Lombardi called them cancer sticks, which I agree with by the way. Are you disagreeing with him and saying that cigarettes do not cause cancer?

trust me: on your best day, you aren't as smart as me on my worst.

Sorry Mods, I tried to add some humor to ease the tensions, but it didn't work.

I agree with DC (again)

We were doing fine here until a member who shall remain nameless (DVC knows who he is :p ).....

This has nothing to do with the health risks of smoking. I don't know why you keep bringing it up so much.

I don't even smoke much anyways. At first I had like 3-4 cigarettes a day, then I quit for a couple months, and now I just have maybe 1 or 2 at the end of the day to help me relax. Nothing wrong with that.

Anyways, this deals with pursuit of happiness more than anything. If people want to smoke, they should be able to smoke. Period. There are warnings of the health hazards printed on every box in big letters, and people still make the conscious decision to smoke. I don't know why you make such a big deal out of it. You remind me of the people they make fun of on the "Butt-out!" episode of Southpark.

And they do have the right to smoke, in private or in designated areas.

Not anywhere they please.

The pursuit of happiness does not give people the right to violate the rights of others.

If going out drinking for six hours and then driving home makes me happy, that doesn't give me the right to do it.

It infringes upon the rights of everyone else who is out driving to expect that they are reasonably sfe

If going to a baseball game and hurling obscenitites at the umpires makes me happy, that doesn't give me the right to do it.

That infringes upon the rights of people who go to the game and expect to be in an environment free of tht type of language.

The answer is not to tell people "if they don't like it, don't drive a car or go to a baseball game."

In the first case, the government makes laws, and good ones, to protet us from drunk drivers.

In the second case, a baseball team is a private entity, and they have the right to eject fans who use obscene language,

People have the right to go into public places and not expect to have to breathe secondhand smoke

And for the purposes of this discussion, to answer DC's earlier question, I don't consider bars and restaurants to be "public" places. They are private places of business that the public has the option of patronizing or not, unlike government buildings, public transportation, or even outdoor public places, like municipal parks, for example.

Very very interesting. You say " That is not the way I want to go out."

You blast someone for smoking cigarettes, which is fine. Actually you are right about the ill affects of cigarette smoking. I can't argue with that point.

But yet you admittingly like to smoke pot and you've even said yourself that you know it damages your brain cells.

So does that mean that you would rather go out brain dead than to suffocate?


Don Cardi

Haha, marijuana is completely harmless DC.

And I agree.


Don Cardi

I have nothing wrong with people smoking cigarettes, so long as it doesn't interfere with me. If someone wants to smoke 20 packs a day in their house, than they can smoke 20 packs a day in their own house.

Oh, by the way, I've been pot free since December 27th.

By the way, DC, good ol buddy ol pal, marijuana is not responsible for one death in the history of mankind. Cigarettes take the lives of thousands each year.

I was not trying to make fun of Pat. I was just trying to make a point to him. He happens to be right about the ill effects of cigarette smoking.


Don Cardi

Of yeah, these people are being oppressed. Playing guitar makes me happy, but does that mean I have to bring it into a restaurant?

I think private businesses should decide for themselves, but I think to say non-smokers should be the ones to alter their lives for those who smoke is stupid. If you wanna smoke, go right ahead. However, I should have to avoid a restaurant, and not the smoker? Now don't get me wrong, I can care less about the health issue. I go to places all the time to eat where I get second hand smoke, hell my father smokes around me all the time, but are you telling me it's a chore for these people to eat one fucking meal without smoking? They can't eat and then go outside? If the smell interferes with my meal, I should be the one to step out? No.

If a place allows it, fine by me. If a place doesn't allow it, then fine by me. Not to mention, what about people who have to carry around those portable oxygen tanks? They should be allowed a nice, clean meal. They sit down in a nice restaurant, and someone refuses to put out their cigarette, they have to leave because of one prick? If you wanna smoke, step out or go to a bar. You're there to eat, no one's telling you to smoke. These "smoking sections" are nothing more then an illusion, that functions as an insult to the people. It really is like putting a "Pissing section" in a swimming pool.

I think, like the quote I posted above, it's an issue of manners. I wouldn't pull out Mr. Midnight and start pleasuring myself in a restaurant, because of that very reason....with the addition of being embarrassed.

hm really? i read that in one of every so many amount of car accidents (& it was a pretty large percentage), the driver tested positive for having smoked marijuana.

If banning smoking in restaurants/bars is part of a larger strategy to discourage smoking in general and prevent more youngsters adopting smoking, then it is a great idea. Sometimes, policies (though irrational now) like this when enacted over a sustained period of time, produce great results. It takes a lot of years to change the mindset of people and every step taken by the health department of govt, will prove itself useful maybe 10-15 years from now.

Pat, I don't want to hijack this thread and start debating about Pot. I would rather stick to the issue at hand, the right of the government to ban smoking from restaurants.

However, I am interested in what you have said about Pot not causing a death in the history of mankind. If you can back that up with soime proof or statistics that you base this staement on, I would love for you to either PM me with any facts that back up your statement or even invite you to start another topic about your statement.

But let's try to keep this topic on track.

Now, if we go on the arguement, that some hae used here, that the laws were put into effect to protect the health of the non smokers and the health of the woprkers in these places, than how come the government gave exemptions to the casinos in New Jersey? What about the health of those working there, or the health of the non smokers that go there?


Don Cardi

Of yeah, these people are being oppressed. Playing guitar makes me happy, but does that mean I have to bring it into a restaurant?

I think private businesses should decide for themselves, but I think to say non-smokers should be the ones to alter their lives for those who smoke is stupid. If you wanna smoke, go right ahead. However, I should have to avoid a restaurant, and not the smoker? Now don't get me wrong, I can care less about the health issue. I go to places all the time to eat where I get second hand smoke, hell my father smokes around me all the time, but are you telling me it's a chore for these people to eat one fucking meal without smoking? They can't eat and then go outside? If the smell interferes with my meal, I should be the one to step out? No.

If a place allows it, fine by me. If a place doesn't allow it, then fine by me. Not to mention, what about people who have to carry around those portable oxygen tanks? They should be allowed a nice, clean meal. They sit down in a nice restaurant, and someone refuses to put out their cigarette, they have to leave because of one prick? If you wanna smoke, step out or go to a bar. You're there to eat, no one's telling you to smoke. These "smoking sections" are nothing more then an illusion, that functions as an insult to the people. It really is like putting a "Pissing section" in a swimming pool.

I think, like the quote I posted above, it's an issue of manners. I wouldn't pull out Mr. Midnight and start pleasuring myself in a restaurant, because of that very reason....with the addition of being embarrassed. [/quote]Okay, I understand your point. Personally, when I do smoke, I always do it outdoors to be polite. I have no problem when people smoke around me though. My dad does it all the time and it never bothers me.

I'd like to quit smoking completely some time in the near future, but for now I'm too comfortable with it to stop. Cigarettes are one of the few things in this world that make me happy. It'd be like a 13 year old trying to quit masturbating.

DC,
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, don't casino's provide the state with alot more tax revenue than a bar or restaurant would? Do the casinos have a better ventalation system?

See, the point is, the smoke is not just bothering me. Actually on the contrary, when I feel drowsy, I've found the smell of cigarettes to take me back to consciousness in a good way. That's exactly why smokers go for it, I think. The smoke is hurting my health rather than bothering me. If laws were there to prevent others from bothering me, then perfumes, body odor, farts, etc., must've been outlawed. The smoke endangers our lives, now, that's a good excuse to get rid of it in the closed areas.

I do understand the logic of the matter being up to the owner of the private establishments to decide whether one can smoke inside or not, however, when it comes to the matter of people's lives, there is not much of a choice especially in a place where children frequent. Now for a bar, I don't care whether they have such regulations or not, because alcohol is not exactly a healthy thing either and only grown people go there fully aware of what they are doing. But as a restaurant owner can not serve poisoning food because he pleased to do so, he should not let people smoke and poison the air.

More tax revenue? Sure.

And that is what makes their lobby so strong.

Their ventilations systems may be better, but so what?

Am I, as a bar owner, say, given an opportunity to install something similar, if that is, indeed, the case?

And when you're a dealer standing across from a player who is blowing smoke directly in your face, or a player sitting next to another player doing the same thing, what good is a ventilation system?

Nope.

Quote:

Pat, should we ban alchol and medicinal marijuana as well (Don't worry, last time I checked, you can still get the chronic elsewhere, and Reading isn't that far from Canadia)?

People can drink responsibly and still drive home legally. People cannot smoke responsibly. One puff of smoke can harm a non user. [/quote]And you call yourself a liberal. :rolleyes:

One puff of smoke harms a non-user? Doesn't even one drink impair the ability of the user? Yes, it does.

Many people can and do smoke responsibly. It is people such as yourself who want to villify tobacco smokers and relegate them to their homes (yet, hypocritically call for the legalization of drugs like marijuana) because you dislike smoking. This is America, last time I checked, and people do have free will, and people should be allowed to smoke in private places that allow it, and in public.

---

BTW - I'm being neglected, I'm not being included in the group who feel that private business owners should have the right to decide and yet I've been saying that since my first post. :p

Also - I'd like to see some statistics, Pat, on how marijuana has never caused a death. Not only do I sincerely doubt that, but does being pot free for 22 days or so make you a non-user? Marijuana lingers for up to a year in the bodies cells...anyways. Perhaps marijuana has never directly lead to death (i.e. overdosing on marijuana seems to be impossible) but it certainly isn't true to say that people under the influence of marijuana have not cause automobile accidents, or have participated in other crimes while under the influence of the drug.

I'm wondering why you feel that is it okay to force (against their civil rights) to smoke only in their homes yet you advocate the legalization of marijuana which can be smoked.

To save Pat the trouble of having to google/AOL search his way for statistics, I've found numbers pro-pot websites that advocate that there have been "no deaths from health problems related with marijuana," yet none ever substantiate or provide facts for how many deaths are caused or crimes committed by someone under the influence of the drug.

TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000
CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000
ASPIRIN ........................ 500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics

I'm sure everyone should now go take a nice, long toke since we know it can't kill you. :rolleyes:

Anyways, back to cigarettes on ontopic discussion :p

JJ, just because you live in America (or any other liberal democracy for that matter) does not mean you can do anything you like. We all accept restrictions on our personal liberty in order that society can function to some degree or other. To take an admittedly frivolous example, here we drive on the left, but I realise that if I go to the USA I will have to drive on the right so that the traffic system does not go into meltdown.

So just because you are a private business person does not give you carte blanche to do anything you like in your premises (assuming you own them, if you rent your premises you might have restrictions put on you by the building's owner).

In London at the moment a trial is taking place. Central to the prosecution's case are remarks allegedly made by an individual at a private meeting in a privately owned building. None of the authorities' business you might say, it was a private, invitation-only meeting. However the person on trial is a radical Muslim cleric and,allegedly, he incited people at this meeting to kill Christians in London. Different story now eh??

I suppose my main point is not about smoking but that flouting laws you don't like or agree with is not the preserve of the private sector.

Senza, point taken.

But I think that you may be misunderstanding what at least, I am trying to point out.

If it is now the law, then we all must abide by the law regardless of if we agree with the law or not. It's the law.
And if I am the owner of the business or a patron, I will abide by that law.

But my arguement is that I feel that the law is an unfair law to restaurant and bar owners. And I've stated me reasons for feeling why I think it is both unfair and hypocritical.

I am not saying that we should not follow the law, but all I am saying, again for the reasons that I've stated, is that IMO it is an unfair law.


Don Cardi

Don Cardi, I agree. As they say, sometimes the law is an ass!

Yes you are right about that. Sorry didn't think about that one. Thanks for pointing that out Neal

But what is the difference between.

Going to;

Disneyland
The Supermarket
a Mall
The Department of Motor Vehicles
Yankee Staduim
College
Grand Central Station
An Offeice Building
A Cross Country Air Plane
A Movie Theater

A Bar in NJ
A Restaurant in NJ

Nothing, All of the places listed above were places where smoking was aceptable during the last 50 years. They have all survived without smoking. Their are plenty of restaurants and bars in NYC, In California that are doing just fine smoke free.

So my question is "Why is a Bar or a Restaurant different, Why should smoking be allowed their

I call myself Patrick.

Yes.

Of course, but it's not illegal to drink two or three beers in a matter of 2 hours or so and than drive.

Ok, so if people have this so called 'free will,' than you DO agree that people should be able to do ANY drug that they want? Correct? It's free will. Also, I never said marijuana should be legalized and be allowed to smoke where ever we go. It should have, at minimum, restrictions that compare to alcohol.

First off, NEVER, did I say I was a non-user of marijuana. I said I was a non-user of smoking cigarettes. I do NOT smoke cigarettes. And you just posted stats. Marijuana has never killed anyone. I never said that there's never been a crime with someone under the influence of marijuana. YOU are putting words in my mouth. No one has ever died from marijuana. Plain and simple.

Actually, it does not. Even for chronic heavy users of marijuana (a few times a day), it only stays in the blood and shows up on drug tests for 21-30 days.

Exactly.

And I never said that was true.

Because smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is a lot worse for someone than smoking one or two joints a week. Also, alcohol and marijuana pretty much have the same effects. Last I checked, alcohol was still legal.

A bar or a restaurant were used as examples of private businesses in this topic. And for the most part Bars and restaurants are places where people go to sit back, relax, have a drink and have a smoke.

Disneyland ,The Supermarket, a Mall, Yankee Staduim, An Office Building, A Cross Country Air Plane & A Movie Theater are all privately owned entities and therefore, just like privately owned restaurants or bars, should NOT be told by the government if they should or should not allow smoking in their respective places of business.


As for a College, the department of motor vehicles or Grand Central Station, well if those are owned and run by the governement, then they have every right to ban smoking from those places.

Bottom line is, does the government have the right to infringe upon the rights of a private business owner? Especially invoving something that is not illegal?

If the government was so concerned about the health and well being of people being exposed to cigarette smoking, then why don't they just outlaw cigarettes totally?

Again, it's a hypocritical compromise. That's all.


Don Cardi

Please explain. Is smoking cigarettes more dangerous or is smoking marijuana more dangerous?



Don Cardi

Give it time.., but really Tobacco has too much money to let that happen. But just look at the change in the culture in the last fifty years.

Lucy and Ricky Ricardo use too light up and smoke during how many episodes of "I Love Lucy" in the fifties

Remember Tobar the Eight Man from the sixties, he used to get his power from smoking cigarettes.

Now Tobacco Companies can't advertise on TV, they have to put on their product that it will kill you, and you basicly cannot smoke any place indoors outside of your car and your home.

And it is only going to get worst for smokers.

The only out I can see is if you want to open a private smoking club and charge for membership. But again you will run into problems if you plan on having any employees working at the Club.

I think it is a good time to consider quitting