Blood
Driveler Emeritus
I have no idea what that post has to do with either the original thread topic, or the derailment topic.
It was late. :drunk2:
I was goading Sinister for
I have no idea what that post has to do with either the original thread topic, or the derailment topic.
Vegetarians do not believe "meat is murder" en masse. Vegetarianism is a choice folks make. The "meat is murder" thing comes from extremists like PETA and retarded animal rights folks. I've met plenty of normal vegetarians.
Is that an insult?
Because frankly, I'm getting tired of your lack of ability to debate without calling names. We quit doing that around here about six months before I was hired as a moderator the first time. So far I've been called a "whiny little bitch", and something else...I forget...
Seriously? Smoking AND obesity don't take YEARS to kill a person? Both lead to many of the same health problems. Heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. Smoking is PROVEN to increase the risk of health problems.
I never said anything about being immature. I said inflammatory. Stop calling people names. We let that go once on this forum years ago, and it chased a BUNCH of traffic away. So either debate your points without doing that, or you're gone. If anyone on the staff disagrees, please let me know.
Duck said:I have no idea what that post has to do with either the original thread topic, or the derailment topic.
Everyone has the ability to choose. If you're a nonsmoker and don't want to go to an establishment that allows smoking, by all means stay home. If you're a smoker who can't make it through a meal without firing up a Marlboro, perhaps you should stay home as well. But for either group to force their choices on the owners of the establishment is ridiculous. You don't save freedom of choice by taking that freedom away from others.
The only problem I see with this is that I can't imagine a single business owner, bar or dining establishment that would make their place a non smoking facility. Even without the interference of government the owner himself just chased away a ton of revenue.
So to say "you're free to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking" simply doesn't work. If it were left up to the owners, they'd want as much business as possible. How many non smoking establishments were there before the ban went into effect??
I just tend to believe that this ruling is made by states with the best intentions, and everyone's health in mind. No two hours in a cloud of smoke won't kill you, but the employees are pretty screwed. Oh, sure they can find another job, unless they're in a horribly corrupt state like Illinois or something that's bent on destroying itself from the inside...
Didn't bother me at all that Wisconsin went to this, and most of the same bars are all still there so no...it's not "unequivocal" either.
Personally the ban doesn't bother me either. I don't even smoke in my own house. What bothers me is the government dictating to business owners like they have.
The government steps in when we can't self police ourselves. I think my need for fresh air trumps your need for polluted air. I really don't see any difference between peeing on your leg and you blowing smoke in my face. I don't go around peeing on people in night clubs therefore peeing hasn't been banned. You have an addiction, that is the only reason you like to smoke.
This is my opinion and you can't change my mind, whatever you say.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to disagree with it.
Your need for fresh air has never been threatened by anyone but you. If you made a decision to go into an establishment that allows smoking, that was your choice, not mine. If you can't police your own activities, then don't ask the government to step in and restrict mine.
"Needs" and "wants"...
If you need fresh air sooo bad, don't go to an establishment that is filled with smoke.
But, you want to go there. You don't need to be there.
So, how does your wanting to be in a certain area overrule someone else wanting to smoke in a certain area?
With that mentality, .....
If I'm standing over here smoking, and you decide that you want to stand over here too, suddenly I have to leave? Cuz I'm doing something that bothers you?
That's a crock of oo: !
If you don't want to be where the smoke is, don't go there.
Simple!
This is why many governments are banning smoking, even in your own car or own house. You smokers are doing it to yourselves. You are addicted and you have to have your fix, no matter what, it overrides all common sense. Sooner or later, it will be banned everywhere or made so costly, you will give it up.
It still makes no sense... At all!
What makes the rights of a non smoker more valid than a smokers?
What about freedom of choice?
Only if it's your choice too?
Yeah, that makes TOTAL sense....NOT!
LMFAO!
You are the one addicted, I don't expect it to make any sense to you. Think of it this way, you are the one acting upon me, I'm not doing anything to you. You have all the rights in the world, until you start affecting my rights. Instead of blowing smoke in a non smokers face, all you smokers could have taken your addiction away and most non smokers wouldn't care. But, you insist on blowing it on our faces, clothes, hair and skin, you will get push back. It won't be long before it is banned just about everywhere and you are to blame.
You are right, it is a addiction. But the government says it is legal to indulge. Therefore I have a right to smoke, where it is legal to, if I so chose. You have a right to your clean air, provided that right does not infringe on my legal rights.
By the same token, where does the government get its right to over rule the legal rights of a establishment owner as to whether smoking is allowed or not. Then again, the owner should be the one to decide that, as his money is at stake with his decision. If you do not agree with his business decision, then you are welcome to patronize another establishment whose owner agrees with you.
This is called freedom of choice, which those who oppose with some groups likes tend to feel they should take away that groups rights for theirs. It appears that those none-smokers believe that smokers have a right to smoke, as long as they do it in a way that they agree with.
I would suggest, the rights of non gun owners take precedence, after all, you didn't pop out of your mother's womb holding a gun! Gun owners are the one committing the action, owning guns. Non gun owners are committing no action against gun owners. They exist, that's all.
If you went back and reread what I have posted, I have never advocated the government taking away your right to carry a gun where and when you want to. I agree with you, the property owner should be the one deciding. Now when you have children with you in a confined space and you are carrying a loaded firearm, I, personally think you should have your butt thrashed.
So, how would you feel about a non gun owner peeing on your leg?
Can't you gun owners be respectful of non gun owners? Why do you post yourselves at every doorway and carry a weapon? Why do you chamber a round before you enter a building or a car and brandish it all over the place? Why do you carry where others are eating? Showing a little consideration would go a long way towards minimizing the tension between gun owners and non gun owners.
This is why many governments are banning smoking, even in your own car or own house. You smokers are doing it to yourselves. You are addicted and you have to have your fix, no matter what, it overrides all common sense. Sooner or later, it will be banned everywhere or made so costly, you will give it up.
So nobody smokes pot, or crack? That needle the waste of life had in their arm last night when I saw someone behind my truck was an insulin shot? Those Colombians are really making billions off coffee beans and not cocaine?
The government can not and should not even be trying to legislate morality. It gets no simpler than that. It is my choice what I put in my body, it is your choice to be near me when that happens or not. Now of a business of their own free will decides to allow it or ban it on their property that is their choice.
Let me fix this to put some perspective on it: