Gay pride parade 'bumping and grinding' offend Tea Party hero & NY governor hopeful

Threedee said:
I can't help if you decide to play Devil's Advocate without bothering to drop us a line that you actually don't support the fascism that is smoking bans and regulations.
Click to expand...

And who decides I should drop you a line on anything 3D? Have you been elevated to bored Jr VP and someone forgot to send out the memo?

You really need to get over your mad-on over me saying Billy leaving his facebook link here on this public message board was a lame and silly move.

No matter how often you stalk me, it's still going to be lame, but I say take a break and go have a smoke and mull it over.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Except its a matter of public health. Local governments issue permits and will shut them down if they are unsanitary. That obviously includes fat turds like you exhausting smoke through bung licking lips. :clink:
Click to expand...
Ah resorting to insults when it has been proven that you are the same type of person as those that want toys taken out of happy meals.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
And who decides I should drop you a line on anything 3D? Have you been elevated to bored Jr VP and someone forgot to send out the memo?

You really need to get over your mad-on over me saying Billy leaving his facebook link here on this public message board was a lame and silly move.

No matter how often you stalk me, it's still going to be lame, but I say take a break and go have a smoke and mull it over.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't actually have to explain yourself. Carry on.

So, why are you for smoking bans?
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea I know, and the non smoking employees are free to go find another job. Where does this right wing narcissism end?

There comes a point where the word 'freedom' no longer applies and it instead is best described as a restriction of someone else's rights.

If the establishment is a restaurant, their purpose is to serve food. So smokers have the right to walk outside and have a cigarette. Even though the restaurant is privately owned, they are still subject to public health standards and regulations. So chemicals from tobacco smoke could permeate the food.

Let's do it this way:

So at a restaurant the smokers have the freedom to go outside, smoke and re-enter.

And if the establishment is a smoking parlor, then non smokers can walk outside to breath fresh air.
Click to expand...
And if, by following your business model, multitudes of businesses fail and have to close their doors due to a lack of customers, how does that benefit their employees?
 
The King of Proles said:
And if, by following your business model, multitudes of businesses fail and have to close their doors due to a lack of customers, how does that benefit their employees?
Click to expand...

71% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law.

So your sky is falling argument is false.

I am for individual rights, but not when someone exercising what they consider their 'right' takes away another individual's right. We know that tobacco smoke is a health hazard, so when someone lights up, they are not just exposing themselves to that hazard. If the smoker is willing to expose himself to that hazard, THAT is his right. But it is NOT his right to expose others to that hazard.
 
Bfgrn said:
71% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law.

So your sky is falling argument is false.

I am for individual rights, but not when someone exercising what they consider their 'right' takes away another individual's right. We know that tobacco smoke is a health hazard, so when someone lights up, they are not just exposing themselves to that hazard. If the smoker is willing to expose himself to that hazard, THAT is his right. But it is NOT his right to expose others to that hazard.
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy but you are just plain wrong on this.

Should all restaurants be forced to stop cooking with peanut oil because a select few customers are allergic to peanuts and could die if they eat at a restaurant that uses peanut oil to cook with?

What about sugar?

Diabetics can't eat too much sugar or they go into a coma...should all restaurants stop using any form of sugar because of a few unlucky folks?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry buddy but you are just plain wrong on this.

Should all restaurants be forced to stop cooking with peanut oil because a select few customers are allergic to peanuts and could die if they eat at a restaurant that uses peanut oil to cook with?

What about sugar?

Diabetics can't eat too much sugar or they go into a coma...should all restaurants stop using any form of sugar because of a few unlucky folks?
Click to expand...

Sorry zap, your polarized argument does not hold water. A patron can CHOOSE not to eat food cooked in peanut oil, or CHOOSE not to eat sugar...he or she cannot choose to stop breathing.

Try again...
 
Bfgrn said:
Sorry zap, your polarized argument does not hold water. A patron can CHOOSE not to eat food cooked in peanut oil, or CHOOSE not to eat sugar...he or she cannot choose to stop breathing.

Try again...
Click to expand...

No, a patron cannot choose to stop breathing, but a patron who smokes could choose to enter an establishment which permitted smoking on the premises if it were staffed by smokers, or people who willingly dared to enter a workplace laden with smoking beasties, no?

What would be so wrong with 'smoking establishments' and 'non-smoking' establishments?
 
Bfgrn said:
Sorry zap, your polarized argument does not hold water. A patron can CHOOSE not to eat food cooked in peanut oil, or CHOOSE not to eat sugar...he or she cannot choose to stop breathing.

Try again...
Click to expand...

Sorry Bfgrn, your polarized argument does not hold water. A patron can CHOOSE not to enter an establishment that allows smoking, or CHOOSE not to smoke...

Also, a restaurant that uses peanut oil potentially contaminates much of the kitchen and many other dishes.
 
Bfgrn said:
71% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law.

So your sky is falling argument is false.

I am for individual rights, but not when someone exercising what they consider their 'right' takes away another individual's right. We know that tobacco smoke is a health hazard, so when someone lights up, they are not just exposing themselves to that hazard. If the smoker is willing to expose himself to that hazard, THAT is his right. But it is NOT his right to expose others to that hazard.
Click to expand...
Your stat is flawed by your own admission, since it mentions work places. Most Americans do not work in the service industry, the one that is hurt by smoking bans. Second, the science behind 2nd hand smoke is dubious at best. Even the CDC says it is only linked to about 1,200 deaths annually. Third, take a look at Michigan; bars and restaurant closing left and right since the ban. And with the highest unemployment nationwide, how does this help situations? Oh, and smoking bans also correspond to a rise in DUIs.
 
The King of Proles said:
Your stat is flawed by your own admission, since it mentions work places. Most Americans do not work in the service industry, the one that is hurt by smoking bans. Second, the science behind 2nd hand smoke is dubious at best. Even the CDC says it is only linked to about 1,200 deaths annually. Third, take a look at Michigan; bars and restaurant closing left and right since the ban. And with the highest unemployment nationwide, how does this help situations? Oh, and smoking bans also correspond to a rise in DUIs.
Click to expand...


The 'science' behind 2nd hand smoke is not dubious. But even if your '1,200 deaths annually' is correct, the only thing 'dubious' is your character.

Smoking is an individual right. Breathing smoke free air is an individual right. Smoking in a place that infringes on the rights of the non smoker to breath smoke free air is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke
 
Bfgrn said:
The 'science' behind 2nd hand smoke is not dubious. But even if your '1,200 deaths annually' is correct, the only thing 'dubious' is your character.

Smoking is an individual right. Breathing smoke free air is an individual right. Smoking in a place that infringes on the rights of the non smoker to breath smoke free air is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke
Click to expand...
And the rights of property owners fall...where exactly?
 
Bfgrn said:
The 'science' behind 2nd hand smoke is not dubious. But even if your '1,200 deaths annually' is correct, the only thing 'dubious' is your character.

Smoking is an individual right. Breathing smoke free air is an individual right. Smoking in a place that infringes on the rights of the non smoker to breath smoke free air is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke
Click to expand...
Also, you seem to ignore everything else presented in my argument, like rising unemployment and a marked increase in DUIs.
 
Bfgrn said:
If you come into my home, you better get my permission to exercise the privilege to light up.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But when I own the business, why do you think the gov't has teh right to tell me I can't light up?
 
WinterBorn said:
I agree 100%. But when I own the business, why do you think the gov't has teh right to tell me I can't light up?
Click to expand...

If you own a business that is 'open to the public' there are laws that protect that 'public' you must adhere to. If you are a restaurant, there are health regulations, if you serve alcohol, you can't serve minors.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
If you own a business that is 'open to the public' there are laws that protect that 'public' you must adhere to. If you are a restaurant, there are health regulations, if you serve alcohol, you can't serve minors.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Bu cigarettes are perfectly legal. And I am not forcing anyone into my business. I am serving smokers. If I was a nonsmoking place, do you think people would quit smoking?

If it is so paramount that people be protected from smoking, why are they legal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top