Smokers are people too! , page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:31 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7

reply to post by jfj123

First of all, if it's a bar that clearly has a "spitting allowed" sign, I simply won't go there. Bars that still allow smoking have signs that say "this is a smoking establishment", if you don't like it don't go there. Bars have for 50 years or so allowed smoking, it's the government and anti smoking lobbyiests changing the laws, so equality is not part of the equation here, get it, your right should not change the ways things have been for years. If sexy lingere bothers you and you don't want your children to see it, should Victoria's Secret be required to change their window dressings in the mall to suit you and your children, even though they have been dressing their windows like that since they first went into business????? How is that logical, bars are a place where smoking was allowed, just because you don't like it doesn't mean they should change for you!

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:33 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by jfj123

Really? You're not too familiar with the law are you:

Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.

www.expertlaw.com...

As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.
Yes spit is a liquid
Yes smoke is a gas
Why is spitting considered an assault and blowing smoke in ones face is not?

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:35 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
reply to post by jfj123

First of all, if it's a bar that clearly has a "spitting allowed" sign, I simply won't go there. Bars that still allow smoking have signs that say "this is a smoking establishment", if you don't like it don't go there. Bars have for 50 years or so allowed smoking, it's the government and anti smoking lobbyiests changing the laws, so equality is not part of the equation here, get it, your right should not change the ways things have been for years. If sexy lingere bothers you and you don't want your children to see it, should Victoria's Secret be required to change their window dressings in the mall to suit you and your children, even though they have been dressing their windows like that since they first went into business????? How is that logical, bars are a place where smoking was allowed, just because you don't like it doesn't mean they should change for you!

I didn't know sexy lingerie caused emphasima, cancer, etc... ?

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:39 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.

That's the death nell of an argument. I'm a mod, wooohooo, dipsie doodle. Been there, done that. Got anything else that will refute the law? Basically, what's your point?

Why is spitting considered an assault and blowing smoke in ones face is not?

Because one is a felony and the other is not.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:41 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.

That's the death nell of an argument. I'm a mod, wooohooo, dipsie doodle. Been there, done that. Got anything else that will refute the law? Basically, what's your point?

My point is:
As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.

Why is spitting considered an assault and blowing smoke in ones face is not?

Because one is a felony and the other is not.
Yes but WHY???

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:47 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7

reply to post by jfj123

My point is not about what causes cancer; sexy lingerie or smoke, my point was that a business; ANY FREAKING BUSINESS should not be forced to change the way they do business just because you don't like it or it effects YOUR COMFORT. What country are we in again?????? America, you're all happy that rights of smokers are being taken away, but don't you realize that with every right you like being taken away there are ten more being taken away that directly effects you negatively as well. It's about legal rights to the smoker and the business owner, NOT YOUR FREAKING COMFORT!!!!

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:49 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
My point is:
As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.

What does my status at ATS have to do with anything? I'm a member, same as everyone else. I just have some duties that I have to do on occasion, for you and everyone else here btw. Your point though is invalid. I've shown that.

Why is spitting considered an assault and blowing smoke in ones face is not?

Because one is a felony and the other is not.

Yes but WHY???

That's the final frontier. Petition your lawmakers to make a gas a felony. Next you know it breathing on someone will be against the law. THAT is the flaw in your "analogy".

[edit on 5-3-2008 by intrepid]

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 05:57 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
reply to post by jfj123

My point is not about what causes cancer; sexy lingerie or smoke, my point was that a business; ANY FREAKING BUSINESS should not be forced to change the way they do business just because you don't like it or it effects YOUR COMFORT. What country are we in again?????? America, you're all happy that rights of smokers are being taken away, but don't you realize that with every right you like being taken away there are ten more being taken away that directly effects you negatively as well. It's about legal rights to the smoker and the business owner, NOT YOUR FREAKING COMFORT!!!!

You're misunderstanding me. I don't want smokers rights taken away but I don't want mine taken away either. Smokers, for the most part, want to smoke whenever and wherever they want regardless of who is there. My problem is that if that happens, I can't go anywhere unless I don't mind losing my right NOT to smoke.
It doesn't have anything to do with comfort, it's a serious health concern. Why is it so unreasonable to not smoke when in mixed company but smoking everywhere and anywhere else you like?

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:01 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
My point is:
As a moderator, I'm a bit surprised you're not getting the fact that it's an ANALOGY used to help prove a point.

What does my status at ATS have to do with anything? I'm a member, same as everyone else. I just have some duties that I have to do on occasion, for you and everyone else here btw. Your point though is invalid. I've shown that.

Of course your are, I just expected a bit more from a moderator as I greatly respect the owners and leaders of this site.

Why is spitting considered an assault and blowing smoke in ones face is not?

Because one is a felony and the other is not.

Yes but WHY???

That's the final frontier. Petition your lawmakers to make a gas a felony. Next you know it breathing on someone will be against the law. THAT is the flaw in your "analogy".

[edit on 5-3-2008 by intrepid]

well then lets look at it.
How does spitting affect the person being spit upon? They get wet.
How does smoking affect the person who is being forced to inhale it? Well if they have asthma, they can DIE!
If they have any type of breathing condition, they can DIE!
2nd hand smoke causes cancer.
Spitting causes wetness.

Smoke is not a harmless gas is it?

[edit on 5-3-2008 by jfj123]

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:02 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
You're misunderstanding me. I don't want smokers rights taken away but I don't want mine taken away either.

Debatable.

Smokers, for the most part, want to smoke whenever and wherever they want regardless of who is there. My problem is that if that happens, I can't go anywhere unless I don't mind losing my right NOT to smoke.

Dude, I have to ask, do you live in North America? If you do you've got a really scewed view on this topic. Smokers don't and CAN'T smoke wherever they want, the last pariah.

It doesn't have anything to do with comfort, it's a serious health concern. Why is it so unreasonable to not smoke when in mixed company but smoking everywhere and anywhere else you like?

See my posts on "control".

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:02 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7

Your rights aren't being taken away!!! You never had the right to "fresh smoke free air" in a bar! What part of that don't you get. Here, it's real simple:

Joe's Tavern have been in business 50 years, they are a SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT.

Anti smoking gangs don't like smoking anymore, so they lobby and with the help of the government get the laws changed to ban smoking in all public places, including Joe's Tavern.

Smokers can no longer smoke in Joe's Tavern.

Non smokers get their way, their COMFORT, trumps smokers comfort. You got a NEW RIGHT, that you never had before while OURS was taken away! Man, the lack of smoke is killing your essential brain functions. It's common effing sense, and poor Joe is losing business for your comfort.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:06 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
You're misunderstanding me. I don't want smokers rights taken away but I don't want mine taken away either.

Debatable.

My opinion is mine and NOT debatable.

Smokers, for the most part, want to smoke whenever and wherever they want regardless of who is there. My problem is that if that happens, I can't go anywhere unless I don't mind losing my right NOT to smoke.

Dude, I have to ask, do you live in North America? If you do you've got a really scewed view on this topic. Smokers don't and CAN'T smoke wherever they want, the last pariah.
And never said they DO, I said they WANT TO. Big difference.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:08 PM by intrepid

Damn, I feel like I'm debating a wall.

Originally posted by jfj123
well then lets look at it.
How does spitting affect the person being spit upon? They get wet.

Ever heard of Hepititus? Hep B kills more people than AIDS. Maybe that's why spitting on people is a felony.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:15 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7

reply to post by jfj123

Oh, and by the way, yes you have a RIGHT not to smoke, noone is going to put a cig in your mouth and a gun to your head and make you smoke, but FRESH AIR is not a right you have! Your point is not valid. If we want fresh air, we all need to give up our vehicles, manufacturing plants, forest fires, and anything else that produces toxic SMOKE.

Simple logic people.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:19 PM by bridger2

I think the problem in the UK lies in the TOTAL BAN on smoking in public buildings, pubs, bars, restaraunts etc.

I agree restaraunts should be non smoking.

But If certain bars were allowed for smokers then the non smokers can stay away.

Everyones happy?

NO! ........ the non smoking pubs would be empty. I would say 70% of people in my local are smokers, Its a small country pub about 600 years old, and i fear the way this government is going places like this wont exist anymore. I think they want you to buy cheap beer from the supermarket and sit in watching all the crap they put on TV!!

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:28 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by intrepid
Damn, I feel like I'm debating a wall.

I feel your pain

Originally posted by jfj123
well then lets look at it.
How does spitting affect the person being spit upon? They get wet.

Ever heard of Hepititus? Hep B kills more people than AIDS. Maybe that's why spitting on people is a felony.

Thank you for help making my point.

Ever hear of lung cancer?
How about emphysema?

Would they not at least be comparable to Hep B?

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:30 PM by rcwj75

Originally posted by Osiris1953

I'm a smoker, but I don't feel that anyone should accommodate us like someone who is handicapped, etc. Handicapped individuals cannot help their condition, we however, can. We choose to smoke.... our choice is a right, but given that it is bothersome, and unhealthy to those who do not smoke I think that they should have the right to not be exposed to it. If they were to ban me from smoking outside or in my own home I would have an issue, otherwise it's all good. I chose to do something unhealthy, I shouldn't expect those around me to have second hand smoke forced upon them.

Best answer anyone could give! I am not a smoker, hate it...it stinks, makes your breath HORRIBLE..lol..yellow s teeth, fingers, clothing, windows, walls, etc....so definitly not something I like to be around...but hey, to each their own.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:31 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
reply to post by jfj123

Oh, and by the way, yes you have a RIGHT not to smoke, noone is going to put a cig in your mouth and a gun to your head and make you smoke, but FRESH AIR is not a right you have! Your point is not valid. If we want fresh air, we all need to give up our vehicles, manufacturing plants, forest fires, and anything else that produces toxic SMOKE.

Simple logic people.

So what you're saying is that since I'm being subjected to car pollution, it's ok to subject me to other pollution and I should be ok with it?

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:32 PM by Daedalus

Originally posted by jfj123

I'm sorry but it's not ridiculous. The state of matter is irrelevant. People don't want to inhale someone else's smoke and people also don't want to be spit on. I'm using the extreme analogy to make my point more apparent.

I don't like cigarette smoke for no other reason then it burns my eyes, hurts my lungs and makes my clothes smell disgusting. Why do smokers think it's ok to expose people to this?

Your analogy is still flawed. Saliva is a biological material. A possible biohazard, especially if you are infected with a contagion. Diluted smoke (which is what you would be breathing in a normal encounter) Is nothing more than a mild annoyance. Even if i were to blow it directly in your face, a significant portion of the truly harmful components have already attached themselves to the mucous membranes in my lungs, and when you inhale, a significant portion of what's left has been filtered out by the mucous membranes in your nose. In reality, all you're inhaling is slightly more toxic than normal, scented air.

If i have cold, and i sneeze on you, when you wake up the next morning, you may have that same cold. If you breathe in a little of my heavily diluted smoke, you're not going to wake up the next morning craving a cigarette, or afflicted with cancer.

Leave us not forget all the toxins already in your "fresh" air from all the cars on the road, and all the power plants that burn fuel, and the refneries, and recycling plants, and paper mills, etc....

Your analogy is flawed, your argument is laughable, your logic is non-existant. Get a real argument.

reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 06:43 PM by jfj123

reply to post by Daedalus

Your analogy is still flawed. Saliva is a biological material. A possible biohazard, especially if you are infected with a contagion. Diluted smoke (which is what you would be breathing in a normal encounter) Is nothing more than a mild annoyance. Even if i were to blow it directly in your face, a significant portion of the truly harmful components have already attached themselves to the mucous membranes in my lungs, and when you inhale, a significant portion of what's left has been filtered out by the mucous membranes in your nose. In reality, all you're inhaling is slightly more toxic than normal, scented air.

If i have cold, and i sneeze on you, when you wake up the next morning, you may have that same cold. If you breathe in a little of my heavily diluted smoke, you're not going to wake up the next morning craving a cigarette, or afflicted with cancer.

Leave us not forget all the toxins already in your "fresh" air from all the cars on the road, and all the power plants that burn fuel, and the refneries, and recycling plants, and paper mills, etc....

Your analogy is flawed, your argument is laughable, your logic is non-existant. Get a real argument.

Yes saliva is a biohazard.. Good point.
So what is lung cancer?
What is emphysema?
What about anyone who has asthma and cigarette smoke causes and attack and that person DIES???

Yes a biohazzard is bad.
Is dying? I would think it is.

Hmmm.. dying, cancer and COPD is laughable??....
and you think MY point is bad????
REALLY????