Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
May 24, 2012 1:36pm
Amen.Raw Dawgin' it;1179828 wrote:Most people don't smoke and don't want to smell like an ash tray.
Amen.Sonofanump;1179834 wrote:Yeah! I wish they had a law that prohibited smoking within 50 feet of a business unless in a self contained cancer room. Nothing worse than trying to have my 7 year old avoid some inconsiderate bastard puffing away at a cancer stick in front of a restaurant we would like to enter.
Agreed.vball10set;1179835 wrote:Kudos to the Supreme Court...well done :thumbup:
The band should be in every state [or at least I wish it was].Mooney44Cards;1179838 wrote:The people who don't like the ban can move to another state. Nobody is making them live in Ohio.
Hear, hear.dlazz;1179853 wrote:It's not that ridiculous though, so the point your trying to make is moot.
Not soon enough.justincredible;1179877 wrote:How long before cigarettes are illegal?
Reps. #Touché'dWebFire;1180022 wrote:So drinking and driving should be legal?
Amen. Reps.WebFire;1180125 wrote:Not really. Smoking impinges on the well-being of others. But that's not true the other way around.
The Declaration of Independence? Provided your right to "pursuit of happiness" does not infringe on any other rights/laws.pnhasbeen;1180167 wrote:Who say's you have a right to enjoy an establishment?
S
Sonofanump
May 24, 2012 1:38pm
The logic that was unapparent in your post.Big_Mirg_ZHS;1180719 wrote:Whats so confusing??
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
May 24, 2012 1:59pm
I'm a little late coming back to the party, but there are plenty of things that are unhealthy. I don't want the government telling me what to do with those either.WebFire;1180022 wrote:So drinking and driving should be legal?
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
May 24, 2012 2:01pm
pnhasbeen;1180140 wrote:I interpreted his remark as saying if cigarettes are legal, it should be the owner of the establishment's decision to allow or not allow. Similar to allowing or not allowing alcohol.
But alcohol is only permitted if you have the proper licenses, and there are quotas per municipality on said licenses. I suppose you could set the same thing up with smoking. And since places like private clubs would literally pay any price they set for a license, you can set a very small amount of very expensive licenses and make a killing.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
May 24, 2012 2:02pm
FatHobbit;1180792 wrote:I'm a little late coming back to the party, but there are plenty of things that are unhealthy. I don't want the government telling me what to do with those either.
So we should abolish health departments entirely?
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
May 24, 2012 2:03pm
I can't honestly say I know what the health department does.ts1227;1180799 wrote:So we should abolish health departments entirely?
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 24, 2012 2:04pm
So we should allow corporations to start dumping chemicals into the source of a town's drinking water? After all, we don't want the government telling us what we can/can't do with unhealthy things.FatHobbit;1180792 wrote:I'm a little late coming back to the party, but there are plenty of things that are unhealthy. I don't want the government telling me what to do with those either.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
May 24, 2012 2:09pm
Do corporations (and farmers) not pollute water now?Mooney44Cards;1180807 wrote:So we should allow corporations to start dumping chemicals into the source of a town's drinking water? After all, we don't want the government telling us what we can/can't do with unhealthy things.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 24, 2012 2:15pm
Yes they do, but they're not allowed to.FatHobbit;1180816 wrote:Do corporations (and farmers) not pollute water now?
Bar owners also allow smoking in bars in Ohio.
G
Gblock
May 24, 2012 2:17pm
i think they should have the right to open up a smoking bar if they want for people who smoke. period. especially if it is a bar that doesnt serve food. i mean its kindof dumb to say you can drink but cant smoke when liquor is just as bad if not worse for you.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 24, 2012 2:21pm
I'm not disagreeing with your idea....but the reasoning is flawed. Drinking and smoking should not be compared. I cannot damage my liver from standing around people who are drinking.Gblock;1180840 wrote:i think they should have the right to open up a smoking bar if they want for people who smoke. period. especially if it is a bar that doesnt serve food. i mean its kindof dumb to say you can drink but cant smoke when liquor is just as bad if not worse for you.
G
Gblock
May 24, 2012 2:24pm
right but im saying a place where everyone smokes...similar to a huakua(sp) bar. a smokers only establishment or those who enter at their own risk and dont mind smokingMooney44Cards;1180851 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with your idea....but the reasoning is flawed. Drinking and smoking should not be compared. I cannot damage my liver from standing around people who are drinking.
C
confucius99
Posts: 18
May 24, 2012 3:39pm
That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply, but nobody has to patronize a bar that allows smoking on its premises. Basically this anti-smoking ordinance is a plea for government to save us from taking charge of our own lives..AKA as "Iam too stupid or weak to resist walking into an area that I deem unhealthy". Nobody has to go into a building or a restaraunt, or a bar if they don't want to. All that should be required is that an establishment prominently display whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.So we should allow corporations to start dumping chemicals into the source of a town's drinking water? After all, we don't want the government telling us what we can/can't do with unhealthy things
It is just a shame that we keep giving government the power to over-reach intio our lives, all in the name of someone's interpretation of "public good".
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
May 24, 2012 4:04pm
No they don't. They can get their own water wherever they'd like.confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply,
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
May 24, 2012 4:05pm
Smoking isn't banned because it's bad for your own health. You can't compare alcohol to smoking in this situation at all.Gblock;1180840 wrote: i mean its kindof dumb to say you can drink but cant smoke when liquor is just as bad if not worse for you.
Big_Mirg_ZHS
Posts: 2,079
May 24, 2012 4:08pm
More likely to die in an auto accident than from second hand smoke. So should we outlaw driving?
V
vball10set
Posts: 24,795
May 24, 2012 4:17pm
Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181086 wrote:More likely to die in an auto accident than from second hand smoke. So should we outlaw driving?
Apples and Oranges...a more appropriate analogy is you're more likely to die of lung cancer from smoking than you are to die in an auto accident. People are too stupid to not smoke in an establishment where kids and/or elderly patrons are present, therefore it IS up to the federal government to regulate it.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
May 24, 2012 4:21pm
I agree with your sentiment, but I just don't feel 100% comfortable asking the government to step in because people are too stupid to do the right thing.vball10set;1181093 wrote:Apples and Oranges...a more appropriate analogy is you're more likely to die of lung cancer from smoking than you are to die in an auto accident. People are too stupid to not smoke in an establishment where kids and/or elderly patrons are present, therefore it IS up to the federal government to regulate it.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 24, 2012 4:39pm
confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply, but nobody has to patronize a bar that allows smoking on its premises. Basically this anti-smoking ordinance is a plea for government to save us from taking charge of our own lives..AKA as "Iam too stupid or weak to resist walking into an area that I deem unhealthy". Nobody has to go into a building or a restaraunt, or a bar if they don't want to. All that should be required is that an establishment prominently display whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
It is just a shame that we keep giving government the power to over-reach intio our lives, all in the name of someone's interpretation of "public good".
BINGO
C
confucius99
Posts: 18
May 24, 2012 5:21pm
??? Really?WebFire;1181080 wrote:No they don't. They can get their own water wherever they'd like.
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?
M
MontyBrunswick
May 24, 2012 5:35pm
A few users are. but I agree with your points wholeheartedly.confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 24, 2012 5:42pm
"What did you call me?" - Shawshank wardenconfucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
May 24, 2012 6:32pm
Nobody is forcing them to live in that town. If they don't like it, move.confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply, but nobody has to patronize a bar that allows smoking on its premises. Basically this anti-smoking ordinance is a plea for government to save us from taking charge of our own lives..AKA as "Iam too stupid or weak to resist walking into an area that I deem unhealthy". Nobody has to go into a building or a restaraunt, or a bar if they don't want to. All that should be required is that an establishment prominently display whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
It is just a shame that we keep giving government the power to over-reach intio our lives, all in the name of someone's interpretation of "public good".
Also, painting the other side of the argument as "stupid" and "weak" will get you nowhere. You have some good points, but don't resort to that talk if you want people to take your points seriously.
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
May 24, 2012 7:16pm
The people voted. The majority spoke to abolish smoking in public places... Isn't that how our government is set up?FatHobbit;1181094 wrote:I agree with your sentiment, but I just don't feel 100% comfortable asking the government to step in because people are too stupid to do the right thing.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
May 24, 2012 7:25pm
Welcome to the OC. I always enjoy new posters.confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?
And yes, people are this site are terrible.