Evan!
Well-Known Member
I guess I know the trajectory, just not the rate of speed.
Word to that. :fro:
I guess I know the trajectory, just not the rate of speed.
I love it when people roll up into the debate subforum and tell people to stop debating. If you don't like debate, then you can respectfully GTFO of the debate forum. As I said, I have expressed my feelings to my state reps over VA's ban that's set to go into effect in December. Doesn't mean I can't debate it here too.
And in case you haven't noticed, the sky is falling.
I normally stay the hell out of these conversations, but I need to make an observation based on some bars here in PA. The vast majority of eateries/public houses in this state are smoke-free, though there are a small percentage that, through some provision under the ban, permit smoking. I'll have to research the specifics.
I didn't realize this was the debate forum? And, personal attacks are acceptable.
Evan, you clearly have strong views on this subject. However, your attitude is disrespectful (GTFO out, etc.) and just might consider expanding your mind a bit to consider other stances on the subject. There is more than "you" in this country and, no, we're not all trying to take away your guns....Or what ever grand scheme you've concocted in your head.
You live in a democracy...The sky is not falling...You're more than free to debate, but please keep it respectful.
Let's see here... you used an ad hominem, non sequitur, hasty generalization, and personal attack in two sentences. And I did not engage anyone here for debate, merely voiced my support of this legislation. This was an interesting topic that has turned into a chest-thumping competition to see who can crow the loudest. Much of this coming from people who don't live here, have no say in electing the state representatives who pass laws, and will not be affected. Go figure.
...you ...just might consider expanding your mind a bit to consider other stances on the subject. There is more than "you" in this country and, no, we're not all trying to take away your guns....Or what ever grand scheme you've concocted in your head.
You live in a democracy...The sky is not falling...You're more than free to debate, but please keep it respectful.
It seems to me that if you went to a clambake and oyster bar and happen to be allergic to shellfish, that using the same logic, you could demand that the owner prepare a non-shellfish entree for you...right?
It's odd that cigerette smoke is such a horrible thing, and yet people are just fine walking and standing a few feet away from running cars every day.
Can't wait until we all get to stand in line at the grocery store to get whatever food the state deems we deserve that day!
And in case you haven't noticed, the sky is falling.
honestly, with all the nanny-state do-goodery these days, and the complete and utter lack of self-determination and responsibility amongst our lazy, apathetic, wussified populace, I'm surprised that smoking hasn't been banned altogether.
I haven't concocted any grand scheme, either...this is not in my head...this is all too real.
We don't live in a democracy.
I already think the sky has fallen in the US.
The US is more regulated than the EU in my opinion. At least for most of the activities I engage in regularly. The land of the free is a misnomer.
In case you haven't noticed, many states and counties have passed car emissions laws mandating the cars run "clean"..
Still waiting for a single logical rebuttal.
Ha...You just might be a politician yourself. You answer questions with more questions (e.g., I'm not going to address your response. Still waiting on your rebuttel.) and claim to understand all of our country's ills.
What is your proposed solution(s)? That we deregulate smoking, drinking, driving, stock market, etc.? Regulation exists to protect people, sometimes from themselves if necessary. If society votes to protect itself, then that is the will of the people.
And, I think it's hilarious that you say "The US is more regulated than the EU in my opinion." but seem to overlook the fact that most of Europe banned smoking in bars and restaurants a couple of years ago.
This is proof that the average person is not capable of setting aside personal agendas when it comes to deciding public policy, at the expense of reduced freedoms and increased government control.
Where can smoking be restricted then? Hospitals? Planes? Busses? Prisons? Arenas? Malls? Movie Theaters? Concert Halls
Where can smoking be restricted then? Hospitals? Planes? Busses? Prisons? Arenas? Malls? Movie Theaters? Concert Halls
We just came up with an idea in my office....
To be considered a cigar bar or smoke shop here you have to have X% of your profit be from smoking related purchases or sales. So the bars should just sell cigarettes and offer a free beer with every purchase. $4 per cig, but it comes with a free beer
I am a smoker. I support non smoking areas such as hospitals, where the sense of smell is an important diagnostic tool. I support it in aeroplanes, where there is a captive audience. also cinemas, concert halls etc......Bars are a different matter. There are plenty of them and we get to make our choice as to which one to visit.
That is exactly the way bars that permit smoking market themselves here in PA (the ones around me, anyhow.) And as most of the places that I frequent are also restaurants, most all of them are smoke-free to begin with, save one or two venues.Perhaps, as a compromise with the anti-smoking crowd, we could forgo the bans and just make everyone put a "smoking allowed here" sign on the doors...for those especially stupid people who don't realize that it's a smoking establishment when they walk in the door and are met with a wall o' smoke.
Would anyone else like to sign the "sky is falling" petition?
Would you oppose it if someone started a special airline called "Smokes In the Sky", and made all their flights smoking flights, and it was advertised as such?
So your not really concern with public heath, your saying this is an issue of Majority rule, right? So, if next year the Majority of people ruled that your religion (Or not being affilated to a religion) was illegal, and offenders would be deported or imprisoned, you would be fine with it? If it's a matter of how much of the population is affected, then what amount of the population makes a difference for you to enact a law...assuming 5% isn't enough?Poor analogy. We're not talking about 5% of the population that happens to be allergic to shellfish. We're talking about 60+ percent that has voted to ban smoking in enclosed places (restaurants, bars, etc.).
In case you haven't noticed, many states and counties have passed car emissions laws mandating the cars run "clean". So, yes, we've voted to protect the environment from car emissions too.
Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.
I am just waiting for a reason to pass a smoking ban that is based on something other than "you are killing me with that stinky smoke."
Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.
Logical rebuttal to what?
BTW that is not to say your premise had logic and the onus is on anyone.
Why would I take public health off the table? What's not logical about that?
Ha...You guys are ridiculous. I'm glad I could stir you up a bit.
Enter your email address to join: