This is addressed to everyone who compares banning smoking to banning drinking or banning eating rich and fattening foods because they are also unhealthy.

They are not the same thing.

If I eat a thick steak with lots of sauce at the table next to you, I'm not putting fat or cholesterol into your body. I'm not increasing the chance that you will have a heart attack or stroke. In other words, the only person I'm affecting is me, not you. If I drink alcohol a lot, I'm not increasing your chance of liver failure, I'm not making your ulcer worse. If I have too much to drink and I get belligerant, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law (public drunkeness is against the law). If I have too much to drink and I start to drive, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law too.

Notice a pattern? When the things that I do can cause a negative effect to you, then what I do is against the law. When the things listed above don't affect you, then they are okay for me to do.

Principles of life. Excellent.

In this country, we have decided that we will allow people to harm themselves, or expose themselves to harm as long as they are warned.

I would be all for a private restaurant that allows smoking to have to prominently display a warning sign at the entrance to the effect of:

This restaurant allows people to smoke cigarettes. Second hand smoke is believed to potentially increase your risk of lung cancer, birth defects, and (fill in your hazard here). Please consider this before deciding whether to dine here.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Principles of life. Excellent. In this country, we have decided that we will allow people to harm themselves, or expose themselves to harm as long as they are warned. I would be all for a private restaurant that allows smoking to have to prominently display a warning sign at the entrance to the effect of: This restaurant allows people to smoke cigarettes. Second hand smoke is believed to potentially increase your risk of lung cancer, birth defects, and (fill in your hazard here). Please consider this before deciding whether to dine here.

I like this.

Maybe in the States you pay every single penny of your treatment, and so the next point cannot apply to you Americans. Anybody here in Spain, who suffers a serious illness, gets treated at the expense of the State...in other words....the General Tax-payers of the country.And so, if you indulge yourself in a sustained diet of rich food, and subsequently become very ill...the individual doesn't pay for that treatment...the taxpayer does. But that is not the point in the alcohol against smoking argument..and as usual, you have totally ignored, or circumvented ,a request for anybody to deny the equation. Just because one can hurt you physically, or kill you in a second, and the other hurts you, POSSIBLY, over many years, and in a different physical way, doesn't make one less relevant than the other. Drunks can kill you on the spot, in an instant, and often do, one way or another. If you see somebody smoking, you are not going to die on the spot...you can excercise your right to get away, straight away.!!. Even a cumulative exposure to secondary cigarette smoke of 1 year (would probably take about 100 years of your life spent in a smokey restaurant or Bar, I would guess), would be extremely unlikely to cause you to contract cancer. That is the reality in my view. Now address that, and I will look forward to you skating around a straight answer again...try running for Office...you have all the right qualifications
Edit to add:
And how does your point about drunkeness being illegal have any effect on the total number of deaths and injuries every year? None...because thousands and thousands still do it, and every day. I doubt that anybody who has had more than three drinks in an hour or two, would even be capable of worrying about that aspect.Why? "Ach, I won't get caught.."
Nick

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: This is addressed to everyone who compares banning smoking to banning drinking or banning eating rich and fattening foods because they are also unhealthy. They are not the same thing. If I eat a thick steak with lots of sauce at the table next to you, I'm not putting fat or cholesterol into your body. I'm not increasing the chance that you will have a heart attack or stroke. In other words, the only person I'm affecting is me, not you. If I drink alcohol a lot, I'm not increasing your chance of liver failure, I'm not making your ulcer worse. If I have too much to drink and I get belligerant, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law (public drunkeness is against the law). If I have too much to drink and I start to drive, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law too. Notice a pattern? When the things that I do can cause a negative effect to you, then what I do is against the law. When the things listed above don't affect you, then they are okay for me to do.

------------------
fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 08-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: This is addressed to everyone who compares banning smoking to banning drinking or banning eating rich and fattening foods because they are also unhealthy. They are not the same thing. If I eat a thick steak with lots of sauce at the table next to you, I'm not putting fat or cholesterol into your body. I'm not increasing the chance that you will have a heart attack or stroke. In other words, the only person I'm affecting is me, not you. If I drink alcohol a lot, I'm not increasing your chance of liver failure, I'm not making your ulcer worse. If I have too much to drink and I get belligerant, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law (public drunkeness is against the law). If I have too much to drink and I start to drive, then it starts to affect you. And guess what? That is against the law too. Notice a pattern? When the things that I do can cause a negative effect to you, then what I do is against the law. When the things listed above don't affect you, then they are okay for me to do.

This is an excellent post and very well said.

back yard Bar-B-Q's : ban it - burning charcol produces smoke and pollutes the air which posses a health risk
automobile : ban'em the exhaust ,despite emission control devices, pollutes the air and posses a health risk
fuel powered lawmowers : ban'em
woodburning stoves: ban
furnaces (natrl gas) : ban
fireworks : ban
electricity: requires a large coal burning plant or nuclear power plant to produce the electrity that also pollutes our air . ban'em

oh want 1 minute, i can already hear what some of you are thinking. but ,JRM, we need most of those things and nobody needs to smoke.

WRONG!

we lived as a people for thousands of year without them. just because our lazy azz's has become addicted to them over the past few hundreds years, does not mean they are necessary. everybody who uses the above items, you are effecting the air we breath just to feed your addiction to convenience. the fact of the matter is this, your stake did produce a smell and released toxins into the air, it happens every time you cook processed foods and use electricity, or fire to cook it

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Maybe in the States you pay every single penny of your treatment, and so the next point cannot apply to you Americans. Anybody here in Spain, who suffers a serious illness, gets treated at the expense of the State...in other words....the General Tax-payers of the country.And so, if you indulge yourself in a sustained diet of rich food, and subsequently become very ill...the individual doesn't pay for that treatment...the taxpayer does.

Depending on your financial status, society might end up paying for your heart attack here. The reason I didn't point out the financial apsects of the smoking equation is because they don't apply to this ban. They are merely banning smoking in public places. They don't prohibit smoking in your home, car, or outdoors. So the smoker is still going to smoke and they are still going to cost soceity money by getting sick (if they do).

quote But that is not the point in the alcohol against smoking argument..and as usual, you have totally ignored, or circumvented ,a request for anybody to deny the equation. Just because one can hurt you physically, or kill you in a second, and the other hurts you, POSSIBLY, over many years, and in a different physical way, doesn't make one less relevant than the other. Drunks can kill you on the spot, in an instant, and often do, one way or another.

And speaking of sidestepping, you have completely sidestepped my argument. The damage that a drunk may or does do to you is already against the law. If he kills you with his car, he is guilty of negilent homicide (at the least). If he mearly drives drunk (which threatens you with getting killed) then he is guilty of a DUI. If he shoots/stabs/punches you, then he is guilty of assault or attempted murder. If he threatens you with shooting/stabbing, then he is guilty of assault. If he is mearly yelling at you, he is guilty of being drunk in pub-lic. If he is playing his music too loud, he is guilty of violating noice ordinances.

Here is my point again. There is no way that a drunk can do you harm or cause the potential of harm to come to you that is not already against the law.

And someone eating a steak isn't going to be able to harm you or cause the potential to cause harm to you.

My point again. Drinking (by itself) and eating a steak are legal because those activities only have the potential of harming the drinker or the eater. Notice from my list above that any of the possible effects of drinking that could cause harm to someone else are illegal.

But a smoker in a public place does have the potential to cause harm to you. So now that is against the law. Just like it is already against the law for the drunk to create the potential for you to be harmed.

quote If you see somebody smoking, you are not going to die on the spot...you can excercise your right to get away, straight away.!!. Even a cumulative exposure to secondary cigarette smoke of 1 year (would probably take about 100 years of your life spent in a smokey restaurant or Bar, I would guess), would be extremely unlikely to cause you to contract cancer. That is the reality in my view. Now address that, and I will look forward to you skating around a straight answer again...try running for Office...you have all the right qualifications

Sure I could walk away. But why do I have to walk away when it is the smoker that is causing the harm? In general, the laws are written against those that are doing an activity, not those that are affected by the activity. If someone is playing his stereo too loud, the law requires him to turn it down, it doesn't require other people to move away until his stereo sounds quieter. So possible or potential harm is okay, as long as it isn't direct or immediant? If that is the case, why bring up eating steaks? The harm from that is years away. And the cost the heart attack from one overeater is a miniscule portion of the total health care budget.

PS. Knock off the ad hominem comments.

quote Edit to add: And how does your point about drunkeness being illegal have any effect on the total number of deaths and injuries every year? None...because thousands and thousands still do it, and every day. I doubt that anybody who has had more than three drinks in an hour or two, would even be capable of worrying about that aspect.Why? "Ach, I won't get caught.." Nick

You just made the argument for a smoking ban. Some drinkers drive drunk. Some people are killed from drunk drivers. Therefore we should ban all drinking. Some smokers smoke inconsiderately. Some people are harmed by smoking in public places. Therefore we should ban all smoking in public places.

Summation: If the activity (eating or simple drinking) can only cause harm to the person doing the activity, then it is not illegal. If it has the potential to cause harm to others (driving drunk or smoking) then it is illegal.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 08-04-2005).]

I have an idea. Put everyone in their own bubbles so they can't hurt anyone else. You get drunk, and try to punch someone, the bubbles will protect you both. You start smoking, the second hand smoke will stay in your bubble.

Brilliant.

I will say it again................

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Principles of life. Excellent. In this country, we have decided that we will allow people to harm themselves, or expose themselves to harm as long as they are warned. I would be all for a private restaurant that allows smoking to have to prominently display a warning sign at the entrance to the effect of: This restaurant allows people to smoke cigarettes. Second hand smoke is believed to potentially increase your risk of lung cancer, birth defects, and (fill in your hazard here). Please consider this before deciding whether to dine here.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I like this.

I will say it again..............................vote with your wallet.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I have an idea. Put everyone in their own bubbles so they can't hurt anyone else. You get drunk, and try to punch someone, the bubbles will protect you both. You start smoking, the second hand smoke will stay in your bubble. Brilliant.

Do not make me let you in my bubble

We're both full of rage-ahol, and we can't hurt each other!

"bring it ooonnnnn!"

[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 08-04-2005).]

Personally, I love the no smoking ban in lounges / restaraunts, but I do think the government is going too far. Up here in the communist run province of Saskatchewan, the government is trying to put forward a new tax on homeowners with wood burning fireplaces because they are concerned that they are putting needless irritants and pollutants into the air. Ironically enough tho, nobody has complained about the farmers who burn off their crops each year and the influx of SUV'so n the road. Nope, the extra pollution must be caused by the people with wood burning fireplaces. Thats the only logical conclusion.

Socialist logic at its finest.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Actually, we do need many of those things to live. How do we distribute the food from the farms to the cities without trucks, or trains (burning diesel or using electricty), or other forms of modern transportation? I'm not even sure you could use horses or oxen as they emit noxious gases and pollute the ground. How do people in the north heat their homes without electricity or oil or coal or natural gas or wood?

in fact, that is not true
how did we get food and stay warm prior to distribution , commerce , and fire?

A: hunted and gathered ourselves, ate the animal and used the fur for clothing to keep warm and transported it with our own 2 feet. the fact that we are too lazy to do it ourselves makes it somehow a "necessity to live" makes about as much since as anyone saying they need a cigarett. Neither is true , yet both are done and both put health at risk .

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: in fact, that is not true how did we get food and stay warm prior to distribution , commerce , and fire? A: hunted and gathered ourselves, ate the animal and used the fur for clothing to keep warm and transported it with our own 2 feet. the fact that we are too lazy to do it ourselves makes it somehow a "necessity to live" makes about as much since as anyone saying they need a cigarett. Neither is true , yet both are done and both put health at risk .

And how many people lived on this planet at the time when all we did was hunt, gather, and farm our own crops? Certainly much less than 6 billion. Do you think that there are enough animals on this planet and enough gatherable food to feed 6 billion people without modern machinery or technology?

And what about water? Kansas currently has about 2.7 million people. How much water does Kansas have that can be drilled for by hand and pumped by hand? Is it enough to supply 2.7 millions gallons per day? Don't forget that you'll have to leave streams and rivers with enough water to support the animals that you are going to hunt and the plants that you are going to gather.

I dont care if bars allow smoking (and if bar serves food, separate them) Here in Columbus they have the full no smoking ban. Its pretty well blown over now, all the restaurants we go to are back to being full. Sure you lost the die (no pun intended) hard smokers, but so what. Theyve been replaced by the others who wouldnt go out to eat because of the smoke. I dont see a difference now other than theres no smoke floating around. If you just gotta have a puff every 15 minutes before you go bonkers, just walk out the door and smoke away. Hooters also has patios if you want to smoke while you eat....you just dont get air conditioning. Smokers dont see any problem, but in the end when they cant afford to pay for their own smoking related health problems....all us non smokers have to foot their bill.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: And how many people lived on this planet at the time when all we did was hunt, gather, and farm our own crops? Certainly much less than 6 billion. Do you think that there are enough animals on this planet and enough gatherable food to feed 6 billion people without modern machinery or technology? And what about water? Kansas currently has about 2.7 million people. How much water does Kansas have that can be drilled for by hand and pumped by hand? Is it enough to supply 2.7 millions gallons per day? Don't forget that you'll have to leave streams and rivers with enough water to support the animals that you are going to hunt and the plants that you are going to gather.

Steve , I have a lot of respect for you as a member of this forum.
so please dont take my disagreement with you the wrong way

but If were are making the case for conveince , then your arguement is completely on target
but if we are talking about abosolute necessity, then it becomes obvious ,no matter how uncomfortable or inconveint , that we done need them to survive.

smoking is not a necessity. i dont know anyone in their right mind that would beleive so, yet being allowed to smoke is a conveince to smokers. being allowed to smoke , according to existing laws , in designated smoking areas that are in doors is even more conveint. I am not pushing for unlimited access for smokers. the only thing i'm asking is that non-smokers stop short of forcing smokers to smoke only outside.

would you agree that most smokers go out of their way to obey the law and not expose you to their smoke?
if you do agree , you should understand that its the business owner or wait staff at fault if they seat next to the smoking section. but more so is it the non-smoker's fault if they just eccept the seat as if they have no choice but sit near smokers.

all i'm asking is that non-smokers quit being attacking smokers as if we are some evil scurg out to ruin society and grow enough back bone to demand a different table insted of acting like a bunch of sheepeople that a waitress or restraunt manager can just herd along....

no offense ment to you steve

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: back yard Bar-B-Q's : ban it - burning charcol produces smoke and pollutes the air which posses a health risk automobile : ban'em the exhaust ,despite emission control devices, pollutes the air and posses a health risk fuel powered lawmowers : ban'em woodburning stoves: ban furnaces (natrl gas) : ban fireworks : ban electricity: requires a large coal burning plant or nuclear power plant to produce the electrity that also pollutes our air . ban'em oh want 1 minute, i can already hear what some of you are thinking. but ,JRM, we need most of those things and nobody needs to smoke. WRONG! we lived as a people for thousands of year without them. just because our lazy azz's has become addicted to them over the past few hundreds years, does not mean they are necessary. everybody who uses the above items, you are effecting the air we breath just to feed your addiction to convenience. the fact of the matter is this, your stake did produce a smell and released toxins into the air, it happens every time you cook processed foods and use electricity, or fire to cook it

JRM that point would make sense if the BBQ's, furnaces, woodburning stoves, etc were the same types of things as cigarettes. They're not. We actually need electricity to sustain us today, in order to run all our appliances and other things. Fireworks are already banned in most States including my own, so I won't address them. We need furnaces in winter to keep warm. Some people still need woodburning stoves to cook their food and keep warm, and some people like to BBQ to cook their food. Automobiles are one of the most useful inventions of the past 2 centuries and most people today need them to go to work, school, or to other places that public transportation just can't get them. Each example you gave has a usefulness that justifies the cost of the pollution it produces. Please, what good do cigarettes really do? Do they keep you warm on cold winter nights? Do they create electricity? Do they provide you transportation? Do they even cook you food? Cigarettes do not do ANYTHING good, and they definetly do not justify the pollution they create. The only good they could really do is bring in more taxes, but there would still be income from cigarette taxes if there were a ban in place keeping people smoking in their own spaces. To offset the lowered income they could legalize marijuana and give it the same public-area ban, but let normal places sell it to people over 18 just like cigarettes and tax the hell out of it.

And plus, woodburning stoves/bbqs/cars/etc are not putting out pollution into an enclosed area. In each example you gave the pollution is vented outside completely. The same should be applied to smokers, unless you want me to back my Camaro into your house and rev it up for a couple of hours, the exhaust smoke can't possibly hurt you since it'll be getting dispersed throughout your home and the carbon monoxide definetly won't harm you . I'll make sure to keep it at redline all through your dinner too, you'll like to smell my 93 octane while you're eating your steak .

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Smoking is a safety concern. You can argue that the earth is the center of the universe, I can't REALLY prove you wrong on that one, since I obviously can't take a picture of the solar system from outside it, but you'll be believing in the improbable. There is such a thing as privately-owned, but public. It is owned by a private corporation or by a person, but anyone can walk into the building. Laws must apply inside the building, I am making this point to argue what people said about "the government cannot tell privately run business what to do", when they were making their points about us having property rights. My point is that just because you own property doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the government. The "enter at your own risk" comment was about people in this thread arguing for the property rights of business owners and saying that voters shouldn't have the right to decide what business owners can and cannot do. Frontal lobe you're right anything can be harmful in the right amount. The fact is that things such as lead, mercury, etc can be harmful in small doses over time. Chemicals in cigarettes are proven to be harmful over time and CAN lead to cancer. If you smoke you are not destined to have cancer, but your risk is increased. If you say you won't die from cancer, and you smoke regularly, is like saying that if you drive drunk you won't get into a wreck. You are part right since there is a chance you won't get into a wreck, but there is a better chance that you will.

Okay , yes property owners are restricted to the law. the means they can not set up a pot smoking room ,since pot is illegal. duh
however when smoking is legal is a designated area of that business , you non-smokers still complain "its a legal activity"
unprotected sex with multiple consenting adults is legal , stupid, but nonetheless legal . it too puts society at risk should we go back to laws that restrict sex to 1 partner within the confines of marriage . it is impossible to go to a bars frink an alcoholic beverage and not be under the influance should we close down bars or start putting tickets on every winsheild part at them (it encourages people to break the law and put others at risk) .

your not argueing right and wrong here nor are you even talking about law breakers. you are flat out condeming people for engaging in a legal activity,
you are attacking people with the very same laws that were ment to protect eveyones freedom in an effort to redtrict theirs. you intruding into some one else's rights and telling them they do not deserve them because you are more important and that you should have more favor according to the law.

to illustrate this with 100%
you are changing lanes, driving the wrong direction and asking the judge to fault the other drivers for not getting out of your way
you are opening the door to someone else's house and complaining that the occupants were naked
you are using the law to take something away from smokers because you obvioously cant comtrol were you choose to do business.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I dont see a difference now other than theres no smoke floating around. If you just gotta have a puff every 15 minutes before you go bonkers, just walk out the door and smoke away. Hooters also has patios if you want to smoke while you eat....you just dont get air conditioning.

Roger, I do see a difference. A smoker, who is doing something legal, should be entitled to air conditioning and heat. He should be able to enjoy his life in comfort. As should a non smoker.
To require all establishments to adhere to the same rules is wrong. All those die hard smokers who are not spending money and have been replaced are not generating the economy or taxes. Ok, many do, under protest, just as non smokers have done.
I challenge everyone who has posted in this thread............what is wrong with this............

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Principles of life. Excellent. In this country, we have decided that we will allow people to harm themselves, or expose themselves to harm as long as they are warned. I would be all for a private restaurant that allows smoking to have to prominently display a warning sign at the entrance to the effect of: This restaurant allows people to smoke cigarettes. Second hand smoke is believed to potentially increase your risk of lung cancer, birth defects, and (fill in your hazard here). Please consider this before deciding whether to dine here.

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: Okay , yes property owners are restricted to the law. the means they can not set up a pot smoking room ,since pot is illegal. duh however when smoking is legal is a designated area of that business , you non-smokers still complain "its a legal activity" unprotected sex with multiple consenting adults is legal , stupid, but nonetheless legal . it too puts society at risk should we go back to laws that restrict sex to 1 partner within the confines of marriage . it is impossible to go to a bars frink an alcoholic beverage and not be under the influance should we close down bars or start putting tickets on every winsheild part at them (it encourages people to break the law and put others at risk) . your not argueing right and wrong here nor are you even talking about law breakers. you are flat out condeming people for engaging in a legal activity, you are attacking people with the very same laws that were ment to protect eveyones freedom in an effort to redtrict theirs. you intruding into some one else's rights and telling them they do not deserve them because you are more important and that you should have more favor according to the law. to illustrate this with 100% you are changing lanes, driving the wrong direction and asking the judge to fault the other drivers for not getting out of your way you are opening the door to someone else's house and complaining that the occupants were naked you are using the law to take something away from smokers because you obvioously cant comtrol were you choose to do business.

Unprotected sex between multiple consenting adults doesn't occur at my Applebees that often, or at least not when I'm there . Besides it IS already illegal, its called indecent exposure. Like I said before I don't care what you do in your house or car, just don't bring it to a public place where it can harm me or other people.

Getting drunk does not hurt other people. When I'm in a bar and people are drinking, it does not hurt me. When people smoke in that bar, they DO hurt me. When drunks drive, they don't hurt anyone until they get into an accident. THEN it is illegal. Police try to reduce accidents because they have proven that driving drunk impairs your abilities to drive and increases your chance of getting into an accident. Same with cigarettes and cancer, you aren't exactly destined to get into the accident, it only increases your chance. You smoking around me and other non-smokers like waitresses or bartenders is harmful to them and increases their chances of getting cancer. It should be illegal to harm other people, that is the way we've created laws for the past 200 years. Over the past 100 or so we've been trying to protect people from themselves, which is something I don't agree with.

Freedom can lead to chaos, disorder, and anarchy. Limited freedoms keeps peace and order. The ability to kill another person could be seen as a freedom. The ability to steal someone else's stuff could be seen as a freedom. Because you're bigger than someone else you could have the freedom to dominate them. Your freedom runs out when you infringe on someone else's freedom, like their freedom to health and to not be harmed. In anarchy the person who is stronger has the freedom to hurt others. Smoking harms others and offers no positive effects to the user. It should be illegal to smoke around other people and harm them, but it should be legal to smoke in your privacy and not harm other people. And yes, I do have more favor under the law when someone else tries to harm me. I've never heard of the law siding with a murderer in anything except self defense, and in that case the murderer was being harmed and protected themself. The laws are there to protect those who are in danger.

"to illustrate this with 100%
you are changing lanes, driving the wrong direction and asking the judge to fault the other drivers for not getting out of your way
you are opening the door to someone else's house and complaining that the occupants were naked
you are using the law to take something away from smokers because you obvioously cant comtrol were you choose to do business."

HAHA, the 2nd line is just funny. The majority of people DON'T smoke, if anything we've been putting up with you driving the wrong way and having to dodge your idiotic choices. We're tired of you all driving the wrong way and getting into head-on collisions with people. We're the majority, you're hurting yourselves and us, quit being asinine and drive the right way. I already covered the 3rd line, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own house. You still can't seem to comprehend the difference between private and public. Your HOUSE is private, do what you want you're only inviting those people you want in there, you're not selling anything or advertising for people to come into your house. The Chilis is PUBLIC, they aren't inviting people to come inside, ANYONE can come inside, they are selling products and services and putting up advertisements for all of society to see. If you were to strip down and start having sex on one of the tables, it would be indecent and you would be breaking the law and would be thrown out of the place. There is a time and place for everything, why can't you smokers just pollute and kill yourselves outside or in your own house/car?

I can't believe the last sentence. Why should I have to leave when they are the ones ruining everything? Its not MY fault, its their fault. At a bar, when someone becomes a belligerant drunk and picks fights, do they toss out the drunk or the people he's harassing? Am I at fault for getting punched in the face because I didn't move out of the way?

I remember when I was a kid of legal drinking age. I went from Amarillo, Tx, to San Antonio, Tx via Oklahoma. The wife and I needed gas and since it was her turn to drive, I thought a few beers would calm my nerves
At two thirty AM, I tried to bribe the gas place cashier to sell me some beer. She said "go for it". As sweet as she was, she woul not take my bribe. It was legal to sell beer twenty four hours a day.
A year or so later, I found myself working in Oklahoma City. You did not have to worry about going to a smoking bar.....there were no bars at all. Only private clubs. Membership cost $1.00 a year.
Not open to the public.
Hmmm.......ching ching ! Them smokers have money to spend.
Now, I do not think you should be able to smoke in K-Mart, or Krogers/HEB/Randals/FoodMart City/whatever but......you should be able to go to a place that you like to go to. I usually go to places that cater to my desires, as I think that I am important, and I want to go to a place that thinks that I am important.
Did we not learn anything from the "Salem Whitch Trials" ?
Do we not have the right of free assembly, which being free, is open to the public ?
Are we not free to not assemble ?

I am going to call on Lurker, of the forum, in respect of his historical knowledge, to answer these questions.
Was this Nation founded by whimsical pansey asses who wanted things their way ? Or was it founded by those that did it their way ?
He might say yes to both questions. Why change courses now.

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: Steve , I have a lot of respect for you as a member of this forum. so please dont take my disagreement with you the wrong way

Thanks. I never take it personally unless someone starts personnel attacks, which you haven't.

quote but If were are making the case for conveince , then your arguement is completely on target but if we are talking about abosolute necessity, then it becomes obvious ,no matter how uncomfortable or inconveint , that we done need them to survive.

I thought I was talking about things that are absolutely required for life. I used 1 gallon of water per day per person as the minimum amount of water someone would need to drink to stay alive. The wooden sailing ships of the 18th and 19th century used a standard of 1 gallon per man per day, so I used that. So the 2.7 million people in Kansas will need to drink 2.7 million gallons of water per day to survive. Don't forget that these aren't people working in an office, they are hunting and gathering. So does Kansas have that much water that can be obtained using muscle power only? And will that leave enough water for all the plants and animals that you need to hunt and gather?

quote Originally posted by Tinton:

Your pretty vocal.
What proof do you have that second hand smoke causes cancer or causes your clothes or hair to stink in a place that you are not required to go to.
If you want to go to a place that is popular, and people smoke, what exactly is you beef ? Please do not tell me there is not a popular place you would rather be where people do not smoke. If you do, I would have to ask "why not" ?

Tinton,

Just to clarify. I'm not saying SMOKERS don't get enough exposure to cause serious health related problems.

I am saying that regarding second hand smoke being a HEALTH THREAT to people in a restaurant--that degree of limited exposure in that open of an environment IS NOT enough to measurably increase a person's risk of health problems. And I would know. I have to be aware of this kind of thing because of work.

AND I am VERY anti-smoking. But I am not going to use a non-existant second-hand-smoke-in-a-restaurant-health-issue to allow the government to intrude in the issue.

The issue in restaurants is what it is for me personally-that it is VERY offensive to my nose, and that it aggravates my wife and daughter's asthma.

Bars are different. Plenty of second hand smoke in a more confined area to be measurably significant.

If buisnesses want to cater to smokers and allow smoking inside their building then they should be allowed to. If you don't like it then go someware else. Private buisness should be allowed to decide these things for themselves.

quote Originally posted by Chump: if I am in a bar and it bothers me i ... just ignore it.

By George I think he's got it! Ignore the problem, and it will go away!

Brilliant!

Just ribbin ya

To CliffW and Frontal Lobe: Second-hand smoke increases chances of getting cancer

I'll bet that you will probably just dismiss it as a biased news source, or the studies were flawed, or some other reason to discredit what I just posted. And Cliff, why do you expect me to sit by the computer 24/7 in anticipation for your answer? Cliff I think the whole private club thing is a great idea. Charge $1 a year to make the place private, no longer public, and let the smokers come in and smoke all they want. As for making your hair and clothes stink, I lived part-time in my mom's house for 10 years after my parents divorced. The walls, blinds, and everything else in the place were YELLOW from the cigarette smoke. She smoked about 3-4 packs a day. When I would return to my Dad's place (he doesn't smoke), him and others would complain that I reeked of the smell of cigarettes and when I smelled my clothes they did too. Whenever I've been in an environment with smoking I have came out smelling like smoke. How the **** can you even contest that fact? And Cliff when I do go to bars (which is rarely, like once or twice per 6 months) I do try to ignore the smoking because I know it is a place for smokers. It really grinds my gears though when I'm sitting down to eat in a restaurant or some other place that isn't a bar and I'm getting choked from the smoke.

Chump I say that if they want to cater to smokers they should turn it into a private place, by requiring $1.00 a year per membership or something like that. But no, you all wouldn't possibly come to that sort of compromise, you just HAVE to smoke in a public bar. You all feel you're entitled to a pack of deathsticks in a public, enclosed area.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Chump I say that if they want to cater to smokers they should turn it into a private place, by requiring $1.00 a year per membership or something like that. But no, you all wouldn't possibly come to that sort of compromise, you just HAVE to smoke in a public bar. You all feel you're entitled to a pack of deathsticks in a public, enclosed area.

If the bar is owned by a private citizen then it is a private place, even if there is no charge to go there. If you let me into your house for free, does that make it a public place? Does that mean I can control what you eat, watch or listen to while I am there? Or if I don't like it maybe I should leave.

Link #2

"Everyone is vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools and daycare centers. Although some businesses are reluctant to ban smoking, there is no credible evidence that going smoke-free is bad for business. Public places where children go are a special area of concern. "

Neat, they understand what I'm saying, a restaurant is a PUBLIC PLACE!

"There is no research in the medical literature about the cancer-causing effects of cigarette odors, but the literature shows that secondhand tobacco smoke can permeate the hair, clothing, and other surfaces. The unknown cancer causing effects would be minimal in comparison to direct secondhand smoke exposure, such as living in a household that has a smoker. "

Here's something interesting. I put these 2 phrases into google:

"second hand smoke is safe" turned up 17 pages.
"second hand smoke causes cancer" turned up 1,100 pages. There is more out there saying it causes cancer than is saying its safe.
"second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer" turned up 30 pages. Most of them were found in sentences where people like you all were saying "no one has proved that second hand smoke has caused cancer". I'd like to see any of you find evidence that proves that it doesn't cause cancer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinton:

"...Public places where children go are a special area of concern. "

Neat, they understand what I'm saying, a restaurant is a PUBLIC PLACE!

QUOTE]

Where I come from, children do not do to bars.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: By George I think he's got it! Ignore the problem, and it will go away!

Or go away.......and you will not have a problem. The real question is...who has a problem ? Would it be the one who has a problem ?

I guess I just wonder why non-smokers think they have more or better rights than smokers? OK, so smoking is an unhealthy act. Big deal. You piss and moan about cigarette smoke while you all but poison yourself with unhealthy food and alcohol. Yeahyeahyeah, *that* part is your choice. Well, it was your choice to go out to a place where people are SMOKING too. But by all means, don't take responsibility for yourself. Make sure other people bow to your wishes. I'm sure you feel really good about yourselves. I'm a former smoker, and I still think the smoking ban is BS. I think they should simply have businesses post whether they are smoking or non-smoking establishments. And if you don't want to go into a place that has smoking, then that's your choice. It makes me sick how arrogant, sanctimonious, smug, self righteous, and pretentious so many non-smokers are. Evey time I see a "STAND" commercial I want to run out and blow a bunch of smoke in some kid's face.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 08-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Still waiting Tinton. Anyone else want to field this for him ? I think he is having trouble.