Should Smoking Be Banned?, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 05:18 PM by prototism
reply to post by intrepid
I actually live in a suburb of San Diego, that has recently not only banned smoking indoors, but has made it so that smokers can not even stand within a certain distance of the places of entry/exit.

On one hand, I feel for the smokers. I do. But on the other hand, I feel for myself, and others who want to minimize the chances at second hand smoke.

Hell, I enjoy hookah occasionally, but those places are BUILT for that. You don't go in to a hookah bar to just read a book, haha.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 05:26 PM by WyrdeOne
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


There's no doubt that many people would rather drink in a bar without smokers. That's fine, and I support their right to put their money where their mouth is.

Here's the thing - it's not illegal to run a non-smoking establishment. I rent apartments, and I'm legally entitled to prohibit smoking in the building. I'm fine with that.

Except now it's illegal to run a smoking establishment. That is what I'm NOT fine with. Non-smokers have no intrinsic right to come to my place of business and force out other paying customers. It's so typical of the non-smoker mentality that they believe their own rights somehow outweigh the rights of others.

Personal liberty is important to these people, as long as you're only talking about their rights. Once someone else's rights come into question, that's a different story...

Bar owners should be able to make their own decisions for the health of their businesses.

If I was a bar owner, I would want smokers smoking, and if the non-smokers didn't like it, they could drink elsewhere. There will always be plenty of non-smoking establishments - mainly because of the insurance.

I haven't gone to a bar since the smoking took effect. I refuse to give my money to a business that actively discriminates against me (even if their hand was forced by legislators).


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 05:32 PM by prototism
reply to post by intrepid
By all means, YES. If that happened, you smokers can be free from us non smokers and our "self righteous" opinions.

Hookah involves flavored tobacco that you inhale though a hose. Sorta like a bong (just don't call it that literally, believe me), but involving no marijuana. However, there is controversy as to if it is more or less harmful than "smoking".


[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 05:53 PM by civilized mammal
Originally posted by D1Useek
This has nothing to do with governments concern for citizens and everything to do with trying to see how far into peoples private lives they can get. Why does the government have the right to go into your business and tell you that you can't allow smoking when they themselves are making money off it. What hypocrites! If it's that deadly BAN IT! It's just little by little, bit by bit people falling into line and becoming the sheeple the governments want.

"When they came for the Jew's I didn't care I wasn't Jewish..."

The militant anti-smoking activists display a very destructive hominid trait which is similarily generally not found in nature, except during mating rituals. One can observe an inherent desire, if not an actual need, to control the behaviour of other members of the human species. Often to merely further ones personal preferences and desires. Is the militant non-smoker really all that different fom a Nazi? The borderline is IMO not black and white, yet consistent. Does the militant non-smoker require the dismantling of carcinogenous causing pollutant industries? No. It would exact the end of a comfortable "everything is disposable" society which is readily enjoyed. It should be noted that pesticide free cigarettes CAN be manufactured. This hasn't happened even today! Even though scientists are aware that pesticides and other added chemicals are largely responsible for the any incidents of cancer. Smokers are merely scapegoats.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 05:59 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Anti - Government


Sure let's ban smoking and farting and drinking liquor and fat chicks in spandex...

I think all of them have dangers...


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:00 PM by prototism
reply to post by RFBurns

Originally posted by prototism
reply to post by ninthaxis
Oh come on. The "pollution" argument is ridiculous. Both smokers and non smokers are suffering from factors beyond our individual control, beyond our individual choice. The difference is black and white.

One is an individual choice that affects others (one group directly, one group indirectly) [smoking], while the other is not an individual choice that affects both groups equally [pollution]. Those are some fundamental differences, that can simply not be ignored by any rationally thinking person.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]



[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:11 PM by Anti - Government
reply to post by theindependentjournal


Come on cant you act seriously for once here we all know smoking is a serious danger

(Second Line)



reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:19 PM by prototism
reply to post by Trayen11
Although everything else you said makes you out to be a considerate and fair person, your last paragraph has its logic backwards.



[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:27 PM by ANTHONY33
reply to post by Anti - Government


Dude!
Whats your beef with Marijuana? It never killed no one.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:30 PM by Trayen11
reply to post by ANTHONY33


Tell that to one of the my classmates who was hit by some idiot all cooked up on Pot......when they asked the kid why he didn't try to break the kids answer was...."I was so high i thought I was just seeing things"


Yeah Pot is so safe.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 06:34 PM by prototism
reply to post by Trayen11
You basically said you're okay with the government telling you what you can or cant do in your own private home. Most smokers (and anybody for that matter) would have a problem with that.

It just doesn't make sense.

reply to post by Trayen11
You are obviously biased, and either can't see the issue objectively, or don't understand the idea of "moderation", or both.



[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags