The truth about 2nd hand smoke..

#126
#126
allvol123 said:
I don't care what the majority of people want, I prefer rights be upheld.

I am capable of understanding the rights a person should have even if I find the activity to be disgusting.
Click to expand...

Your only interested in the rights of the smokers though. The non-smokers apparently have no rights.

And basicly your against rule by the majority or democratic rule........interesting position.
 
#127
#127
oklavol said:
Your only interested in the rights on the smokers though. The non-smokers apparently have no rights. And basicly your against rule by the majority or democratic rule........interesting position.
Click to expand...

You're right, I am against majority rule, I am for correct ruling, not most popular ruling. Regardless if it is most popular or least popular.

I am interested in the rights of all, I have yet to see someone show me where they have been forced into a restaurant to eat.
 
#128
#128
allvol123 said:
You're right, I am against majority rule, I am for correct ruling, not most popular ruling. Regardless if it is most popular or least popular.

I am interested in the rights of all, I have yet to see someone show me where they have been forced into a restaurant to eat.
Click to expand...

All except non-smokers, who have no rights concerning breathing 2nd hand smoke apparently.

Smokers aren't forced to go to restaurants to eat either.
 
#129
#129
oklavol said:
All except non-smokers, who have no rights concerning breathing 2nd hand smoke apparently.

Smokers aren't forced to go to restaurants to eat either.
Click to expand...

No, but thanks to the mob rule mentality of some, they have put in their place.

Mob rule!!!

:rock:
 
#130
#130
oklavol said:
All except non-smokers, who have no rights concerning breathing 2nd hand smoke apparently.

Smokers aren't forced to go to restaurants to eat either.
Click to expand...


I am non-smoker and not once in my life have I felt my rights have been violated by a smoker.
 
#134
#134
kptvol said:
I think the situation will work itself out. Restaurants that decide to go the smoker route will probably end up doing poor business and switch over to smoke-free. So everyone that was demanding non-smokers need to create a demand really can just flip the scenario. Smokers are now going to have to create a demand or they won't have eateries where they can smoke.
Click to expand...

If they choose to go the free market route and create their own establishments, they would be violating state law more than likely in some places.
 
#135
#135
kptvol said:
Granted. However, the ball is now in the smoker's court. Either make it worth the restaurant's while to provide for you, or watch everyone switch over.

Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if this results in a lot of restaurants providing some sort of outdoor smoking lounge-type area where patrons can head when they need to light up.
Click to expand...

If smokers want to do it inside and an establishment/owner allows it, why should you care if what goes on in this place? Just don't go inside.
 
#136
#136
oklavol said:
Yes, only a mob would ask smokers to smoke outside instead of blowing smoke in everyone's faces. It's a great evil in this country.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. You act as if non-smokers deserve some higher right in a privately run establishment than smokers. No, I am sorry, you don't "act" that way, you actually believe it. The private business owner "owes" you something, somehow, not sure why he does.

The government overstepping its boundaries, is very evil indeed.
 
#137
#137
Rasputin_Vol said:
If smokers want to do it inside and an establishment/owner allows it, why should you care if what goes on in this place? Just don't go inside.
Click to expand...

I won't. If smokers want to smoke all they have to do is not go to the non-smoking restaurants. Conflict resolved.
 
#138
#138
allvol123 said:
Hilarious. You act as if non-smokers deserve some higher right in a privately run establishment than smokers. No, I am sorry, you don't "act" that way, you actually believe it. The private business owner "owes" you something, somehow, not sure why he does.

The government overstepping its boundaries, is very evil indeed.
Click to expand...

It just depends on what you think is overstepping boundaries. I don't see this as anymore restrictive than a minimum drinking age.
 
#139
#139
kptvol said:
It just depends on what you think is overstepping boundaries. I don't see this as anymore restrictive than a minimum drinking age.
Click to expand...

Much more restrictive. These are telling a private business owner that a legal activity can't be done at HIS business. Just go ahead and outlaw smoking altogther if it is that dangerous.

When are we going to outlaw bad drivers? They stress me out and thus are unhealthy to me. Loud cell phone talkers bother me as well. Stress is probably as dangerous as second hand smoke, if not more.
 
#141
#141
allvol123 said:
Much more restrictive. These are telling a private business owner that a legal activity can't be done at HIS business.
Click to expand...

Actually they are saying if you want to continue doing said activity, you must make some changes.

I don't see why bars would even be upset. You can't let minors in anyway. So the affect on bars is minimal.
 
#142
#142
kptvol said:
Not unless you have a lot of risk factors, many of which have been linked to second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Regardless, stress is unhealthy and I need the government to step in and take care of:

bad drivers
public cell phone usage
bad customer service
etc...

Big brother gotta protect. :rock:
 
#143
#143
allvol123 said:
Regardless, stress is unhealthy and I need the government to step in and take care of:

bad drivers
public cell phone usage
bad customer service
etc...

Big brother gotta protect. :rock:
Click to expand...

You don't have to drive, or go out in public, or buy products that require consumer service.

If the gov't were intervening in a similar fashion with bad drives, I'd say the best analogy would be a separate road system that only "good" drivers can use.
 
#144
#144
kptvol said:
Actually they are saying if you want to continue doing said activity, you must make some changes.

I don't see why bars would even be upset. You can't let minors in anyway. So the affect on bars is minimal.
Click to expand...

I meant more restrictive in a general sense, not just bars and restaurants. Outlawing something to adult business owners as opposed to outlawing something for minors.
 
#145
#145
kptvol said:
You don't have to drive, or go out in public, or buy products that require consumer service.

If the gov't were intervening in a similar fashion with bad drives, I'd say the best analogy would be a separate road system that only "good" drivers can use.
Click to expand...

My need to drive is higher than a person's need to dine out. Besides, we have established it is not about needs, but wants.

And the government has established a separate road system. It is called the HOV lane in Nashville, and it REALLY stresses me out.
 
#146
#146
allvol123 said:
I meant more restrictive in a general sense, not just bars and restaurants. Outlawing some to adult business owners as opposed to outlawing something for minors.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the government's intervention may have been unnecessary mainly because I think the changes they are promoting would have taken place eventually, anyway. They've just accelerated the process, in my opinion.
 
#148
#148
allvol123 said:
Hilarious. You act as if non-smokers deserve some higher right in a privately run establishment than smokers. No, I am sorry, you don't "act" that way, you actually believe it. The private business owner "owes" you something, somehow, not sure why he does.

The government overstepping its boundaries, is very evil indeed.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is how you go on and on about smoker's rights while acting like non-smoker's don't have any.

Like a smoker's God-given right is to sit in a room and blow smoke in the faces on non-smokers and it's their choice to leave or not, not the smoker's choice.
 
#150
#150
oklavol said:
What is hilarious is how you go on and on about smoker's rights while acting like non-smoker's don't have any.

Like a smoker's God-given right is to sit in a room and blow smoke in the faces on non-smokers and it's their choice to leave or not, not the smoker's choice.
Click to expand...

I prefer each have a choice. They can choose privately run businesses that choose to be friendly or unfriendly to smokers. Or even a business that decides to play it down the middle. Either way, I have no need for the government to protect me from second hand smoke. We are creating a country of sheep that can't make a decision without big brother helping them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top