i'm pretty sure what he meant, & what is totally logical, is that people have the free will to do whatever they want as long as it is legal - cigarettes are, despite restrictions, still legal; illegal drugs obviously are not.

You're right, you're right, and you're right.

I know that they still allow smoking in restaurants and bars in Chicago, so maybe I'll join you when you're ready to go there!


Don Cardi

Cuz the ACLU would be all over that.

Dangerous to... health? Cigarettes.

In Holland they even tried to ban smoking in coffee shops last year (like banning swimming in a swimming pool indeed) it was cancelled just before the law would change.

I also think people should have the choice. Banning smoking in public / government buildings is ok but if you choose to go to a bar, you should have the choice to go to a smoker-friendly or non-smoker-friendly bar. If there is a market for smoke-free restaurants, they will automatically appear (at least in a true free market they would).

Second hand smoke: What about exhaust fumes from cars and other types of smoke or external influences that can harm your health?

Recently I read that smoke from your neighbour's chimney (old fashioned, romantic fireplace) is 12 to 14 times more harmful than second hand cigarette smoke, now people are looking into banning fireplaces as well here in Holland or at leat in certain denely populated areas.

Why can't people just accept that danger and risks can never be fully excluded nor should they be nor should any govenment try to influence / control the lives of "their" citizens so much.

Imagine a government somewhere, sometime would succeed (In Holland we've come quite close to this situation. In stead of being so liberal the rest of the World sees us, we're the most regulated, controlled, bureaucratized and organized country in the world, maybe second to North Korea)?

The result will be apathic, lazy, spoiled people who will live to be 150 years old while spending 120 years of it complaining and moaning, in exchange for freedom.

What kind of a life is that?

now I'm off to smoke a cigarette....outside!

PS: It's such a shame, I just remembered how happy I was to be in New Jersey during my last visit to NYC, smoking while looking at Manhattan over the Hudson...

I'll go even one step further.

It's not just this law that is unfair to restaurant and bar owners.

There are many laws, IMO, that are unfair to all business owners.

I think that business owners should be allowed, if they wish, to discriminate in their hiring paractices for whatever reason they choose.

If the wish to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it should be their right to do so.

One of the problems in this country is too damn many laws.

Hey, wait minute. Isn't that a republican POV?

A restaurant owner should be able to hire bartenders, waitresses and buspersons who would be willing to sign a release that says, if I contract any disease or health problem related or suspected of being caused by smoking, I won't sue my employer. Then everyone who smokes can go there to eat or drink and the employees can suck in that second hand smoke and not gripe about it. So there. :p

Originally posted by Patrick:
Dangerous to... health? Cigarettes. [/qb][/quote]Ok, then why did you say this? :





Don Cardi

I don't even know where I said that. I searched this entire thread. Why did Bush say Saddam had WMDs? I don't know.. some times we just say things we don't mean.

You said that over in another topic where a discussion about smoking pot took place.

So that's your answer, huh? Ok.

Don Cardi

What thread? If it was the random post whoring thread, I was prolly drunk or stoned.. haha.

The debate over a public smoking ban is raging here in the UK as well.

What's interesting is the arrogant self-assured language the pro-smokers use.

Smokers are "victims" of "control freaks" who are "paranoid" about their health and "obsessed" with removing people's liberties. They feel "villified" by the do-gooders and interfering busy-bodies who are trying to tell them what to do. If they want to smoke themselves into an early grave, its their business, and no-one elses. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Well, I agree that if they want to die sooner, it's not anyone elses's place to stop them. But the "go somewhere else" argument is specious. I could say "I enjoy breathing clean air - if YOU don't like it, then go somewhere else". Why should non-smokers go somewhere else? Why should the default position be that smoking is OK unless proven otherwise to a very high standard?

This is not like drinking. Drinking MAY result in harm to others in extreme and rare situations (ie, causing fights), but smokine DOES result in discomfort and possible harm by its very nature.

I think in 50 years we'll look back on this and say "remember when people used to get away with smoking in public" and be very glad we changed the law.

Ok, but what about exhaust fumes from cars, pollution from factories or the smoke from chimneys, should they be banned as well?

It's much more difficult to "ban" those things than it is to ban smoking in public, but in most places, steps have been taken to at least control and minimize them.

Pretty spurious since transport and production are necessary for civilized society, and pollution is an unfortune byproduct.

But it does raise one good point. People who work in factories where they come into contact with potentially hazardous emmissions get protective clothing / breathing masks. Maybe non-smoking staff working in smoking restaurants and pubs should wear breathing masks to protect themselves from the pollution from smoking customers. No doubt the smokers would be offended that someone would have the nerve to take care of their own health in that way.

Well, you can go on and on all you like. I think that the reason they're doing this is because smokers have become the only group that it's ok to discriminate against. Maybe we take all the repressed feelings that people might normally vent on other groups.

Right... coz being a smoker is just like being black, or disabled. You poor, downtrodden people.

Right... coz being a smoker is just like being black, or disabled. You poor, downtrodden people. [/b][/quote]Gotta tote the weary Marlboro....

I have a question... if they ban smoking in New Jersey, and someone is breathing the air there, how could anyone tell whether there was smoking going on or not?

huh?

I think the system Spain now adopted is the best compromise:

Bar / Restaurant owners have a choice to put up a sign either saying:

- Smoke free

or

- Smoking allowed, sorry for the invonvenience

In ALL cases and places it's illegal to permit children to inhale (second hand) smoke. Parents / guardians / bar owners can even be fined for this!

I understand people wanting to make the world more smoke free, however: The saying "your freedom ends where someone else's starts" should go both ways so a line must be drawn somewhere.

I think it's quite radical to forbid smoking in privately owned properties. already now people are arguing: What's the difference between a public library or government building and a bar or restaurant?

Well, one belongs to us all, the other is private property. If people don't see this difference, they will probably argue that smoking at home (alone of course) or in your privately owned car should be banned as well for "what's the difference?"