Those WILD Californians!

[Tony]

This is a small example of fascism, liberal style.

That is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Tony]

I suppose that banning motor vehicle traffic is next, as it pollutes the air. If you don't allow a car to run its exhaust pipe into a restaurant or cinema, why allow it to do the same outdoors?

Indeed, think of it this way. What happens when you smog out a car with tobacco? You end up smelling like *****, maybe with a headache, and maybe with a sore throat. What happens if you smog out a car with marijuana? You get blazed. What would happen if you smogged out a car with exhaust from the engine? You'll fakking die!!

 

[Tony]

I imagine the ACLU would be taking the stance for the non-smokers, but NORML is suggesting the repeal of marijuana laws; the current war on tobacco smokers can't be helping their cause any.

Yep. "Liberals" are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[toddjh]

Are you sure you want to go there? That same argument could be used make cars (with internal combustion engines) illegal.

Nah. One clearly serves a vital function in society, while the other is purely recreational -- no comparison. Plus emissions are increasingly being regulated anyway.

 

[Tony]

One clearly serves a vital function in society, while the other is purely recreational -- no comparison.

That is a value judgment. I think recreation is just as a legitimate reason as transportation, in fact, the two go hand in hand. And cars only serve a vital function in society because we have constructed our cities to accommodate them.

Plus emissions are increasingly being regulated anyway.

Not at the same pace.

 

[Mephisto]

That is a value judgment. I think recreation is just as a legitimate reason as transportation, in fact, the two go hand in hand. And cars only serve a vital function in society because we have constructed our cities to accommodate them.

Yeah! Besides, have you ever tried to get a date in the backseat of a bicycle?

 

[bjb]

Some of you are forgetting the principle of freedom that goes something like 'your rights end where my rights begin'. These law is meant to protect people who don't want to breathe smoke in public places. I can choose to stay out of a smoky bar, but if I'm walking down the street, do I have to cross the street to get away from *your* cigarette?

In any case, these laws are inevitable here in California. Recently, the California Air Resources Board declared that cigarette smoke was a toxic substance that causes cancer. Now it is open season on cigarette smoke, just like it was on Freon, leaded gasoline, etc. You guys have to admit you'll find more people interested in laws that stop 'airborne carcinogens' than laws that protect smoker's rights.

 

[Solitaire]

Do I have the right to kill someone?

If I fire a gun into the air, and likewise millions of people do also, occasionally the bullets that rain down will kill, say, one out of a million people. Likewise, second hand smoke shortens the life of, say, 300 nonsmokers each year out of a total population of 300 million people from the carcinogens.Then there must be a point at which the death rate becomes so small, so insignificant, that no one cares about the dead people. Right?

P.S. Smokers may want to protest outside these esablishments.

 

[CapelDodger]

In any case, these laws are inevitable here in California. Recently, the California Air Resources Board declared that cigarette smoke was a toxic substance that causes cancer. Now it is open season on cigarette smoke, just like it was on Freon, leaded gasoline, etc. You guys have to admit you'll find more people interested in laws that stop 'airborne carcinogens' than laws that protect smoker's rights.

This is why I foresee the demise of smoking, or at least its retreat to an epicurean niche. The addiction problem will die [sic] away. The hit just isn't good enough to recruit newcomers to a black market.

Mary-Jane and alcohol are very different matters.

 

[Tony]

Some of you are forgetting the principle of freedom that goes something like 'your rights end where my rights begin'. These law is meant to protect people who don't want to breathe smoke in public places. I can choose to stay out of a smoky bar, but if I'm walking down the street, do I have to cross the street to get away from *your* cigarette?

They are already protected. They can go to a non-smoking establishment or the non-smoking section. Simple and nobody's freedom is infringed.

Really, Democrats and so-called "liberals" have got to be some of the dumbest people in America. We have an extremely corrupt president and ruling party that have been able to dodge criticism because they've been able to solidify their image as people who stand for freedom and paint the opposition as un-American. And what do the democrats and "liberals" do? They pull some anti-freedom/anti-choice/un-American crap like this. Stop telling people how to live, the Democrats would be better served by letting the Republicans be the sole voice of authoritarianism.

 

[luchog]

Stop telling people how to live, the Democrats would be better served by letting the Republicans be the sole voice of authoritarianism.

The problem is that you're assuming that the Democrats have ever been anti-, or at least non-, authoritarian. That is demonstrably not true. The only difference is the issues or sides of an issue they choose to be authoritarian about.

 

[Tony]

The problem is that you're assuming that the Democrats have ever been anti-, or at least non-, authoritarian.

Your problem is that you're assuming that I'm assuming the Democrats have ever been anti-, or at least non-, authoritarian. I am well versed in the history of Democrat authoritarianism.

The only difference is the issues or sides of an issue they choose to be authoritarian about.

I know.

 

[Mephisto]

Some of you are forgetting the principle of freedom that goes something like 'your rights end where my rights begin'. These law is meant to protect people who don't want to breathe smoke in public places. I can choose to stay out of a smoky bar, but if I'm walking down the street, do I have to cross the street to get away from *your* cigarette?

In any case, these laws are inevitable here in California. Recently, the California Air Resources Board declared that cigarette smoke was a toxic substance that causes cancer. Now it is open season on cigarette smoke, just like it was on Freon, leaded gasoline, etc. You guys have to admit you'll find more people interested in laws that stop 'airborne carcinogens' than laws that protect smoker's rights.

I agree with you 100%, but I actually believe what an old-school Conservative would believe, keep government out of it. Establishment owners should be able to decide, and if they lose clientele, I'm sure they'll pick up new people. Regarding the smoke you'll encounter passing one of these establishments, it wouldn't HAVE to be a problem since one stipulations smoking-establishment owners would HAVE to ensure is double doors with an adequate filtration system.

I just think there is a way beyond this without demonizing a group of people.

 

[Solitaire]

They are already protected. They can go to a non-smoking establishment or the non-smoking section. Simple and nobody's freedom is infringed.

False.
I only know of one non-smoking restaurant in the area.
Never call the passive smoking section, the non-smoking section.
My freedom is massively infringed.

 

[Tony]

False.

No it's not. You said yourself:

I only know of one non-smoking restaurant in the area.

So it's not false. There are non-smoking restaurants, one that you know of. Apparently, researching to find another one is beyond your capabilities.

Never call the passive smoking section, the non-smoking section.

There is no such thing as a passive smoking section. It's the non-smoking section. Why? Because there is no smoking. It's really that simple.

My freedom is massively infringed.

The only "freedom" of your's that is "massively infringed" is your "freedom" to massively infringe the freedom of others.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

No one may smoke in the non-smoking section---but that doesn't keep out the smoke from everywhere else. That's why it's the passive smoking area, because the air is filled with smoke anyway.

 

[Tony]

No one may smoke in the non-smoking section---but that doesn't keep out the smoke from everywhere else. That's why it's the passive smoking area, because the air is filled with smoke anyway.

Then you guys must hang out in some pretty dank hell-holes. I never experience that when I go to restaurants. They almost always have the smoking and non-smoking sections in separate wings of the building.

 

[Bjorn]

I only know of one non-smoking restaurant in the area.
Never call the passive smoking section, the non-smoking section.
My freedom is massively infringed.

Why aren't there more non-smoking restaurants or bars?

I mean, about 70% of the population are non-smokers, and if they go out once in a while it must be a fabulous market that is there to exploit, and every time smoking bans are discussed I hear sooo many people saying "we can't find a smoke-free bar or restaurant".

Maybe smokers drink more, maybe they go out more, maybe they should be able to get together indoors, in their dedicated establishments, to smoke and drink and have a jolly good time.

Non-smokers could, of course, do the same ...

 

[trvlr2]

I cherish the thought of you passively enjoying ass gas! And lots of it!

 

[Bjorn]

I cherish the thought of you passively enjoying ass gas! And lots of it!

I don't go to ass-gas restaurants. However, I appreciate that ass-gas afficionados have their own places to blow out - or suck in - some gas, and I cannot see any reason why those places should be prohibited. Personally, I go to the ass-gas-free bar across the street, where I and my ass-gas-hating friends enjoy the ass-gas-free environment. Isn't personal choice a wonderful thing?