How old were you when you started smoking ?.

[Έρεβος]

get the fuck off my internet beyotch, you're a disgrace to metal fans everywhere

I don't pretend to claim they are any good...

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

"Asking to stand outside for a minute so that the bar may smell like ass and BO" would be more like it. And it is far from that simple in the winter. It should be up the establishment owner, not the fucking state. How can that seriously be argued? The government has no right in forcing establishment owners to enforce a ban on something those owners want to be allowed in their establishment. Go to a non-smoking bar/restaurant/whatever if you want, but don't ruin it for the rest of us, as has been done.

Actually the state has plenty of right to regulate business practices when health is concerned. I'm sure there plenty of restaurants and bars that would just love to not have to pay for their employees to take OSHA classes.

And, again, if having to step outside to smoke is "ruining" your evening, you may have a problem.

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

I don't pretend to claim they are any good...

it's all good I am just fucking with you (no homo)

 

[Έρεβος]

Actually the state has plenty of right to regulate business practices when health is concerned. I'm sure there plenty of restaurants and bars that would just love to not have to pay for their employees to take OSHA classes.

And, again, if having to step outside to smoke is "ruining" your evening, you may have a problem.

How can you justify that? It is not the restaurant's activity that is causing harm, and it is an activity that is widely known to be damaging. The state, questionably, has the right to regulate business practice where the customer is exposed to unknown harm. The state would only have a right to regulate smoking in this case if a restaurant advertised as non-smoking allowed smoking.

The state has no more business banning smoking in restaurants than they do banning unhealthy food at McDonalds. It should, extremely fucking obviously, be up to the establishment owner. If you don't understand that you can go choke on a spork and die.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

I assume those calling smoking outside a mild inconvenience don't live in places where it regularly reaches sub -25C temperatures in the winter. I only smoke (cigarettes) when I drink, and even then not much, but having to go through coat check (or worse, having to pay to recheck your coat every time you go out) is a pain. I'm all for smoking in private restaurants/bars, but I'd rather there be more of a system where only a limited number of establishments could have licenses for it or something. I mean I hate jazz music far more than I hate second hand smoke, but I don't want them to ban jazz at every bar in case I want to go there someday - let the smokers have a few places of their own, taxing them to death is enough a deterrent I think. Also I despise the government stance of "smoking is bad, it will kill you, don't do it... by the way we make millions of dollars off of it each year."

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

I mean I hate jazz music far more than I hate second hand smoke, but I don't want them to ban jazz at every bar in case I want to go there someday

what a terrible analogy how is jazz dangerous?

 

[thisisaformicatable]

what a terrible analogy how is jazz dangerous?

That's not the point at all, the point is: how does having designated smoking bars/clubs inconvenience the nonsmoker in any way?

 

[cookiecutter]

There was no direct comparison. It was a philosophical point. Life has risks, risks of harming yourself and others, but these risks need to be taken. If they aren't, you never live. It's very simple, how are you people missing that? I was also saying recreation is just as important as essential activity, as it gives the essential activity meaning and purpose. Both recreation and essential activity OFTEN present (small) risks to others and yourself, but shunning them for that would be foolish.

YOU don't get to decide when others take these "risk". If you need to burn some chemicals/leaves and inhale the smoke to make your life worth living, that is sad.

How can you justify that? It is not the restaurant's activity that is causing harm, and it is an activity that is widely known to be damaging. The state, questionably, has the right to regulate business practice where the customer is exposed to unknown harm. The state would only have a right to regulate smoking in this case if a restaurant advertised as non-smoking allowed smoking.

The state has no more business banning smoking in restaurants than they do banning unhealthy food at McDonalds. It should, extremely fucking obviously, be up to the establishment owner. If you don't understand that you can go choke on a spork and die.

Horrible anology. Eating a hamburger at McDonalds affects no one but yourself. You can still buy cigarettes, just as you can buy a hamburger.

Also, USE THE MULTIPOST BUTTON!

 

[Έρεβος]

YOU don't get to decide when others take these "risk". If you need to burn some chemicals/leaves and inhale the smoke to make your life worth living, that is sad.

Learn some reading skills. I made statements that included but were not limited to smoking, and dead fucking obviously meant not just smoking. A fucking chimpanzee could have seen that.

 

[Έρεβος]

Horrible anology. Eating a hamburger at McDonalds affects no one but yourself. You can still buy cigarettes, just as you can buy a hamburger.

Also, USE THE MULTIPOST BUTTON!

It has nothing to do with affecting others, it has to do with rights of ownership. Someone that owns an establishment/building has absolute right to allow smoking within it or not allow smoking within it, just as he has the right to allow drinking or not allow drinking within it, and drinking most certainly does affect others. If you can't see that you're fucking pathetic.

 

[cookiecutter]

Then what does it have to do with this argument? No one is arguing that things aren't fun or that doing some dangerous things can be thrilling.

Edit:

It has nothing to do with affecting others, it has to do with rights of ownership. Someone that owns an establishment/building has absolute right to allow smoking within it or not allow smoking within it, just as he has the right to allow drinking or not allow drinking within it, and drinking most certainly does affect others. If you can't see that you're fucking pathetic.

First of all for everyone's sake, use the multipost tool. It's easy and it makes responding to you less irritating. Second of all, drop the ad hominems, they aren't helping.

Your point was already addressed previously. The business owners rights end where the right to health and comfort of the customer and the employee begin. If you can't understand this, go back a few pages and look at when I and others addressed Ozzman making the exact same point.

 

[Έρεβος]

Then what does it have to do with this argument? No one is arguing that things aren't fun or that doing some dangerous things can be thrilling.

I reiterate: learn to read. I never said dangerous. Smoking is not dangerous. (Light & second-hand) smoking is mildly unhealthy with a tiny risk of serious harm, like just about everything. But getting paranoid about it, or any such things with mild risks, is no way to live. There are easily hundreds of things most of us do every day that have risks as high as smoking. Should airplanes be illegal? Cars? Factories? They all impart a small risk on others, but that risk is small enough to be logically irrelevant, just as with smoking in establishments.

 

[cookiecutter]

I reiterate: make a relevant argument

 

[Death Aflame]

I assume those calling smoking outside a mild inconvenience don't live in places where it regularly reaches sub -25C temperatures in the winter. I only smoke (cigarettes) when I drink, and even then not much, but having to go through coat check (or worse, having to pay to recheck your coat every time you go out) is a pain. I'm all for smoking in private restaurants/bars, but I'd rather there be more of a system where only a limited number of establishments could have licenses for it or something. I mean I hate jazz music far more than I hate second hand smoke, but I don't want them to ban jazz at every bar in case I want to go there someday - let the smokers have a few places of their own, taxing them to death is enough a deterrent I think. Also I despise the government stance of "smoking is bad, it will kill you, don't do it... by the way we make millions of dollars off of it each year."

The motivation for the state to discourage smoking is quite clear in a place where universal health care is the norm. That is, having the populace addicted to a known to be harming substance sucks countless funds out of a health care system where diseases/ailments that were not caused by a personal choice should take precedence. Not only does this lead to a healthier society it could also allow the government to save more funds and even reduce taxes.

Regarding smoking in restaurants I am all for it being banned. However I am not a smoker, nor will I ever be so it is an extreme inconvenience for me to know that my health could be harmed (in the long run) by simply choosing to eat at a public restaurant.

 

[Έρεβος]

I reiterate: make a relevant argument

- Owners of establishments have the obvious right to decide what goes on in those establishments.
- Smoking is much less harmful than media portrays it as. Second-hand smoking is basically entirely without risk unless it is constant and heavy (living with a very heavy smoker).

Are you blind?

 

[Matt]

- Smoking is much less harmful than media portrays it as. Second-hand smoking is basically entirely without risk unless it is constant and heavy (living with a very heavy smoker).

Source?

 

[A8]

Smoking is much less harmful than media portrays it as. Second-hand smoking is basically entirely without risk unless it is constant and heavy (living with a very heavy smoker).

False, unless of course you can prove that

 

[Έρεβος]

Source?

Every source. Nearly ALL instances of disease through second-hand smoking are those living in very smoke-heavy environments. And even such cases are rather rare.

 

[Matt]

Yeah. Um, post a link or something to prove that you actually aren't full of shit.

 

[A8]

And even such cases are rather rare.

i know that to be untrue, but nice try