chosen not to work in that cafe/bar. Choice is a fundemental human right, and just because you chose not to exercise that right, don't expect others to surrender it.
"If you don't like working in hazardous conditions, go work somewhere else." Maybe that still flies in developing nations, but we should have moved passed that a long time ago. I also feel like this is less about civil liberties and more about health, courtesy toward others, and common sense. What is so damn hard about stepping outside to exercise your "rights"?
If you want to join the army, the police force or fire brigade, be a coal miner or any other employment, you have the choice of doing so. And this choice is based on whether you want to expose yourself to the hazards or discomfort that comes with the job. Likewise if you don't want to work in a smokey bar, then don't.
Yes but don't you think precautions are also taken to reduce the amount of risk to workers? A soldier or a coal miner rightfully expects his/her employer to do everything that is possible to ensure their safety. Is this not correct? It is also rather presumptuous to speculate about the choices others have in their employment.
You're wrong. The choice is based on the need to earn a living. Folks don't become coal miners b/c they like the danger involved. Usually it's the best job available to them, so they take it. This doesn't mean that any or all harm they suffer while working is their own problem b/c they "chose" to work there.
But you're still assuming that their is a risk from SHS, and yet this is not only not proven, but also an incredibly far fetched notion. Even the most ardent of antismokers are starting to go backtrack on the issue as its just too rediculous.
Dude, I'm not going to debate if breathing smoke is bad for you. There are also studies that claim to disprove global warming and evolution. There's a reason you don't bring a baby into a smokey bar, why firefighters wear oxygen masks, and why my throat stopped hurting when they went no-smoking. Get a clue.
Your throat was iritated by smoke, so what? That doesn't mean it was harming you, it just means you're sensitive to smoke. Plenty more people (the vast majority of the human race in fact) don't get sore throats from entering or working in smoky environments. But they must all give up their freedom of choice just to sooth your tickly cough? You should wake up to your selfishness, DUDE!
Your throat hurts, ahh diddums! That doesn't mean smoke is harmfull, it just means it iritates YOUR throat. Plenty of people are not bothered by it (the majority of the human race in fact). But you believe that they must all sacrifice their freedom of choice just to spare you from a tickly cough. DUDE!
I just write about my own experience. You feel entitled to speak on behalf of "the majority of the human race." Ofcourse you're entitled to your own opinions, but you conveniently assume that the rest of the world thinks the way you do. I'm done with this thread b/c your arguments are weak and are all about "freedom of choice" nonsense. If you want to smoke in public places make the choice to go live in Alabama where I'm sure they won't pass the law for a long time.
Alabama sounds like a good place to me. Strange that you refer to "freedom of choice" as nonsense, clearly you certainly can't speak for the human race, since freedom of choice is a fundemental god given human right.
LOL. He runs and hides when his whining isn't glorified.
HC spoke for the majority of the human race because (1) the most rigorous science supports him and (2) humans have evolved heartily while exposed to all types of smoke--the most innocuous of which is tobacco smoke. In the last decades, SHS exposure has gone down while allergies and asthma have gone up! DM assumes that people can't choose where to work, i.e. we live in a slave labor society, then calls freedom of choice "nonsense".
LOL. He runs and hides when his whining isn't glorified.
HC spoke for the majority of the human race because (1) the most rigorous science supports him and (2) humans have evolved heartily while exposed to all types of smoke--the most innocuous of which is tobacco smoke. In the last decades, SHS exposure has gone down while allergies and asthma have gone up! DM assumes that people can't choose where to work, i.e. we live in a slave labor society, then calls freedom of choice "nonsense".
That argument is in no way similar to the problem and subsequent ban on smoking. The fact is that there are still people with limited skill sets and limited employment options. There is a point where you 'take what you can get' to support you and your family and that shouldn't mean you have to deal with second-hand smoke. If they were to say you can't smoke at all I'd be on your side but that's not the case.
Get your facts straight before posting, based on Cototine levels a bar worker gets the equivalent dosage of 1 cigarette PER WEEK.
I mean think about it, if they were getting the same dosage as smokers they would become addicted to nicotine themselves and start to suffer from withdrawal symptoms within a couple of hours of finishing their shift.
Get your facts straight, cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine, a harmless substance that shows a trace in the blood and urine long after the nicotine(which lasts only a few hours)has gone. And since cotinine can also come from eating vegetables, the whole test is an unmeasurable fraud.
The whole anti smoking argument stems from Hitlers dislike of the smell. He ordered his medical masterminds to find evidence that it was harmfull and find it they did. Of course these were the same medical experts that found proof that jews were sub-human and had to be exterminated. And now our leaders have decided to adopt not only this nazi belief that smoking kills, but worse still the nazi tactic of discrimination and persecution. You stand your ground love, don't let the buggers win.
Right on! You go girl! (Not to mention you are a doll). I quit smoking last november. It's a bad habit. Still doesn't mean the government has the right to stop it everywhere. Especially in bars!
À broken clock is right two times a day. Even the Nazis had SOME good ideas. I think they went a little wrong when they started executing foreigners and jews, when , in reality they should have started with smokers instead. thada been kewl
It IS statistically proven that people WORKING for instance in a smoky bar are subjected to levels of carcinogenic toxins not that far below the people actually smoking. They're working there, that's THEIR freedom to work which is being hampered by smokers doing something clearly which is very much dangerous to people's health, and the crucial point is that it endangers other people's health as well as their own..
When your rights hinder the health of other people is when your rights should be limited. Gun control laws come to mind. This is a horrible, pseudointellectual argument.
Your idea of a free society is the idea of no society at all, rather people just going around doing what they want. That isn't a free society, and if you think it is, stop being 13 years old.
quit smoking, it really doesn't make you look cool.
It is not true that second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke doesn't cause any harm. It has clearly been shown that standing next to someone who is smoking is almost as harmful as breathing in the fumes from a non-stick frying pan, or even the radiation exposure from our cell phones.
I keep hearing that smokers have special rights to smoke where ever they wish. The only reason tobacco is legal is because they do not enforce equally the FDA laws. Tobacco would be banned because of all the health problems it causes. The courts have rule that smoking bans are constitutional. Smoking bans are better than a total ban because of the number of those addicted.
Us smokers have lost the fight. They banned smoking in bars in NORTH CAROLINA! If it's banned in tobacco country our cause is lost.
WinstonMan1000 8 months ago
Cannabis has been illegal for a long time. It's not even remotely as addictive as tobacco either. Yet it is illegal. So in reality the same liberty was violated by the government a long time ago. 2nd hand smoke really is bad though if you are around it a lot. I think it's negligent for parents to smoke inside around their kids. I know people who have asthma and ear/sinus problems because their parents always smoked in their houses.
undeadpresident 9 months ago
Well can you perhaps make the smoke STAY on your property as well?
No?
flattabang 10 months ago
Sorry girl, but property rights aren't the same for a residence and a business. What you do in your own house is one thing, but bars and restaurants are PUBLIC accommodations and have always had to follow additional health codes. Smoking bans are nothing new in that respect.
logik316 1 year ago
I think these smoking bans, especially the ones aimed at bars and pubs, are a bid to drive these businesses under. There's nothing government hates more than the small business owner. They want individuals to have to work for corporations rather than to own their own business. What better way to accomplish this than by putting onerous burdens on the small business owner?
OmegaWolf747 1 year ago
you need to fuck me... i lived in maryland.. figures they would sell out.. FUCK ME BEFORE 30
WilAzzamEdison 1 year ago
Hit the State in Their pocketbook!
I think the bars should pull their lottery out in protest!
steinie44 1 year ago
"the passive smoking fraud" - google this
The passive smoking fraud explained. It all comes down to the fact that "the dose determines the poison". Cigarette smoke may contain as many as 4000 toxins but you're exposed to about 10000 of even worse toxins everyday while eating,drinking, driving etc. A few of us realize that.
pharaoh337 2 years ago
I agree with you 100% on this as far as the whole banning smoking thing. Where I disagree is the fact that second hand smoke is not bullshit. Don't get me wrong. I still don't support gov't regulation on it. Penn and Teller's Bullshit show on showtime did an episode on it. They later stated that they were wrong on that subject. Second hand smoke isn't bullshit.
villainus 2 years ago
Penn and Teller only admitted to being "wrong" about that due to pressure put on them by the executives at ShowTime who were responding to angry letters and outcry from the the Antis about how wrong they were. You are not allowed to disagree with the "conventional wisdom"! They probably would have lost their job if they hadn't.
cheerfulchaos 2 years ago
Hey there cheerfulchaos. None of this really matters as far as whether or not to let businesses allow their customers to smoke in their facilities. They should be allowed. If you don't like smoke. Stay out of these businesses. Is the way I feel about it. Like smoking these are all choices that have to be left up to the individual.
villainus 2 years ago
You are an amazing woman...
mackdan7 2 years ago
"So quit your whining and dont be so damn lazy to walk ten feet to the door."
I've been argueing this whole time that what you support is an act of aggression. The resturant owner's obligation to keep smokers ten feet away from the door may be a small one but that doesn't change the fact that he was aggressed against. What are you going to do, threaten to murder any restuarant owner that decides to let smokers in? That is ultimately what it comes down to.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"in your opinion casinos should be allowed to cheat."
Complete strawman. Why would people go to a cheating casino? Implicit in the transactions at the casino is that the casino is not cheating. That would be fraud.
A smoking bar is not an act of fraud. Only an idiot wouldn't know that bars tend to have unclean air.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Excuse me, there is an implied service liability within the transactions at the casino.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"ANd it is a public hazard you are serving the public making it a public hazard you dumb fuck."
That is not what a public hazard is. A public hazard is a hazard IMPOSED upon the public. Key word: Imposed. The bar is not pointing a gun at you forcing you to come to their smoking building. Therefore it is not a public hazard.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"YOu are a fucking idiot regardless if it is a private establishment you still have to abide by goverment law."
The government is a group of individuals. Individuals can be wrong about some things. Stop with these bullshit appeals to authority and please appeal to reason.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
And quit with these bullshit appeals to authority. We are currently debating the authority of the government in regard to smoking buildings. Quoting the governments statutes to me is like quoting the bible to an atheist.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"about public health safety if you are serving the subject you must abide by the laws regardless of who owns it. It is only private establishments that should not have to follow the health laws"
1)They are private establishments
2)It is not a public safety hazard because a)The air would only be unclean in or directly next to the building. b)Only an idiot wouldn't know that bars tend to have unclean air
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"yeah but how about the workers it is illegal to leave harmful substances lying around like acidic bleach but your logic is that you should be allowed to inhale them."
So what of the workers? Who the hell are you to put them out of a job just because you don't want them to breathe in dangerous fumes? They own their bodies. Not you.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
The same reports that claim second hand smoke increases risk by 14% or so... at 95% confidence levels include risks less than and equal to RR of 1. An RR of 1 is zero increase in risk. If 10 in 100,000 people might be affected by Lung Cancer or COPD who do not smoke in a year, at 0% (low 95% error) 14% (mean) and 44% maximum, means that zero, 1 or 4 additional people might be affected. WIth such low numbers it is not possible to say with certainty that a cause and effect relationship...
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
...exists because of the potential for sampling error because of the rarity of these diseases existing in nonsmokers, and the decidedly small sample size.
The secondhand smoke case is speculation based on observation alone, and is not a scientific fact. The anti-smokers are using this fraud not to protect society from a non-existent danger, but to demonize a segment of the population in their crusade to make smoking socially unacceptable.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
What logic is this? So if I open upon up a smoking bar I'm all of a sudden lowering the quality of life of everyone in the whole city? There is no public safety hazard. There is only a safety hazard for those that walk around the bar WHICH THEY SHOULD KNOW FULL WELL THAT THE AIR IS UNCLEAN.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Funny that " joints to lock up and his muscles to constrict (sp)" ar not symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.
Dose makes the poison. Cigarette smoke is not an allergen. The maximum dose that a passive smoker can get equals about a cigarette a week which is harmless.
You are ignorant and a hypochondriac. You have not studied both sides of the issue and only listened to freedom killing propaganda, because you are a sheep.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Public safety is not the issue because tobacco smoke is not a health hazard. No one has ever been harmed by tobacco smoke through indirect contact, unless they died in a tobacco barn fire.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Your friend might be experiencing psychosomatic effects as a result of his hypochondria, but it is all in his head and has nothing to do with cigarette smoke.
The increase in asthma is a direct result of more energy efficient buildings which retain more airborne pollutants than earilier buildings. Best solution would be to install good ventilation and filtration, which would make everyone healthier.
Did you know that laughter is one of the top triggers for asthma?
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
No, I must not abide by government health laws. We are talking praxeology here. If you just going to assume that the government position is okay without any appeal to reason then there is no point in argueing with you.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I'm not minimizing it, I'm stating a fact. When the smoke reaches another building it is allready so dilluted that only an asshole would complain about it.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I'm not talking about smoke in the bar I'm talking about smoke that travels from one building to another answering your arguement against owning airspace. By the time the smoke reaches another building the smoke is allready so dilluted with the air that complaining about it would be an act of nit picking.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
When he sells food that is unsafe he is commiting fraud. A smoking bar is not an act of fraud. You should know full well that bars tend to have unclean air.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
If cigarettes are so dangerous that a person can be seriously harmed from just a whiff of smoke, they should be outlawed, if they are safe enough for sale they are safe enough for public use.
No one has ever been hurt by second hand smoke, ever. Its a hoax.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
No one is allergic to cigarette smoke because smoke has no proteins in it. Anyone who can die from just one sniff of tobacco smoke should be living in a plastic bubble, because all the same stuff is in all smoke including car exhaust.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Lots of things cause asthma attacks, laughter is one of the leading causes, so are pets. Should we ban laughter and animals for your asthma too?
Asthma was never a problem back in the 50s and 60s when everyone smoked, ever wonder why it is a problem today?
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
"yeah but using your arguement i should be allowed to flick my boogers in the air and if your mouth just happens to be there its your fault."
A booger doesn't even compare to an infinitely dilluted speck of smoke. Absurd comparison.
"Should the owner be allowed to give you food poisoning too without getting in trouble and is it your fault that you ate his food."
Implied in that transaction is that the food is safe to eat. There is an implied product liability.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"actually no one owns the air even the owner because it cannot be controlled."
By the time the smoke leaves the restaurant or the bar it is allready so dispersed that complaining about would be an act of nit picking.
"And public buildings should not have smoking in it because its public."
You're using two versions of the word "public" there. Public accessablity does not equal public ownership.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
So you admit that you have serious brain damage.
I guess that is why you do not understand the difference between junk science and real science. BTW Global Warming is a fraud too.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Bacteria causes food poisoning, it cannot be tasted or smelled. Everyone can smell cigarettes, and if they believe that they are endangered by cigarettes, an irrational belief based on junk science, then they are free to leave. No one forces you to enter a bar, you do not own the bar, the bar is not public property, but the private property of the owner.
If cigarettes are so dangerous as to kill bystanders, then they should be outlawed, but so long as they remain a legal product....
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Wrong, ownership of the airspace is fundamental to property rights. Who says air cannot be controlled? What do you do in the summer and winter, just burn and freeze, or do you turn on the heat and AC? The air inside a building belongs to the owner of the building. Bars are private property, not public property, they belong to someone, that someon is the owner who has exclusive rights to his property because it belongs to him, not the public. Nazis did not get this concept either.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
The majority of bar goers are smokers, and smokers tend to drink more frequently and more heavily than non-drinkers. That's a fact.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
My mouth belongs to me, by putting a booger in my mouth you would be assulting me, a criminal act.
The air space inside a bar does not belong to either me or you, but belongs to the owner, exclusively. You have no right to breath his air and no one is forcing you to be in a bar. Since the air is the owners property, and cigarettes are legal products, the owner has the right to allow or disallow smoking if he chooses. Its called property rights, and freedom is choice.
Nazi
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
The government needs money for SCHIP, and you non smokers are effectively boycotting the new universal health program for ALL CHILDREN. Non-smokers, non drinkers, are, through the sin of ommission, depriving our youth of health coverage! Shame on you! lol
TotalWarJunkie 2 years ago
People who drive cars are endangering my health. I want a driving ban! No driving cars within 15 feet of smokers, 15 feet from the door of a bar, full of drinkers, not smoking! Also a farting ban, it smells bad and releases "greenhouse gas" into the atmosphere! Foods that cause farting need banned, When someone starts their car, the emissions spead through the air, endangering CHILDREN! Driving is child abuse! Your right to drive to work kills.
TotalWarJunkie 2 years ago
I am totally against smoking indoors. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but should not be allowed to interfere with other peoples lives while doing it.
Ironman718 2 years ago
You do not own the air indoors, the owner of the building owns the air, not you and you have no right to breath it, and no one is forcing you to do so.
There is no evidence that second hand smoke hurts anyone. Junk Science on the other hand is a killer, just ask a Jew or a Negro.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
im against smokin indoors but outdoors no !all these cars burning fuel polluts the air so why the fuck would they make smokers life harder!
elegyrulz 3 years ago
I say to all affected smokers, fight the bans! While smokers are allegedly a minority (visual evidence, to me, seems to differ) we certainly aren't the minority in the bar scene. Even if we were, people aren't going to these places for their health - slamming shots and scarfing down fried food!
In the mean time, if you still want to smoke in the bar, check out electronic cigarettes. They are a tobacco-free niccotine source, and generally unaffected by these bans. Check out my site for details.
FreelySmoke 3 years ago
Bollocks, it stinks, ban it, end of
lifeslottery 3 years ago
If all non smokers simply denied patronage to all smoking establishments your problem would be solved, within months all savvy business owner would invariably become non-smoking. But you (for some reason (parenting I presume)) feel that you have a right to enter another citizens property and demand that the surrounds are to your standards. Simply put, if you dont want smoke around you, dont fucking go to a bar that allows smoking.
erietemperance 3 years ago
Your logic is completely nonsensical, ethically, you do not have to positive right to dismantle the surrounds you freely choose to visit simply because you are part of the majority. If this was common practice: Blacks would still be slaves, Jews would not exist, and Rocky Balboa never would have won a fight. You do, however, have to right to dismantle the areas you contribute to, such as, sidewalks and government (National) owned buildings.
erietemperance 3 years ago
Both of which (as a smoker) I believe are completely plausible, and completely reasonable requests by non-smokers. But, the foundations of freewill and liberty explicitly state that personal ownership and individual liberties allow us, as Americans, to partake in any activity we wish to, regardless of the negative consequences to our own health. Granted, we cannot enforceability contribute to any degradation to another persons health against their own free will.
erietemperance 3 years ago
But in the case of smoking in privately owned public places, you are not forcibly required to be there, thus using your said choice and your free will. A choice I believe you are inherently granted, and a choice of mine I wish was respected.
P.S. AngryGirl 76. Will you merry me?
erietemperance 3 years ago
Haha. This is just hilarious. She has no idea of the adverse effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Her arguement is, if you want to expose numerous individuals to a known carcinogen it is your legal right to do so, really.
trunderh 3 years ago
Amen to this video. I could almost understand the health side of this issue but the overtaxing and restrictions are just bullying. Why don't they overtax fastfood and take elevators out of buildings under 10 stories tall, or no parking near a food court. At what point is this just discrimination?
mabutoo 3 years ago
If smokers don't want me to spray paint in their face, clothing or in their food, why don't they
just stay home?
My right to spray toxics, is more important then their health.
I am not addicted to spraying toxics, but I do it for fun and because its my right in a free country.
Smokers want to die anyway and I don't know why they get so upset when I spray toxics in their face.
It's about freedom man.
GoTimothy 3 years ago
Next thing you know they will be taking away the right of nonsmokers, so that they can't go into fine dinning resturaunts and spray toxic paint into the face, food and clothing of smokers. Paint is not illegal. I see no signs saying "no spraying toxics". Smokers are not addicted they smoke for fun. What about our fun? We spray toxics into the faces of smokers for fun. If they did not die of our toxics, they would of died of smoking anyway. Don't let them take away our right to spray toxics.
GoTimothy 3 years ago
obama is going to free smoking everywhere, at libraries, at work...! yeah lol
DryWhiskey 3 years ago
What the health nazis don't realize is taht life is short! Who gives a shit about secondhand smoke? Once you age, your body is gonna be going through far worse and agonizing things. Just deal with it and STFU. Stress kills.
whoo689 3 years ago
I agree completely , the smoking ban is crap , this idea is further expounded by me on you tube if you type in simonious1967 you can see my video too Oh and by the way and PS I am from the UK , Wales to be exact
simonious1967 3 years ago
Robert Curran (the Councilman you mention) is an EX-smoker who wants to tell everyone what to do since HE stopped! We held off the God damn Nazis in Balt. as long as we could....
ferdinandthecrow 3 years ago
They should put a ban on these whiners that don't want to smell the smoke. If they don't like it, plug their noses, or get the hell out of the bars. Or get a gas mask. The smoking bans also kill business. Here in Wisconsin, people are always telling me how the Smoking Bans are bullshit. It's a COMPLETE invasion of the right to life, liberty and pursuit. If people don't wanna be exposed to secondhand smoke, they can get the fuck out of the bars. This is NOT a free society. It's a police state.
hogger129 3 years ago 2
If people want a smoke, they should be able to get one. It's these fucking whiney ass people that don't want to smell it. If you're one of those people, please shut up. If you don't wanna smell it, don't go to the bars. Or go outside. This is America, not Nazi Germany. Get a gas mask if you don't like secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke really kills people, but it's not on the scale they say it is. Just like global warming.
hogger129 3 years ago
Absolutely spot on!
All smoking bans are based on lies perpetuated by the Pharma sponsored World Health Organisation.
Anti-tobacco is corrupt and is not interested in health. If they were they wouldnt have put a stop to the development of Less Harmful Cigarettes in the 70's. The Institute of Medicine itself, recognises that within 20 years of development cigarettes would have been no more harmful than soft drinks.
andypand20 3 years ago
Unless it is a private club, it a bar or restaurant is not like someone's home. They are offering their product or service to the public. I will tell you that this is all going to a class action lawsuit, suing the owners like the flight attendants did back in the 1980's. The air belongs to everyone. Get over it.
scottyron1956 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sedna69a 3 years ago
I love it now that I can wear a jacket out on a cold night and into a bar, because I know that it won't be coming out smelling like a bag of assholes. Hey, states all over the US have been doing this for far, far longer. It was only a matter of time.
ElkT8nt 3 years ago
How did Black People end the discrimination waged against them in the south by the Public Transportation System? Boycott! Works Every Time. So next time you see an empty, 'Smoke Free' bar and grill, with the throngs of non-smokers (who they are still waiting for to show up), walk on with your head up high, and keep your money, and your tax dollars in your pocket. Thank You! Cheers!
BIKabballa 3 years ago
Get over yourself! Smoking is not a right in public places. It is not a constitutional right. We all have the right to clean air. And yes, because you want to smoke in bar or restaurant, does not give you the right to tell a non-smoker to go to another place to live, drink, eat, or enjoy the company of others.
scottyron1956 3 years ago
Yes but it works both ways. Non smoking isn't a constitutional right! A Non smoker therefore cannot tell a smoker to go to another place to live, drink, eat or enjoy the company of others either... so you get over yourself!
rpccambos 3 years ago
Oh by the way. Non-Smokers has prevailed and have changed the laws in many public places regarding smoking. We have sent smokers outside and as dumb as they are, they smoke in the middle of winter in the freezing weather. We have for many years, created "smoking" sections, but they do not work, part battle won by the smoker, but not for long. Smoking bans are on the rise and it is a loosing battle for the smoker. Anyone with brains knows smoking causes heart & lung diseases and it causes cancer.
scottyron1956 3 years ago
Smoking is healthier than fascism.
neestle 3 years ago
Yes we all know smoking is bad for you. But it's the right of the owner of the resteraunt to make the smoking rules. His resteraunt is the same as his house. You can't tell people not to smoke in their house. If there is so much demand for non-smoking bars then bar owners would figure that out on there own, and you would see plenty of non-smoking bars without there being that stupid law.
Thill029 3 years ago
You really are idealistic, aren't you? I don't know of a single pub, restaurant or club that has ever voluntarily imposed a smoking ban. So, I just never went to those places because I just found it too unpleasant. Now that the ban's in place, I actually enjoy going for a drink in a pub. They've gained a customer. Smokers say it's their right to poison their lungs. I say it's my right to breathe clean air. Without the ban, their right to poison gets precendence. Does that make sense to you?
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
The solution to this problem is very simple. If cigarette smoke is a legitimate danger to a person't health, all smoking resteraunts should have to place a sign in their window saying "smoking allowed, enter at your own risk". That way nobody's rights are being violated. You have been warned, and have the choice to take the warning seriously.
As I said, not allowing someone to smoke in their privately owned pub is the same as not allowing them to smoke in their home. You cannot seperate them.
Thill029 3 years ago
Ok, you're right. I'm being selfish because I'm always torn between wanting to chill with my friends and wanting to get the hell out because I'm choking on smoke. With the ban at least we all have a good time and the smokers are happy to go out for 5 mins when they need a fix. Why should only the smokers get to have a good time? I think the ban is more balanced: I can breathe clean air and the smokers can still poison themselves outside, which they do without complaint around here.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Suppose you go to a friend's house for a party, and there are smokers there. Do you think it's fair to call the fed when you are bothered by the smokers? Should it not be up to the owner of the house to decide if smoking is allowed? Nobody is forcing you to be at the party, and nobody is forcing you to be in the resteraunt. I too hate being around smokers, but I would never suggest such an unjust law.
Thill029 3 years ago
Just been to a dinner party. House owner is a charming lady of 76 with lung disease. 5 of the guests promptly lit up. She protested mildly but let it go. Then she leant over to me and said, "They know I detest it, but they smoke all the same". I said: "You can say No". She just shrugged. I'm not going to argue with you about unjust laws. It's a question of common decency. Explain to me why I must suffer because you can't control your addiction?
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
You don't have to suffer. Nobody is forcing you to be there, and it's private property. And I don't have an addiction, I'm not a smoker.
Just because an old lady doesn't care enough to kick people out of her house, doesn't mean it's the government's duty to stick up for everyone who doesn't like smokers. It's a private affair.
Thill029 3 years ago 2
Ok, I confess. Smoking is my pet hate. I can't enjoy myself when I'm choking and I generally find smokers thick skinned and insenstive. I live in student res and my ex-roomie smoked in the room every morning at 7am despite my asking him to go out. We had many arguments but he said I should be considerate of his need! I absolutely support the ban for selfish purposes.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Initially I couldn't figure out why the government was considering the ban because the taxes on cigarettes generate enormous revenue for the government. Then I learned that providing health care to people with smoke-related disease is costing the government more than they make. So, it's got nothing to do with civil liberties. It's a simple cost-benefit calculation. But then, under McCain's deal there will be no public health care, so gone will be the incentive for the ban. Good thing he'll lose.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
These "cost-benefit" calculations are a sacrifice of individual rights though. Firstly, the government takes it upon itself to provide healthcare, then dictates how people can live their lives so that they can save money on this service. This is immoral. Suppose the government decided to provide people with internet (which is already happening in places). They make a rule, to save money, that people can only download a certain amount daily. Is this fair? How is this different from your example?
Thill029 3 years ago
a business owner has the right to determine his/her smoking policy!
prochoicechuckles85 3 years ago 2
If you have the right to stand in front of places I patron and pollute my air...I have the right to support a smoking ban and fuck up your day as well. ;-)
myperfectapathy 3 years ago
What free society?
amalcut 3 years ago
No, no no you have me all wrong. I hate big government. I hate all the rules we have to live by these days. I hate traffic cops sitting by the road waiting to bust me for speeding 45 in a 35. It's all quite silly sometimes. I also hate second hand smoke from cigarettes.
The people will come back to the bars and restaurants when they get used to the new laws!!
You should try some marijuana, cigarettes has stressed you out!!LOL!!
3dog9ty 3 years ago
I think I love this girl.. lets go smoke a cigar
Howlinblind 3 years ago
fucking liberal
zerobu 3 years ago
Small bar owners were lied to and told that if smoking bans were passed there would be an increase in business because more people don't smoke, but the truth is, health concerns aren't a priority for people who drink alcohol. Most bar regulars smoke and business plummeted. The ironic thing is many of the non-smoking employees that the laws were made to "protect" lost their jobs as a result of a law they didn't even want. Fascism doesn't work for anybody.
chazwinski 3 years ago 2
I'm simply equating the connection between smoking bans and legal marijuana because we have a need for both pieces of legislation. Most people do not want smoking allowed in public places. So let's have smoking bans. America desperately has a need for drug law reform. The war on drugs does not, cannot work. So I advocate for legal marijuana for a multitude of reasons. Smoke shops are the cure for both, a compromise that can work with sensible policies toward both problems.
3dog9ty 3 years ago
Don't even start with that nanny state crap. Good legislation has nothing to do with big brother mentality. Keep this in context, we are simply talking about public places of business. I totally dosagree with certain areas of California banning smoking in public parks. I think it's ridiculous, but business owners in the restaurant and bar business have proven over the last 60 years they will not invest in ventilation systems. And we have never had a need for laws that allow smoking!!
3dog9ty 3 years ago
No, they are public places "of business". Private clubs that do not allow the public is what you are reffering to.
3dog9ty 3 years ago
Wrong. If I own a business, say a corner market, it's my own private property. I don't have to admit any customer that I don't like, for any reason.
If I choose to allow smoking inside my hypothetical corner market, you have no right to demand I do otherwise - and any attempt to legislate me into compliance with your ideals is a violation of MY rights. If you dislike smoke so much, you are free to patronize other businesses.
The only public locations are government buildings.
mgreffin 3 years ago
Many states do not agree with you and most states will introduce smoking bans soon. You may choose to not allow some people into your establishment for any reason but you had better be careful with that one also. And be prepaired to get sued once in awhile with that attitude. Things are changing in America and you've got to change with them or you stand to lose everything. Smoking bans are for the good of everyone!! Some business owners feel they are being violated, too bad.
3dog9ty 3 years ago
3dog9ty, are you James Taggart from Atlas Shrugged?
cloppbeast 3 years ago
The U.S. as a whole is losing personal and business rights..well right and left. It is the wave of the future. While we all hate losing our rights in one way or another, just look around. It's happening everywhere. I hate the way the government is taking our rights in the name of freedom called the "patriot act". Some people will tell me, "too bad, if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to hide." Ha!! Laughable! Smoking bans are just another right you are losing, better get used to it.
3dog9ty 3 years ago
Who's whining, we're simply discussing very good legislation......Smoking bans in public places. You are welcome to smoke outside, in your home, next to a river while camping...who cares. It's public places we're talking about, not making cigarettes illegal. It is a choice, and I respect that for anyone, just not in public indoor locations, that's all. It's good legislation....another good law would be to initiate legal marijuana and set up smoke shops for all smokers.
3dog9ty 4 years ago
And that's a bad thing? My point is that like the sixties and seventies, without smoking bans, I simply cannot go anywhere. Smokers will hastle an owner of a restaraunt until he gives in for the business. Smoking bans are the only voice left. But I am not at all against smoking shops as long as marijuana is allowed. Without legal marijuana I am totally against public smoking of any kind, it's only fair!!
3dog9ty 4 years ago
"Its the poor old guys in the pouring rain puffin`/ They saved us from The Nazi`s/ Was it all for F***in` Nothing?"
THE GIROBABIES `SMOKING BAN`
Check out the music video on youtube.
This bans not just about smoking!
Girobhoy 4 years ago
If the world is fucked up because the government is telling people to be more healthy according to you, you're fucked up. Guess what, change needs to happen and I'm against the government most of the time but this sale of toxic carcenogenic filth to people needs to stop, and if millions have to go through a withdrawl, so be it. Quit whining and think about the health of subsequent generations that will think it's okay to smoke because of people like YOU!
Rosmini2008 4 years ago
...
Smoking is a personal choice. The government shouldn't tell people what to do with themselves.
What next? Cheeseburgers are bad for you too. would you be okay to banning those?
It's about your personal life. Educate people about how horrible smoking is and they may CHOOSE to quit. If they don't that's not your problem. Get over it.
Still don't get it, do you? Didn't think so. Try again: Let's start banning something you enjoy for all the right reasons.
Crazymaniscrazy 4 years ago
No one is denying that it's a choice. Name one thing that isn't a choice in human action. Theft, murder, rape, are all choices but we think of them as bad. Why shouldn't I think of smoking as bad? Because you choose it? That's a load of shit. Yes, I think cheeseburgers should be banned too. I like to put my mind in conformity with reality and accept that what is bad for me ought not be done as it hurts myself and those around me that care for me. You're already trying to ban that!
Rosmini2008 4 years ago
You can't equate eating cheeseburgers with crimes like murder. Get real.
Smoking IS BAD. FYI I don't smoke. I just respect someone's right to choose. What I hate about smoking bans is the precedent for banning self-destructive behavior in the name of "safety".
Ban cheeseburgers? Are you kidding? What would it be "legal" to eat, then? Anything you eat could make you fat! Seriously.
You must hate freedom. Go to Red China for the social conformity you like. Wouldn't that make you happy?
Crazymaniscrazy 4 years ago
I wish you would die at 30.
thndrjames 4 years ago
Now that we have banned smoking in public places (thank goodness), a fair compromise might be to allow smoke and coffee shops specially licensed to sell marijuana. The tobacco smokers would be welcomed as well as those that choose to smoke the safest mind altering substance known to man. I've been to Holland and it works quite well. I just wish those Dutch folks would quit smoking in restaurants and other public places.
3dog9ty 4 years ago
We that support smoking bans have no beef against those who smoke. "smokem if ya gottem." I say it all the time at work. I happen to work outside. I feel smoking bans are a fair compromise. I don't hastle people who smoke outside at all. Just don't make me a smoker when I choose not to. When people smoke indoors they force everyone in the vicinity to become a smoker. You have no arguement here. You are just wrong from start to finish.
3dog9ty 4 years ago
I agree with you i have no problems with smokers or nonsmokers or people who say smoking is unheathly, because it is. I disagree with the smoking ban because it doesnt give restaruant and bar owners the right to choose whether or not their own property is smoking or nonsmoking. it doesnt even give them the option of a smokers section or room. i think owners should be able to put up a sign that says This establishment is a smoking area. that way it is up to the bar owner not the government.
linkage5 4 years ago
That's probably the toughest part about it. There really is a strong arguement on both sides as far as restaurants and bars choosing if they want smoking or not. One point though, smokers will push an owner for smoking all they can. After all they feel pretty strongly about polluting everyones air. I still think the only fair compromise would be to set up smoke shops complete with legal marijuana, no doubt they'll welcome cigarette smokers. We'll call them........haha coffee shops.
3dog9ty 4 years ago
You're probably right. Without any smoking bans as it was in the 70's, it's me that shouldn't travel on airplanes, eat at restaurants, go bowling, watch a movie, go to a public restroom anywhere, go to the supermarket, hell, even walk down the halls at school for they too had smoking in the teachers lounge, or even go home after school because back then all parents that smoked sure as hell weren't going to go outside for the sake of their childrens health. You're right, I'm the freak!!
3dog9ty 4 years ago
Hey I'm all for the smoking bans and here's why. Smokers are selfish pricks for the most part. They took the liberties they chose to for sooooooo long regardless of it bothering anyone. They would blow it in your face if they thought it might bother you. They would smoke on airplanes, restaurants, rest rooms, in the work place. Anywhere they chose, and the smaller the space the more they'll smoke. Payback time!!!
3dog9ty 4 years ago
shut up and go smoke a cig. nasty bitch.
gotweaponz33 4 years ago
I am curious..
Would you be for opium dens? How about a bar that allows marijuana smoke?
I mean.. it is indeed the OWNER'S property..
If no..
Does that mean.. if cigarettes become illegal you would support a ban on smoking (cigarettes) from businesses?
Tbh.. I would be for this.. HOWEVER I notice most smokers join together under the banner of "property rights" and "my body!" But when it comes to ILLEGAL drugs.. they run from that banner, like pigs from a gun
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
Almost ALL of the pro-smoking people are histrionic girls. I think they take that position because of nicotine sulfide's deppressant effect and their addiction to it to keep their emotions in check.
johnl1202 4 years ago
I have my doubts she is a smoker..
MOST videos I have seen ranting about the smoking ban, the person SMOKED while they talked..
If she was a smoker.. don't you think she would've lit one up?
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
Almost ALL of the pro-smoking people are histrionic girls. I think they take that position because of nicotine sulfide's deppressant effect and their addiction to it to keep their emotions in check.
johnl1202 4 years ago
EXCELLENT VIDEO. For those of you who dont want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't go near it - simple really. WISH EVERYONE WOULD STOP SAYING SHS IS DANGEROUS. ITS NOT. ITS B.S. Keep up with the videos angrygirl :)
TheDailyDetox 4 years ago
I just bet all of you against this ban are democrats. Got news for you..the dems pushed this thru! Best thing they have ever done. Smoking sucks. You are a cute girl, but you probably get ugly with a cig in your mouth...and stinky.
bobodean1 4 years ago
Yes Dorm noting is wrong with freedom to choose- its just some brainwashed bigots that really despise it!
prochoicechuckles85 4 years ago
What is wrong with freedom to choose? In Spain for example, bars can choose to be smoking or non smoking.
"2nd hand smoking is worse than smoking urselfs!" - oh, come on, that's like saying that 2nd hand sperm has more chance of making you pregnent.
Dorm2003 4 years ago 2
Yeah you're right the government shouldn't be able to say you can't do something as harmless as smoke on your private property, oh wait?
What if people who don't want to die a slow horrible death want to hang out in bars? You're advocating their loss of rights too (they have the right to live right?).
The government shouldn't be able to tell you not to do heroin. Or murder people. Hell, it gets the job done faster right?
dakrynveii 4 years ago 2
The government shouldn't bea ble to tell you not to do heroin..
"What if people who don't want to die a slow horrible death want to hang out in bars?" What if i wan't to go to my aunts house.. but she smokes. Should I have the right to ban smoking in her house? Based on MY comfort?
Ps. I would support making it so minors can't go into a smoking establishment.
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
Ok, so then let's go out together to the bar and have a good time! You can blow secondhand smoke in my face because it's your right as an individual, and I'll stab you in the lungs because it's my right as an individual, and we'll have a gay ole time! Hooray!
S1l3nc3 4 years ago
Haha this girl looks like 12 and she talks like she is a big smoker! 2nd hand smkoking is worse than smoking urselfs! U have probably felt it at the trainstation or the bus stop!
JoeCamelCigg 4 years ago
and we don't live in a free society, we live in a democracy...big, big difference.
anthrofinn 4 years ago
You said, "If people want to expose themselves to something that is potentially life-threatening, they have the option to do that." OK, and since you brought up civil liberties and individual rights, it's only fair that I as a non-smoker should be awarded the same exact argument? Right? What about those of us who are subjected to second hand smoke who DON'T want to expose themselves to something that is potentially life threatening. Do we have the option to do that?
anthrofinn 4 years ago
you tell them girl.
dtheocharis 4 years ago
this aint about health.. it's about a bunch of Evil uptight freaks.. they want to go out and have a good time, but they have to be able to control the environment first so they feel safe and comftorble... not knowing the rest of us are going out and having fun to get away from evil nuts like these guys. they should stay home and hide under the bed where they feel they are safe.
GeorgeGilbertMagic 4 years ago 3
"they should stay home"
As a non smoker.. I agree with you..
If we wan't to "go out" and have a good time and meet new people,without second hand smoke..
We should organize little parties.. like open houses for non smokers..
It sounds like it has potential for a good time! "For a non smoked filled environment.. come to my house.." Then next week hold it at someone elses house!
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
If you smoke and/or are hooked on cigarettes: You are a slave. A slave to the big-wigs who only want you hooked. So, now bring the sarcastic jokes, then take a smoke-break and pay $5 a pack for your own slow death. Quit smoking just to stick it to the soulless tobacco barons.
Garveergor 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sedna69a 4 years ago
It's a trick. The government knows that the majority of people are non-smokers. They also know non-smokers hate smokers. They allow the majority to feel they have a say in government by creating fear in the non-smokers and then supporting them. But behind while you are watching one hand the other is taking all your rights away.
Mandolin1 4 years ago
Sort of. I say it's important for the government to be able to tell us what to do. The second hand smoke thing is minor, you're right. But think about other health related laws like, about what can and can't be buried in a landfill, or poured into a lake. If the government didn't put it's foot down, neither would anyone else.
PizzaForce 4 years ago
Well said; the second hand smoke - health and safety argument is a red herring. This comes down to people's right to associate and congregate in the manner they (those congregating) see fit
Magrathean2 4 years ago
Right on. Governments only have rights that we The People can give them. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
However, there is an argument to be made that second hand smoke constitutes a 'harmful or offensive touching' in which case there is a crime because of intent to cause the touching and the harm caused to the victim's body. Nevertheless, I'd personally rather deal with that than the Nazi government under Hitler that instituted the first cigarette smoking ban!
jonahtrainer 4 years ago
I love anti-gov girl. I hope she makes a lot more videos. I'm sure pantzofdoom will get his wish and have total Government takeover of our lives from craddle to grave. But it is still nice to know there are some true dessenters still left.
gubment0cheese 4 years ago
You are right!
An emnployee who works in a poorly ventilated bar:
40 hour work week
Will ingest the equivalent of only 12-15 cigarettes per year.
Hardly, a pressing health risk.
In a well wentilated bar...
between 2-4 cigarettes per year, 40 hour work-week.
VS120sfan 4 years ago
With respect, nicotine is too unstable. That's the reason that SHS/ETS studies can only try to measure a metabolite of nicotine (cotinine). Employees aren't really getting any equivalent of mainstream smoke--but they do get other contaminants from alcohol, cooking, wood burning, exhaust.... It's never been about cleaning the air. SHS/ETS is 95% water vapor--governments are effectively banning water vapor...LOL. The whole mess was invented by NAZIs,--honest! Heaven help us!
HCfanclub 4 years ago
LOL
alaskanspawn 4 years ago
Nasty thing.
legphotog 4 years ago
You're forgetting about employees who work in places of business that permit smoking. I used to work weekends in a cafe/bar and the smoke hurt my throat and lungs even hours after I left. After the ban, the problem went away. If you want to smoke just step outside. Be considerate of the vast majority who do not smoke and don't appreciate it.
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
But of course, you could have just chosen not to work in that cafe/bar. Choice is a fundemental human right, and just because you chose not to exercise that right, don't expect others to surrender it.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago 2
"If you don't like working in hazardous conditions, go work somewhere else." Maybe that still flies in developing nations, but we should have moved passed that a long time ago. I also feel like this is less about civil liberties and more about health, courtesy toward others, and common sense. What is so damn hard about stepping outside to exercise your "rights"?
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
If you want to join the army, the police force or fire brigade, be a coal miner or any other employment, you have the choice of doing so. And this choice is based on whether you want to expose yourself to the hazards or discomfort that comes with the job. Likewise if you don't want to work in a smokey bar, then don't.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
Yes but don't you think precautions are also taken to reduce the amount of risk to workers? A soldier or a coal miner rightfully expects his/her employer to do everything that is possible to ensure their safety. Is this not correct? It is also rather presumptuous to speculate about the choices others have in their employment.
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
You're wrong. The choice is based on the need to earn a living. Folks don't become coal miners b/c they like the danger involved. Usually it's the best job available to them, so they take it. This doesn't mean that any or all harm they suffer while working is their own problem b/c they "chose" to work there.
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
But you're still assuming that their is a risk from SHS, and yet this is not only not proven, but also an incredibly far fetched notion. Even the most ardent of antismokers are starting to go backtrack on the issue as its just too rediculous.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
Dude, I'm not going to debate if breathing smoke is bad for you. There are also studies that claim to disprove global warming and evolution. There's a reason you don't bring a baby into a smokey bar, why firefighters wear oxygen masks, and why my throat stopped hurting when they went no-smoking. Get a clue.
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
Your throat was iritated by smoke, so what? That doesn't mean it was harming you, it just means you're sensitive to smoke. Plenty more people (the vast majority of the human race in fact) don't get sore throats from entering or working in smoky environments. But they must all give up their freedom of choice just to sooth your tickly cough? You should wake up to your selfishness, DUDE!
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
Your throat hurts, ahh diddums! That doesn't mean smoke is harmfull, it just means it iritates YOUR throat. Plenty of people are not bothered by it (the majority of the human race in fact). But you believe that they must all sacrifice their freedom of choice just to spare you from a tickly cough. DUDE!
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
I just write about my own experience. You feel entitled to speak on behalf of "the majority of the human race." Ofcourse you're entitled to your own opinions, but you conveniently assume that the rest of the world thinks the way you do. I'm done with this thread b/c your arguments are weak and are all about "freedom of choice" nonsense. If you want to smoke in public places make the choice to go live in Alabama where I'm sure they won't pass the law for a long time.
dextermcgrubbin 4 years ago
Alabama sounds like a good place to me. Strange that you refer to "freedom of choice" as nonsense, clearly you certainly can't speak for the human race, since freedom of choice is a fundemental god given human right.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
LOL. He runs and hides when his whining isn't glorified.
HC spoke for the majority of the human race because (1) the most rigorous science supports him and (2) humans have evolved heartily while exposed to all types of smoke--the most innocuous of which is tobacco smoke. In the last decades, SHS exposure has gone down while allergies and asthma have gone up! DM assumes that people can't choose where to work, i.e. we live in a slave labor society, then calls freedom of choice "nonsense".
DancingTigerBait 4 years ago
LOL. He runs and hides when his whining isn't glorified.
HC spoke for the majority of the human race because (1) the most rigorous science supports him and (2) humans have evolved heartily while exposed to all types of smoke--the most innocuous of which is tobacco smoke. In the last decades, SHS exposure has gone down while allergies and asthma have gone up! DM assumes that people can't choose where to work, i.e. we live in a slave labor society, then calls freedom of choice "nonsense".
DancingTigerBait 4 years ago
That argument is in no way similar to the problem and subsequent ban on smoking. The fact is that there are still people with limited skill sets and limited employment options. There is a point where you 'take what you can get' to support you and your family and that shouldn't mean you have to deal with second-hand smoke. If they were to say you can't smoke at all I'd be on your side but that's not the case.
alaskanspawn 4 years ago
Get your facts straight before posting, based on Cototine levels a bar worker gets the equivalent dosage of 1 cigarette PER WEEK.
I mean think about it, if they were getting the same dosage as smokers they would become addicted to nicotine themselves and start to suffer from withdrawal symptoms within a couple of hours of finishing their shift.
MRab22 4 years ago
Get your facts straight, cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine, a harmless substance that shows a trace in the blood and urine long after the nicotine(which lasts only a few hours)has gone. And since cotinine can also come from eating vegetables, the whole test is an unmeasurable fraud.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
The whole anti smoking argument stems from Hitlers dislike of the smell. He ordered his medical masterminds to find evidence that it was harmfull and find it they did. Of course these were the same medical experts that found proof that jews were sub-human and had to be exterminated. And now our leaders have decided to adopt not only this nazi belief that smoking kills, but worse still the nazi tactic of discrimination and persecution. You stand your ground love, don't let the buggers win.
HairyChestnuts 4 years ago
Right on! You go girl! (Not to mention you are a doll). I quit smoking last november. It's a bad habit. Still doesn't mean the government has the right to stop it everywhere. Especially in bars!
inkydinkydooky 4 years ago
Yup same here!
prochoicechuckles85 4 years ago
À broken clock is right two times a day. Even the Nazis had SOME good ideas. I think they went a little wrong when they started executing foreigners and jews, when , in reality they should have started with smokers instead. thada been kewl
sexboywonder 4 years ago
It IS statistically proven that people WORKING for instance in a smoky bar are subjected to levels of carcinogenic toxins not that far below the people actually smoking. They're working there, that's THEIR freedom to work which is being hampered by smokers doing something clearly which is very much dangerous to people's health, and the crucial point is that it endangers other people's health as well as their own..
citizenhunter 4 years ago
You have got to be kidding me...
When your rights hinder the health of other people is when your rights should be limited. Gun control laws come to mind. This is a horrible, pseudointellectual argument.
Your idea of a free society is the idea of no society at all, rather people just going around doing what they want. That isn't a free society, and if you think it is, stop being 13 years old.
quit smoking, it really doesn't make you look cool.
themange59 4 years ago
Awesome vid!
shipple 4 years ago
It is not true that second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke doesn't cause any harm. It has clearly been shown that standing next to someone who is smoking is almost as harmful as breathing in the fumes from a non-stick frying pan, or even the radiation exposure from our cell phones.
legalweenie 4 years ago
I keep hearing that smokers have special rights to smoke where ever they wish. The only reason tobacco is legal is because they do not enforce equally the FDA laws. Tobacco would be banned because of all the health problems it causes. The courts have rule that smoking bans are constitutional. Smoking bans are better than a total ban because of the number of those addicted.
hubbub88 4 years ago