Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[offshoredrilling]

doove
Take it easy. Tax on a pack in NY up $1.60 on the allready $2.75. So a pack will be $9.20 in upstate NY and $11 in NYC. Just doing my part to pay NYS bills. Just think on how NYS can waste that cash.

I can't beleive it took a pack of cowboy killers to read this thread.

OSD

[TxBrandy]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. All the smokers are asking for is a lawful establishment where they can go and socialize and still smoke while enjoying a beer, company, whatever. It seems the non-smokers jump up with their righteous attitude and start the cursing and the name calling.

My God, it's simple. It doesn't have to be one way or another, either everywhere is non-smoking or everywhere is smoking. Let there be places that cater to each and let the public decide where they want to go. It's called compromise, having a choice. The OP was just stating that the businesses should decide whether they allow smoking or not. If Starbuck's allows smoking on the patio, don't go out on the patio! Oh but I want to go on the patio, you whine. Then sit upwind from the smokers, deal with it, or wait till they leave, or sit as far as possible from them. It's not like the smokers have a choice to go inside if they want.

Honestly, if it was me (being the smoker), I'm not going to be an asshat and blow smoke in your face. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm not going to light up in a non-smoking place when the sign says "No smoking allowed".

If you want to whack off go to the adult movie theater. Start a restaurant that allows whacking off with your meals. If people want to see that they will come to your place, if they don't they go somewhere else. How hard is this to understand? Inform the public and let them decide.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

There are a lot of things that go on in this world that are disgusting and revolting to me. But I'm ok with them going on as long as they go on between consenting adults and they take responsibility for the consequences of their involvement. And I have no desire to go rain on their parade. But folks like you Dopey, can't stand it.

Come on Rudyard. I wanna hear you say it. Say "i think someone should be allowed to masturbate at the dinner table right next to mine". Not "i'm ok with people doing what they want". I'm not talking generalities here. I'm talking specifics. Smoking. Masturbating. Restaurant.

You, PJ, and ATL like to throw our your examples on the other side suggesting that if we don't allow smoking, it's akin to forcing all cars to be blue - or some such nonsense. So.....if we allow smoking, shouldn't we allow masturbating? Yes or no?

I'll await your petty insults.

[Guest030911]

Originally Posted by Doove

...
At least PJ can have a sense of humor about what this all really is - people bantering back and forth. But Rudyard, he's nothing but a low level troll. And hiding behind a certain intellectualism doesn't change that. In fact, you'd think he'd be better at mocking people without needing to resort to simple minded name calling. Kind of like the comedian who can't be funny, so he just uses the f word all the time.

Originally Posted by Doove

From his signature line.
Forum Guideline #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention.This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, etc etc etc.

Do I sense some hypocrisy from a guy who wants to run and hide behind momma's dress when he feels a little heat?

[John Bull]

Let's rachet this back a notch guys and get out of attack mode.

Why not have licensed smoking bars, all others smoke-free? Then both sides have some place to go.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by TxBrandy

It seems the non-smokers jump up with their righteous attitude and start the cursing and the name calling.

Oh my God, what thread have you been reading?

If you want to whack off go to the adult movie theater. Start a restaurant that allows whacking off with your meals.

The point is, since it needs to be spelled out for you, there isn't even that option - but i don't hear anyone griping about having their civil liberties taken away because of it. Nor do i ever expect to. So if PJ or Rudyard, or ATL wants to argue the case based on civil liberties grounds, then they should be consistent and whine about not being able to masturbate. Or maybe they're just not as upset over civil liberties as they claim. Or maybe they acknowledge that there can be logical limits to civil liberties in any public establishment, including private businesses.

But you're right about one thing - this thread has gotten ridiculous. My being called Dopey umpteen times in the last 2 days by the cool kids in here is proof of that.

Originally Posted by cpi3000

Do I sense some hypocrisy from a guy who wants to run and hide behind momma's dress when he feels a little heat?

You're right. Calling someone a low level troll is name calling. Busted. So RK 17, Doove 1. Sue me.

[Guest030911]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Let's rachet this back a notch guys and get out of attack mode.

Why not have licensed smoking bars, all others smoke-free? Then both sides have some place to go.

On the surface, JB, that makes sense.

Either the government regulates things to protect the people, or they allow the market to regulate itself. Popular vote says smoking is out. If we are going to ask the government to keep the public from hurting themselves and others, then smoking should go. Smoking is not safe and compromises peoples health. I do not think anyone intelligent can debate that.

Licensed smoking bars would just be another sin tax. The non-smokers would complain that they could not enjoy "that bar" because of the smoke and it is not fair. It would not serve to protect the public at all, just merely another avenue to tax those who want to enjoy self destructive behavior. In my mind it is no different that the 10% tax recently imposed on tanning salons. That tax will not protect anyone nor discourage the business or use of tanning salons. It is just a publicly approved shakedown of a private business by our own government.


I have no idea what I am politically. One day I sound like a liberal and want big government, the next day I want the government out of all of our affairs. Is there a term for politics that is guided by common sense and honesty?

Doove, no real malice intended. I am guilty of drive by pot shots all the time like I just did,. The Internet is a wild place. Good thing we get to hide behind handles.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by Doove

If your defenses of RK had any logic to them Ansley, i'd be impressed. They don't. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Doove

And i'll follow ya.

Just keep your disgusting, noxious, carcinogen infested ass out of my face.

I wasn't defending RK. I just noticed that you were following him and you complained that his ass wasn't up to par.

If I was here to impress, it would be in my best interest not to get into this mud slinging.

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Yep, down to 21% of the US population...down from 42% in 1965.

That's only 1 in 5 Americans. In view of the fact that about 20% of the population is under the age of 14...that is about 1 out of every four over the age of 14.

Another liberal shows his spots. Someday folks will realize that liberals aren't the protectors of freedom.

Well, once it kills off the old dumbasses, maybe the younger generation will open their eyes and we'll see 10% or less.

How have you ever protected my freedom? I'm liberal and I know I sure as hell did things to protect your sorry ass and it's freedom. Stupid comment RK, get a better one liner.

[TxBrandy]

I agree the government should regulate some things. The health department should regulate food establishments. I don't think a burger joint would willingly put up a sign that says "We serve E-Coli with our burgers" therefore they need to be inspected and regulated. Same thing with some professions (medical for example). But I still don't see it as having to be all or nothing. Especially when it comes to a legal activity.

My apologies Doove, I did make a rash comment due to my irritation of some parts of this thread. I don't need it spelled out for me (well, actually some things I would need spelled out). I just referenced the whacking bit because it was brought up. This thread IS about the smoking issue though. I guess we could start another thread about the whacking off issue

And yea, I'm sure there would be another sin tax.

What if we replaced the topic of smoking with that of prostitution and re read this thread. Would it be my civil liberty to be a prostitute?

[Sa_artman]

" Inform the public and let them decide." That's just it Brandy, the public votes for the politicians, who make the laws, who decide no smoking in public places or establishments. I whine about your smoke, I vote, my problem solved.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Forum Guideline #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention.This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, etc etc etc.

(From his signature line.)

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Doove, aren't you the guy who attacked me multiple times with childish, condescending cheap shots when the discussion turned to economic issues in the "Nationalize BP" thread?

If you're going to go around acting the way you do, it shouldn't come as a big surprise when someone addresses you with a moniker that fits your personality and style.

[TxBrandy]

And what if it didn't go your way? You whine, you vote, your problem NOT solved because the vote went the other way. Would you just drop the issue? Or would you continue to argue your position?

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by cpi3000

On the surface, JB, that makes sense.

Either the government regulates things to protect the people, or they allow the market to regulate itself. Popular vote says smoking is out. If we are going to ask the government to keep the public from hurting themselves and others, then smoking should go. Smoking is not safe and compromises peoples health. I do not think anyone intelligent can debate that.

Licensed smoking bars would just be another sin tax. The non-smokers would complain that they could not enjoy "that bar" because of the smoke and it is not fair. It would not serve to protect the public at all, just merely another avenue to tax those who want to enjoy self destructive behavior. In my mind it is no different that the 10% tax recently imposed on tanning salons. That tax will not protect anyone nor discourage the business or use of tanning salons. It is just a publicly approved shakedown of a private business by our own government.


I have no idea what I am politically. One day I sound like a liberal and want big government, the next day I want the government out of all of our affairs. Is there a term for politics that is guided by common sense and honesty?

Doove, no real malice intended. I am guilty of drive by pot shots all the time like I just did,. The Internet is a wild place. Good thing we get to hide behind handles.

It is the hypocrisy that incites...and he knows it.

If most people want non-smoking?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want to maintain criminlization of prostitution?...these folks shout Individual rights.

If most people want healthcare reform?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want more freedom of religion in schools?...these folks shout Individual rights.

If most people want to tax the rich?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want to remove illegal aliens...these folks shout Individual rights.

They don't believe in a Majority rules sytem. They don't believe in an Individual rights system. They don't believe in any system but themselves.

Frankly if enough people want a whack off bar to entice a proprieter to open one?...Fine by me. You won't see me in it and you won't see me asking for it to be closed down (even though I might ask for the windows to be dark enough to where you can't see in). And I don't care whether it is smoking or non-smoking.

But I'm not sure why that is "Fine by me" on a whack off bar...and it is not "Fine by these folks" on a smoking bar. I don't have to go into the whack off bar. They don't have to go into the smoking bar. They don't want to be around me. I don't want to be around them. Everyone should be happy. But they are not. I, OTOH, am tickled pink to be in my smoking bar watching the game...surrounded by those folks who aren't bothered by such a bar.

As Miss Brandy said...It is really pretty simple. Like people want to gather with people they like. We have already said those gatherings can't be based on race, creed or color. That works for me. But these folks want to be able to walk in any bar, in any place, and have everyone adhear to their mores...and call you inconsiderate if you don't. It was BS years ago...it is BS now...and it will always be BS.

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by TxBrandy

And what if it didn't go your way? You whine, you vote, your problem NOT solved because the vote went the other way. Would you just drop the issue? Or would you continue to argue your position?

Coming from a long line of stubborn stock, we never let anything lie. There's lots of things I believe in that have had votes go the other way. Some are hopeless, others are important enough you have to get involved and swing the vote. That's the beauty of our country. Bitch about the laws or get involved to change them.

I'm a fighter and a lover