re: Friendly no smoking reminder: Starting in June, no smoking in bars and casinos

Fresh flippy floppy

Also, willing to bet most arguing for 'bars rights' haven't been in a bar in years and have no idea that most bar owners like the ban.

quote:

---

Also, willing to bet most arguing for 'bars rights' haven't been in a bar in years and have no idea that most bar owners like the ban.

---

I don't frequent bars now nor do I smoke anymore other than the occasional cigar.

Some bars banned smoking a long time ago. I know Ivars did years back. I'd guess more bars don't allow it than do at this point.

I remember when you could smoke in McDonald's. They had the little tin foil ashtrays

quote:

---

Here is the crux of the issue. 

People in this thread are talking about freedom. One of the core libertarian tenets of freedom, as stated by political philosophers like John Stuart Mill, is that people should be left to themselves so long as their actions do not hurt others. 

This is why it is a waste of time to debate this issue: the question is already answered. Smoking should be banned in all public places, period. It is an absolute negative on society, and secondhand smoke causes a slew of health problems, the most minor of which is the sinus infection, the most major being cancer. 

The idiots who don’t favor this ban, who are saying that the non-smoker chose to go into that bar, ignore that the SMOKER ALSO CHOSE TO GO INTO THAT SAME BAR. 

---

You're either too stupid to comprehend what the pro-freedom crowd is trying to say or you're purposely being obtuse. But, I'll try one more time to spell it out for you (and I'll even put it in all caps since you seem to think that adds weight to your argument).

It is irrelevant who chooses to go to which bar as far as that determining which party (smoker or non-smoker) has the right to determine the law. It is also irrelevant whether something as specious as secon

Here is the actual crux of the issue:

THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OWNER ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MATTER. IT IS UP TO HIM OR HER TO SET WHAT KIND OF ESTABLISHMENT HE OR SHE WANT TO RUN. THAT'S IT. NO OTHER CONSIDERATION BEARS MENTION.

quote:

---

Only, it's not really private property when you run a business open to the public. Right?

---

Ouch

You just need to go ahead and delete this. I will do the same.

Big difference between public government building and private business that does not receive tax funding.

quote:

---

Open to the public is not the same as "not private property"

This isn't a communist country

---

So you are serving the public on private property. The government should just stay out...

Oh yeah, I don't see this going bad.

quote:

---

This isn't a communist country

---

This thread offers a full assortment of useful idiots who will happliy support efforts to move this country towards communism in the name of ‘safety’ or some other nebulous idea

quote:

---

This thread offers a full assortment of useful idiots who will happliy support efforts to move this country towards communism

---

You are so close to bringing up Hitler or Nazi Germany....keep going. You complete the whole list of 'Signs you are losing an online debate'

Think it is pointless since the root cause still exists.

Also Im not sure if large sodas are responsible for any more deaths than two regular sized ones

Smoking is trashy and a sign of weakness

quote:

---

Did you support NYC banning the sale of large sodas ‘for health reasons’?

---

We don't breathe in ill effects from someone else drinking soft drinks. Not the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand for the people advocating for smoker rights? The game changer is that it is a vice which negatively affects the people around a smoker. There is nothing else even close except maybe driving impaired, but even that only affects someone if you hit them. Everyone that breathes the air of a smoker is or can be affected by it.