Mayor Bloombergs SMOKING BAN

Its my right to go into the middle of my town on a busy saturday and drink a can of beer and smoke a cigarette. Ahhhh the freedom :D .
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
I guess we'll have to agree to dis-agree then,... I see ecactly where your comming from,... but I dont think people should have that much freedom, the freedom to subject virtually anyone to the enviornment a cigerette/cigar creates.

I hate slobbering drunks. The abuse to others, the violence and deaths from alcohol abuse is huge, so lets get rid of public drinking also. Lets let legislation dictate prohibition again.

Just a thought....
 
The definition I put forth earlier, and several others refined, came to a pretty viable working definition.

1) All government or government-funded facilities should be smoke free. All truly public places (parks, etc.) should be smoke free.

2) Unique locations such as stadiums, arenas, etc. with scheduled and/or "no-equivalent" events should be smoke free.

3) Businesses should be free to determine for themselves whether to ban smoking at all, whether to allow smoking in an isolated sub-area, or whether to allow unrestricted smoking within their confines. This goes for any business where equivalent products or services can be found elsewhere at the discretion of the customer. Note that some private businesses may be covered under the "unique event or location" clause above.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
The definition I put forth earlier, and several others refined, came to a pretty viable working definition.

1) All government or government-funded facilities should be smoke free. All truly public places (parks, etc.) should be smoke free.

2) Unique locations such as stadiums, arenas, etc. with scheduled and/or "no-equivalent" events should be smoke free.

3) Businesses should be free to determine for themselves whether to ban smoking at all, whether to allow smoking in an isolated sub-area, or whether to allow unrestricted smoking within their confines. This goes for any business where equivalent products or services can be found elsewhere at the discretion of the customer. Note that some private businesses may be covered under the "unique event or location" clause above.

That sounds great, except for the unique 'private' business. Just because they are unique, does not mean that people have to aquire their goods or services.
 
That is true. But also, most of the so-called private businesses that I think would fall into that category, probably also receive government funding in some form or another.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
That is true. But also, most of the so-called private businesses that I think would fall into that category, probably also receive government funding in some form or another.

In that case they would not fall into a 'private' business catigory, but rather your catigory #1.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Nice. This is a classic liberal socialist statement that is somehow supposed to justify something. All it demonstrates is herd mentality. Sheep all of them.

Caught in the act. I love it when it's so straight forward. They make it so easy sometimes.

Fill in the blank with whatever totalitarian, freedom robbing, big government coersion you like and the statement remains correct. Amazing.

"The _________ is spreading however and you can't stop it."

Wanna bet?

sure
 
Originally posted by askia47
sure
Unless you're planning to make a real point with this, I'd slip away quietly if I were you. A big mouth with nothing behind it will get you verbally flattened by the intellectual hardasses around here.
 
Originally posted by Axe_Gaijin
*points to the tilte of the forum this thread is placed in*
And I gave you mine. (In a more abstract way, I must contend).

Opinion, I gave mine.... I don't have to defend it, i don't have to be constructive.
If you honestly think that, then you're in the wrong forum. Any blithering idiot can spout an opinion-- There's no point in giving one if you don't back it up or, at least be rational.

Smokers should be shot, Twice.
Did you read what I posted? I'd appreciate an answer. If that was your answer, then you should seriously reconsider your outlook on people and on life. If you honestly just said that my dad should've been shot, you've obviously got some serious issues.

Originally posted by askia47
i had a big mouth?
Oh, for cripe's sake, you know what he meant... trying to evade the subject when you have the short stick isn't going to get you anywhere.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
So then who agree's that smoking should be banned in public places?

I suppose I do,... even being an ex-smoker,... I felt guilty about exposing people to my filthy habit, and now that I've quit,.. I dont want to be exposed.

I agree, although I'm sick of hearing pro-smoking advocates whine about this being a free country and how they can smoke wherever they want to. Their incessant whining almost makes me want to let them give me cancer - see if I care.

Oh, for cripe's sake, you know what he meant... trying to evade the subject when you have the short stick isn't going to get you anywhere.

Actually, askia47 and several other members on this forum utilise that technique fairly often, and it gets them out of having to answer questions which they can't answer.

And now, in my best liberal voice: Ban smoking, except pot!
 
Originally posted by milefile
Oh. Because askia47's avatar looks like cropped pics from a japanese porno site and everybody knows they use little girls there.

The answer would still be no.
 
..........idiots! is that child porn?! either your stupid or you cannot see. Any Way back to the Topic- While it is up to bar owners to chose if they want smoking or not in their establishments, I think people have been complaining to much about the smoke in bars, and it ruining their health when they go their so the city put a ban on the smoking in bars, in IMO.
 

Attachments

  • utada9.jpg
    utada9.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 27
Back