Smokers: You're On Notice...

Rexibit said:
You have the right to do whatever you want until it infringes on someone else's rights.

If you want to smoke in your own home, cool. If you want to smoke in my face if I'm sitting next to you at a restaurant or bar, then you're infringing on my rights to a safe environment because I'm allergic to smoke and even if I weren't, you'd still be slowly imposing health problems and killing me in the process. Smoke goes everywhere, it doesn't just stay a few feet around you.

You can argue that I have the freedom to leave and not have to deal with you, but I can argue that I shouldn't have to get up from my meal or drink just because you want to smoke where you are instead of going outside for a couple minutes.

Banning smoking in public places is about protecting the majority's wellbeing, not cater to your own choice to slowly kill yourself, even if it's your own business.
Click to expand...

and the restaurant owner has the right to ask you to leave his establishment since you are infringing on his rights to run his business.... THAT is the point I am arguing if the owner says,

"Hey fuckface no smoking in my facility I should respect that and not smoke....but if the owner says, Hey Fuckface smoking only no non-smokers you should respect that."

After all you don't own the place so who cares what YOU or I have to say we don't own the place....why is that so hard to look passed you didn't pay for the building so who care about you opinion on what should and should not go on in the building.


and for the record I don't like smoking it makes the food taste bad and I have kids now but again I don't own the place so who cares
 


Ok so Orwell was off by about 25 years.

It's so great when the government makes all these tough choices for you, right?
 
Rexibit said:
You have the right to do whatever you want until it infringes on someone else's rights.

If you want to smoke in your own home, cool. If you want to smoke in my face if I'm sitting next to you at a restaurant or bar, then you're infringing on my rights to a safe environment because I'm allergic to smoke and even if I weren't, you'd still be slowly imposing health problems and killing me in the process. Smoke goes everywhere, it doesn't just stay a few feet around you.

You can argue that I have the freedom to leave and not have to deal with you, but I can argue that I shouldn't have to get up from my meal or drink just because you want to smoke where you are instead of going outside for a couple minutes.

Banning smoking in public places is about protecting the majority's wellbeing, not cater to your own choice to slowly kill yourself, even if it's your own business.
Click to expand...


That's irrelevant bro. A restaurant or bar is not publicly owned. It is privately owned. Therefore it should be completely up to the owner(s) if he/she wants to cater to smokers/non-smokers.

Rexibit said:
Banning smoking in public places is about protecting the majority's wellbeing, not cater to your own choice to slowly kill yourself, even if it's your own business.
Click to expand...

This finishing statement especially affected me. Catering to the MAJORITIES well being?! The MAJORITY? The well being of others?

I suppose you also find this quote inspirational: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Commie. Voteban*.

*Jk dawg I was just trolling on the last part.
 
jonas33h said:
and the restaurant owner has the right to ask you to leave his establishment since you are infringing on his rights to run his business.... THAT is the point I am arguing if the owner says,

"Hey fuckface no smoking in my facility I should respect that and not smoke....but if the owner says, Hey Fuckface smoking only no non-smokers you should respect that."
Click to expand...

If the owner says that, cool. It's one or the other. You know that going in because there will be a big sign on the door.

I'll further this point after I quote Herb, but I'll go into the business-side now.

A business owner has the right to refuse service and set their own rules within reason as long as it's not discriminating or infringing on someone's civil liberties, within reason. So, if you're going to serve people, it's too far-fetched to deny someone service just because they aren't smoking because that alienates an entire group of people. It isn't infringing on someone's civil liberties to deny smoking since people who can and can't smoke can still receive service. Nearly all the litigation and precedence that protects people from racism applies here.

stick2Herbs said:
This finishing statement especially affected me. Catering to the MAJORITIES well being?! The MAJORITY? The well being of others?
Click to expand...

It's in the Constitution that we have a civil liberty to have the government protect our safety.

As with anything in the Bill of Rights that protects your liberty and freedoms, you can do what you want until it infringes on the rights of others. You can own a gun, you can shoot your gun, but if you infringe on someone's right to safety by accidentally shooting them, then you suffer the consequences.

People have the right to smoke wherever they want, the federal government is cool with that. That's why these smoking bans are at the State level. Their citizens have petitioned their government to protect their right to a healthy, within reason, lifestyle. So if someone wants to live dangerously and mess up their life by smoking or being around smoke, it's their choice, but you can't force that lifestyle on others who don't want it.

Since second-hand smoke has been scientifically, for decades, tied to a ton of health issues, many prolonged, the State has grounds for the law. So yes, the majority of people do have the Constitutional grounds for being protected, within reason (public places and private places of business that serve minors), from people smoking and damaging the many's health and civil liberties without their consent. The majority voted it in at the State level, so yes, the Majority's well being is being protected. This isn't one of those nanny-state issues, it's a quality of living issue that actually matters.
 
Rexibit said:
Drugs will eventually all become legal, because of tax revenue and the numerous studies currently in effect in other countries showing the decreased rate in crime.
Click to expand...

Your making a questionable leap here assuming there is logic behind the decision making.
 
Rexibit----it was a hypothetical to the extremes to drive the point home....

bottom line if people like me and you don't like smoking and a a biz owner allows it chances are me and you won't walk in (at least I won't I don't need the government to tell me I don't like to eat in that sort of environment) we will just go to a nicer family friendly atmosphere.

but the government is not responsible for infringing on people's right's sorry bro never read that one....i.e business owners are people and we can't infringe on their right to create an environment where the activities being performed within the establishment are LEGAL
 
I love how people say they like the US because of its freedoms yet half the shit thats fun is either banned or in the process of being banned by christfags who dont understand what freedom really means.
 
I think I lost your train of thought Rexibit. Are you saying that private biz owners would be "infringing on the civil liberties" of non-smokers by allowing it? I'm also having a hard time grasping the correlation between constitutionally protected freedoms and smoking a cigar at the whiskey bar.
 
while i'm against almost all forms of prohibition i'm also an asthmatic who grew up with two smoking parents, and I have to say that I don't want to smell your fucking smoke anywhere
 
I remember around 12 years ago, the Gov't banned smoking in a public place. Some coworkers and I were sitting in a coffee shop full of children eating donuts and whatnot: Damned if there wasn't a petition available for people who were outraged by not being able to smoke indoors!

It's fucked up to think of it as infringing on your rights when your killing people in the process. I'm a smoker, but could never understand why people would want to live in an environment full of smoke and smoke residue -- The stale smoke smell is frigging disgusting.

Since there are more non-smokers out there than smokers; the idea of a business owner turning away customers who don't want to breathe the shit... is a little far-fetched.
 
John Galt said:
I think I lost your train of thought Rexibit. Are you saying that private biz owners would be "infringing on the civil liberties" of non-smokers by allowing it? I'm also having a hard time grasping the correlation between constitutionally protected freedoms and smoking a cigar at the whiskey bar.
Click to expand...

WF's server was erroring a lot when I was clearing up that post last night, so that might have been a point that didn't get saved properly.

I'm saying that if the owners of a private business refused to serve "non-smokers", then they'd be violating a person's rights due to unfair discrimination. That'd be of course due to context of the business. For example, you're denied service at a coffee shop because the owner has decided that today they want to only serve customers who like smoke while reading the newspaper and drinking their coffee. Nothing is preventing the owner from serving smokers and non-smokers because the smokers could go outside and sit and do that.

Nearly every state that has non-smoking in public places bans do so only if that business/area serves minors. So chances are you'd still find smokers allowed to smoke inside a bar.


turbolapp said:
Your making a questionable leap here assuming there is logic behind the decision making.
Click to expand...

It's going to happen if the politicians don't want a revolution and riots, even if it doesn't come from them seeing the positive economic and legal benefits.

It'll probably happen because of the government's lack of desire to cut spending and needing money to finance their programs. They'll say, "Hey, we can't raise current taxes anymore or we'll be thrown out, so let's legalize drugs being sold on the black market and tax those and just toss out that we're doing it due to research showing positive results."
 
Rexibit said:
WF's server was erroring a lot when I was clearing up that post last night, so that might have been a point that didn't get saved properly.

I'm saying that if the owners of a private business refused to serve "non-smokers", then they'd be violating a person's rights due to unfair discrimination. That'd be of course due to context of the business. For example, you're denied service at a coffee shop because the owner has decided that today they want to only serve customers who like smoke while reading the newspaper and drinking their coffee. Nothing is preventing the owner from serving smokers and non-smokers because the smokers could go outside and sit and do that.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. Although I believe private businesses should be able to discriminate on any criteria (race, gender, age etc) that's beyond the point. And it obviously would never fly in the states or in most politically correct countries which like to pretend they respect private property owners.

We're not saying business owners should turn down non-smokers and tell them to fuck off. What I'm saying is that in a PRIVATE business be it a restaurant or anything the owner should be able to decide if people are allowed to smoke or not, maybe segregate smokers and non-smokers. It should be completely up to the owner not the government to tell them what to do.

The free market would regulate it self without government intrusion. Businesses would stop allowing smoking to cater to the majority while niche restaurants for smokers would open. Simple and no need for fucking government intrusion.

EDIT: Just to make it clear. I am 100% for the banning of smoking in public buildings - hell even heavily crowded public areas would be OK. But anything private it should be left up to the owners as it is NOT their responsibility to cater to the majority or who the government government deems more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: powell1
stick2Herbs said:
I think you're missing the point. Although I believe private businesses should be able to discriminate on any criteria (race, gender, age etc) that's beyond the point. And it obviously would never fly in the states or in most politically correct countries which like to pretend they respect private property owners.

We're not saying business owners should turn down non-smokers and tell them to fuck off. What I'm saying is that in a PRIVATE business be it a restaurant or anything the owner should be able to decide if people are allowed to smoke or not, maybe segregate smokers and non-smokers. It should be completely up to the owner not the government to tell them what to do.

The free market would regulate it self without government intrusion. Businesses would stop allowing smoking to cater to the majority while niche restaurants for smokers would open. Simple and no need for fucking government intrusion.

EDIT: Just to make it clear. I am 100% for the banning of smoking in public buildings - hell even heavily crowded public areas would be OK. But anything private it should be left up to the owners as it is NOT their responsibility to cater to the majority or who the government government deems more important.
Click to expand...


+rep. can't see how anyone with half a brain would disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom