that really doesnt' make sense. So you light up when there's second hand smoke present. This means you're not only getting first hand but ALSO second hand. The first hand smoke doesn't negate the second....lol.....
Revoke Smoking Ban In Toronto?
- Thread starter banana
- Start date
Sorry Tb, you're way off this time.
What was the result of the last smoking thread.? We should just cut and paste it here.
You are smart, but what makes you think this is a free country? We have volumes of books telling us what we can and cannot do. This is one of the 'CAN'T' now.
There are public bars in Salt Lake just not many and they're thinking of allowing more.
The fried food ban would be bad because why? People live healthier take what some consider our number one health problem down a peg. I see no down side, but they won't do it anytime soon, just like the half-assed driving ban on cell phones and GPS, but not eating or drinking in cars. It would be political suicide.
I used to smoke. It's a disgusting habit and ages you about 20 years, at least, looks wise. So glad I kicked the habit. I won't date a smoker. The stink on my clothes when around smokers makes me go home, strip and throw everything in the wash. Me too. Shower immediately!!
I hate government getting into anything, but this may be an area they should.
I hate government getting into anything, but this may be an area they should.
hey, that looks like the coronary from Dangerous Dan's! lol.......
BTW: I don't eat read meat and only have fried foods once every couple or three weeks.
As for Black:
I never said banning fried foods would be bad. I just said people who support the anti-smoking laws should be prepared to have some of their freedoms taken away as well.
The result of the last smoking thread was that non-smokers support the ban and were/are willing to have their taxes increased 10 fold to offset the taxes collected on cigarettes. They weren't/aren't willing to give up drinking (and to correlate with the new lower levels of alcohol to blow a warning, they don't want to give up drinking and driving). didn't believe me when I said that other bans/taxes are coming.......
I still say: if you want to smoke in a club? An owner should be allowed to offer this to their customers. If you want to eat steak, you should be allowed to go to a steak house. If you want to drink? you should be allowed to go to a bar (that doesn't have to serve food).
As for Salt Lake City: it's been a while since I was there so I didn't realize they had lifted the ban on clubs serving alcohol. Good for them. We should have clubs here that allow smoking and if one doesn't smoke, they don't go. Conversely, if a worker doesn't smoke? they don't apply for a job there.
I always found it funny how with this ban, the rights on one person superceded that of another. How is that constitutional???
BTW: I don't eat read meat and only have fried foods once every couple or three weeks.
As for Black:
I never said banning fried foods would be bad. I just said people who support the anti-smoking laws should be prepared to have some of their freedoms taken away as well.
The result of the last smoking thread was that non-smokers support the ban and were/are willing to have their taxes increased 10 fold to offset the taxes collected on cigarettes. They weren't/aren't willing to give up drinking (and to correlate with the new lower levels of alcohol to blow a warning, they don't want to give up drinking and driving). didn't believe me when I said that other bans/taxes are coming.......
I still say: if you want to smoke in a club? An owner should be allowed to offer this to their customers. If you want to eat steak, you should be allowed to go to a steak house. If you want to drink? you should be allowed to go to a bar (that doesn't have to serve food).
As for Salt Lake City: it's been a while since I was there so I didn't realize they had lifted the ban on clubs serving alcohol. Good for them. We should have clubs here that allow smoking and if one doesn't smoke, they don't go. Conversely, if a worker doesn't smoke? they don't apply for a job there.
I always found it funny how with this ban, the rights on one person superceded that of another. How is that constitutional???
spoken like a true reformed smoker!!
Just so you know: do you realize that if you eat meat, we vegetarians can smell it on you?
So if an sp is a vegetarian, and fucks you, she showers to get YOUR smell off HER? (and believe me, meat eaters smell like ass).
One of the reasons I shy away from EE escorts is because many are VERY big meat eaters. I can smell it on their breath, their clothes, and yes folks, even their pussy.
Just so you know ffr, the smell of burning or charring meat makes us want to puke. More so than smoke. (yes, I've quit before so I know the difference). I was at my brother's place one time and they were grilling steaks inside. It was cold out but I was begging him to open a window and he refused. I said: if you don't open a window, I'm gone because know what it smelled like? Ever walked down queen street on a hot summer day and smelled a homeless person who hadn't showered in 3 yrs? Imagine rubbing your nose into the crack of their ass?
That's what it smells like to us.......
Here's the problem with your argument. Why not just allow smoking everywhere? Bars & clubs. No problem as you say if you don't like it just don't go. Restuarants. If you don't like it just don't eat there.
Offices. If you don't like just don't work there. University's. If it bothers you then don't study there. hospitals. If it bothers you then don't get sick. It goes on and on.
The problem is that the smokers are damaging their health which is going too lead to long term medical care which our tax dollars support. That compounded with the unquestionable evidence of the dangers of second hand smoke to the non smokers makes it imperative that we have smoking bans. Hopefuly we eliminate this habit altogether in the near future.
The toxins I mentioned are inert compounds with first drawn smoke, they bond with carbon dioxide and become toxic; once sent back into the open air they are absorbed through skin. It impacts those who do not smoke hardest since that haven't built up resistance to it. However first drawn smoke does increase the supply of carbon monoxide in red blood cells. Heavy smokers are actually starving their brains of oxygen.
Holy Shit. Is Big Ed still with us or did he die from drinking too much Root Beer?
I agree Oracle. The point YOU are missing is the freedom of choice.
A university is a public enterprise. A hospital is a public enterprise. A bar/nightclub ISN'T. It should be up to the individual business owner to decide what or who his patrons are.
As I said: I have NO problem with a bar or restaurant saying: we're a smoke free environment. Then smokers can go, and not smoke. By the same argument we should allow a business owner to say: We allow smoking. Then people have the right to choose.
The whole problem with the smoking ban is you take away a person's freedom of choice. One group's rights supercede another's.
Put it another way: if a vegetarian walks into a steak house and hates the smell, should they be allowed to dictate to the business owner to stop cooking meat? No. But if they rally enough support they certainly can. Imagine if city council was 51% vegetarian? Say goodbye to your favourite eatery.....
As for the health costs. In the previous thread there were numerous links to the actual stats of health care costs of smokers vs non-smokers.
It showed smokers died earlier than non-smokers so the actual accrued costs to treat them were less than non-smokers. There were also stats that indicated that health issues due to air pollution caused by industry and especially cars, outweighed the issues created by smoking by something like a factor of 4.
So, if you REALLY want to cut down on health costs, ban cars. They are far more dangerous than smoking.......
A university is a public enterprise. A hospital is a public enterprise. A bar/nightclub ISN'T. It should be up to the individual business owner to decide what or who his patrons are.
As I said: I have NO problem with a bar or restaurant saying: we're a smoke free environment. Then smokers can go, and not smoke. By the same argument we should allow a business owner to say: We allow smoking. Then people have the right to choose.
The whole problem with the smoking ban is you take away a person's freedom of choice. One group's rights supercede another's.
Put it another way: if a vegetarian walks into a steak house and hates the smell, should they be allowed to dictate to the business owner to stop cooking meat? No. But if they rally enough support they certainly can. Imagine if city council was 51% vegetarian? Say goodbye to your favourite eatery.....
As for the health costs. In the previous thread there were numerous links to the actual stats of health care costs of smokers vs non-smokers.
It showed smokers died earlier than non-smokers so the actual accrued costs to treat them were less than non-smokers. There were also stats that indicated that health issues due to air pollution caused by industry and especially cars, outweighed the issues created by smoking by something like a factor of 4.
So, if you REALLY want to cut down on health costs, ban cars. They are far more dangerous than smoking.......
Well, if you like that you'll love the coronary......they put two types of bacon on it lol.......
Without the ban, the rights of non-smokers get superceded by smokers. You want to kill yourself with that garbage...fine. Just don't make everyone else suffer ill health effects because of your habit.
Yes I know my grammar sucks.
Originally Posted by tboy
I always found it funny how with this ban, the rights on one person superceded that of another. How is that constitutional???
---------------------------------------------------
There's all sort of examples of the rights of one person are superseded for the good of others in our great land.
I always found it funny how with this ban, the rights on one person superceded that of another. How is that constitutional???
---------------------------------------------------
There's all sort of examples of the rights of one person are superseded for the good of others in our great land.
Just because 1000 people jump off a bridge does that make it right?
I'm having a smoke right now, how is that superceding your rights as a non-smoker? It doesn't. Because you're not exposed to it. Just like you wouldn't be exposed to it if I was sitting in a smoking lounge and you weren't.......
As I've always said, and this fact that almost everyone misses:
I 100% agree with a law being written to prevent people WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO SECOND HAND SMOKE SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO.
ie:
On planes, flights and infinitely more pleasant now
In restaurants, now my salad doesn't taste like DuMarier
Offices: the air is infinitely better.
Meetings: hell, I can at least SEE the presentation on the projection screen.
BUT in a privately owned establishment? No. If a person wants to have a drink and a smoke they should be allowed to. With fair warning to anyone entering that it is NOT a smoke free environment. Therefore if one chooses, they can smoke. If one chooses, they can avoid it.
See the BIG problem here is that a non-smoker, now, can say "I have the right to go anywhere I want and if a club allows smoking, MY rights to go anywhere supercede someone else's".
If you allowed people to make their own choices, the SMOKER would hold that right. They could go to smoking AND non-smoking clubs. But oh noooooo you can't do THAT. Give a smoker the same rights as a non-smoker.
Change the word "smoking" to eating meat or eating sushi or drinking wine or drinking alcohol and maybe you will get my frift.
Should someone who doesn't eat meat be able to dictate to a restaurant owner that they shouldn't be allowed to serve meat?
Should an abstainer be able to dictate to a restaurant that they shouldn't be allowed to serve alcohol?
Should a country and western music fan be able to go into a rock club and dictate to the owner what music to play?
NO to all the above just like NO to a non-smoker being given the power to dictate to a business owner who he serves.
I 100% agree with a law being written to prevent people WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO SECOND HAND SMOKE SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO.
ie:
On planes, flights and infinitely more pleasant now
In restaurants, now my salad doesn't taste like DuMarier
Offices: the air is infinitely better.
Meetings: hell, I can at least SEE the presentation on the projection screen.
BUT in a privately owned establishment? No. If a person wants to have a drink and a smoke they should be allowed to. With fair warning to anyone entering that it is NOT a smoke free environment. Therefore if one chooses, they can smoke. If one chooses, they can avoid it.
See the BIG problem here is that a non-smoker, now, can say "I have the right to go anywhere I want and if a club allows smoking, MY rights to go anywhere supercede someone else's".
If you allowed people to make their own choices, the SMOKER would hold that right. They could go to smoking AND non-smoking clubs. But oh noooooo you can't do THAT. Give a smoker the same rights as a non-smoker.
Change the word "smoking" to eating meat or eating sushi or drinking wine or drinking alcohol and maybe you will get my frift.
Should someone who doesn't eat meat be able to dictate to a restaurant owner that they shouldn't be allowed to serve meat?
Should an abstainer be able to dictate to a restaurant that they shouldn't be allowed to serve alcohol?
Should a country and western music fan be able to go into a rock club and dictate to the owner what music to play?
NO to all the above just like NO to a non-smoker being given the power to dictate to a business owner who he serves.
A sur charge on fried foods and junk food would be awesome..... either that or ... later in life if you have health care issues that are directly related to you abusing your body .... you pay for the care and costs..... not the rest of the people..... just my two cents.
That's ok too. BUT it is almost impossible to determine the exact cause of these problems. For eg: I have high cholesteral. I don't eat meat, fried foods (rarely), and eat reduced fat and no-fat foods. I buy foods that are high in omega 3 fatty acids (good cholesteral). But I have high cholesteral simply due to genetics. My body makes cholesteral from cardboard.
Now you're starting to get into Gattaca territory........
but by the same token:
If you have health issues due to alcohol consumption, you pay your own health care costs
If you cause an accident due to DUI, you pay ALL the costs out of pocket (negating insurance)
If you get injured due to lifestyle choices (ie: parachuting, bungee jumping, rock climbing) you pay your own health costs
