I am a non-smoker but I hate non-smokers

[MrPopup]

* Warning *

If your municipality or town or city is considering a ban on smoking in restaurants or bars just remember that whatever bars and restaurants you used to enjoy will suck very much after they bring this law in.

It happens everywhere.

<b>Good Social Atmosphere + Crummy Intrusive Bylaws = Boring Nightlife</b>

The end of fun is upon us.

You fucking non-smokers did this. You fucking WRECKED all my favorite bars.

[foreverjason]

There is no thumbs down smily face.

[traffic addict]

[dnsmonster]

I think the law goes something like if the place makes at least 50% profit from sales of alcohol it doesn't have to become smoke free.

I am a non smoker and I would love for nightclubs to become smoke free. I go to a nightclub to have fun and dance my sorry ass off and I absolutely hate finding myself amidst smokers and fighting for breath. I understand that smoking is a legal addiction and it wouldn't be fair to just prohibit smoking so I'd be totally cool if a night club had a smoker's dance floor or something.

Supposely the new Club Space (34) in Miami has an open terrace on the top floor where all the smokers are bound to hang out. That gets two thumbs up from me!

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by dnsmonster
I think the law goes something like if the place makes at least 50% profit from sales of alcohol it doesn't have to become smoke free.

I am a non smoker and I would love for nightclubs to become smoke free. I go to a nightclub to have fun and dance my sorry ass off and I absolutely hate finding myself amidst smokers and fighting for breath.

im offended by your style of dancing. There should be a bylaw against that type of dancing. After all, there is a chance you could injure someone.

Ban dancing too.

[- Jesus Christ -]

I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black

Hey
Wait
I've got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice

[dnsmonster]

im offended by your style of dancing.

Is that a subliminal message saying you'd like a lap dance from me? If you're cute I promise to grind too.

[galleryseek]

Originally posted by MrPopup


im offended by your style of dancing. There should be a bylaw against that type of dancing. After all, there is a chance you could injure someone.

Ban dancing too.

yeah but not all dancing is dangerous, only a very small %. however all smoking will damage a person's lungs, even if its .0000001%, and same with 2nd hand smoke. its annoying too if thers a TON of it, i dont mind a few people or whatever. but when it looks like a fuckin cloud it bothers my damn eyes and ya come out smellin like shit.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by MrPopup
* Warning *

If your municipality or town or city is considering a ban on smoking in restaurants or bars just remember that whatever bars and restaurants you used to enjoy will suck very much after they bring this law in.

It happens everywhere.

<b>Good Social Atmosphere + Crummy Intrusive Bylaws = Boring Nightlife</b>

The end of fun is upon us.

You fucking non-smokers did this. You fucking WRECKED all my favorite bars.

That's why left wing liberals suck. They did the same shit in NYC. But first they taxed them to $7.50 per pack.

[Backov]

My girlfriends mother died of lung cancer. She was a non-smoker, worked for the Canadian Cancer Foundation at bingos, where they smoked. She never in her life smoked a cigarette.

She died of second hand smoke.

I think California has the right idea. Ban it in all public places.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by Backov
I think California has the right idea. Ban it in all public places.

It is unjust to ban smoking and continue to profit from the sale of cigarettes.

I feel for your loss but shouldnt the tobacco barons bear the responsibility for it?

Smoking sucks...everything about it. But to punish those who are addicted to cigarettes on one hand and to continue to allow corporations to profit from it on another is a perversion of liberty.

[Backov]

Originally posted by MrPopup

I feel for your loss but shouldnt the tobacco barons bear the responsibility for it?

So, Smith and Wesson should bear the responsibility for the beltway snipers? No, there is a law against killing another human with a gun. There is no law against owning a gun.

Just like there should be a law against killing a human or hurting them by blowing smoke into their breathing supply. Or any other thing that you can do in a public place that might end up killing me or someone I love.

[REMbraNT]

I don't really like the laws but I think this is one of them that's good. I don't want to suck others smoke!

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by REMbraNT
I don't really like the laws but I think this is one of them that's good. I don't want to suck others smoke!

Ok, so what about the people that want to go to a nightclub specifically for smokers? But wait, if they ban it in all of them it won't exist. The law is bullshit.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Backov


Just like there should be a law against killing a human or hurting them by blowing smoke into their breathing supply. Or any other thing that you can do in a public place that might end up killing me or someone I love.

Driving a car pollutes the air and thus might end up killing you or someone that you love. The same goes for nearly everything in life.
Besides that, cancer existed long before people started smoking, even lung cancer. Genes play a larger role in getting it than second hand smoke.

According to fairly recent studies, second hand smoke is slightly less carcinogenic than tap water and white bread, and slightly more so than vegetables and fruit.

[Backov]

Cars are a necessary evil. Cigarettes are not.

Doesn't matter anyway, cigarettes will be banned, no point in debating it. It'll just take longer in some areas.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Backov
Cars are a necessary evil. Cigarettes are not.

Doesn't matter anyway, cigarettes will be banned, no point in debating it. It'll just take longer in some areas.

On many occassions people could use public transportation instead of cars.

And, luckily, I don't live in the US.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by Backov
My girlfriends mother died of lung cancer. She was a non-smoker, worked for the Canadian Cancer Foundation at bingos, where they smoked. She never in her life smoked a cigarette.

She died of second hand smoke.

I think California has the right idea. Ban it in all public places.

I'm a non-smoker, but I'm for freedom. If someone wants to smoke, they should be free to smoke. But then, the insurance companies should be free not to include smokers in the risk pool, employers should be free to not hire non-smokers, apartments should be free not to take smokers as residents, and so on. If someone doesn't like working in a smoky environment, this is a free country and they can always find a different line of work. They can fucking plant trees out in the mountains instead of waiting tables or tending bar.

Let's maximize everyone's freedom by respecting everyone's freedom.

[Pappa]

In the spring of 2004 Norway will, as the first country in the world, have a total ban on smoking in all restaurants, bars etc....

[Swiftone]

Eh, I could see this arguement if liquor were being targeted, but smoking does nothing to make a 'fun environment'.

Then again, If we let all the smokers smoke wherever they want, they will die quicker and in the long run we all win!

[Swiftone]

Originally posted by MrPopup


im offended by your style of dancing. There should be a bylaw against that type of dancing. After all, there is a chance you could injure someone.

Ban dancing too.

Sorry but that analogy is just stupid, and you know it.

There is a huge difference between being 'offended' by something, and having your health put at risk by some inconsiderate prick with a pointles addiction.

You freedom fighters are homorous.

Smokers are fine and dandy, but there ought to be SEPERATE areas enclosed, away from non smokers. You have your rights, but non smokers are subjected to smoke when they shouldn't be. No matter what you guys say about 2nd hand smoking being slightly less hazardous than bread, the fact remains that my grandfather died from lung cancer...And he didn't smoke. He was a musician around smoke all the time and it just happened to wreck his lungs.

I too have asthma and when I go out, my lungs close very fast and the smoke burns my eyes.

You should be allowed to endulge in your habbit...but imposing it on others who do not want to be around it is far from fair. It smells like shit, it is far from healthy for those around it, and non-smokers hate being asked if they have a cigarette just because they smell like an ashtray.

According to fairly recent studies, second hand smoke is slightly less carcinogenic than tap water and white bread, and slightly more so than vegetables and fruit.

Where did you find these studies? As far as I know, most organic fruit is free of the pesticides, and even non-organic fruits and vegetables can be washed using vegetable rinse. And white bread and tapwater? I drink bottled water and I only eat white bread when I crave a smoke!

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


I'm a non-smoker, but I'm for freedom. If someone wants to smoke, they should be free to smoke. But then, the insurance companies should be free not to include smokers in the risk pool, employers should be free to not hire non-smokers, apartments should be free not to take smokers as residents, and so on. If someone doesn't like working in a smoky environment, this is a free country and they can always find a different line of work. They can fucking plant trees out in the mountains instead of waiting tables or tending bar.

Let's maximize everyone's freedom by respecting everyone's freedom.

It's so much easier for the liberals to regulate every aspect of everyones life. Plus it's for our own good.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by shermsshack
I too have asthma and when I go out, my lungs close very fast and the smoke burns my eyes.

Maybe you should talk to the oil companies who sold the gas that pollutes the world that gave you asthma.

[GotGauge]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


I'm a non-smoker, but I'm for freedom. If someone wants to smoke, they should be free to smoke. But then, the insurance companies should be free not to include smokers in the risk pool, employers should be free to not hire non-smokers, apartments should be free not to take smokers as residents, and so on. If someone doesn't like working in a smoky environment, this is a free country and they can always find a different line of work. They can fucking plant trees out in the mountains instead of waiting tables or tending bar.

Let's maximize everyone's freedom by respecting everyone's freedom.

They are FREE to smoke.... In thier own HOME...

[uno]

Originally posted by ChrisH


It's so much easier for the liberals to regulate every aspect of everyones life. Plus it's for our own good.

Isn't governmental behavior modification fun?! Woohoo! I hope we all get to wear uniforms.

[Fletch XXX]

the bars i hang in let you smoke though.

cops dont police it its up to the bar owners, and most dont care.

its illegal but they hide behind the fact that they might 'have missed it, and didnt see you smoking' if the cops were to barge in.

Also, companies like Camel sponsor bars as many know, and they issue coasters, have you noticed more of them in bars?

Here the coasters come with preforated slits in them, allowing you to fold them into throw away ash trays.

it may be illegal but the bars here are fueled by the tobacco industry, and they get around it.

no doubt if LA breaks the rules theyll do it elsewhere.

laws are only valid if people follow them.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by ChrisH


It's so much easier for the liberals to regulate every aspect of everyones life. Plus it's for our own good.

Are you retarded or was the doctors report forged by an unloving mother?

Honestly, do you always talk out your ass? Who exactly are you trying to blame...and for what?

I find it ironic that someone would point to "liberals" wanting to regulate every aspect of life when the current Administration in Washington is perverting civil liberties in a new and exciting way every day. Last time I checked, Ashhahahahaha, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the inner circle wasnt "liberal".

And just to clear it up for you, the current administration would be considered "conservative" or "right wing" on your outdated and erroneous political ideology scope. After all, we don't see many "liberals" in power these days...do we? Who knows, maybe Foxnews is subliminally feeding you somethng.

Do us all a favor and turn off the TV. You cant even puppet that right. At least some of the other people on this board with oppositional views have an inkling of what they are talking about. Sadly, you do not, and thus your responsibility is to excuse yourself from this conversation.

Some people need everyone else to blame because they are simply unwilling or incapable of dealing with the real world they live in.

I wish you luck in your quest for enlightenment. Obviously we are on different paths.

[ChrisH]

Popup,
I know it's hard for you to understand and even tougher for you to swallow but, Rupublicans are for fewer regulations than Democrates.

Just the facts man.

[Hooper]

Besides that, cancer existed long before people started smoking, even lung cancer

No it didnt. Cancer is a modern miracle of the 20th century, prior the 20th century cancer was virtually unheard of.

Anybody who thinks banning smoking in public places is a violation of their rights is an idiot. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins is the saying... and you have a right to smoke til you die if you want... but you dont have a right to make me or my children smell it, get headaches from it, come home stinking of it because i decided to have one beer etc...etc..etc..

It's not regulating your behavior.. it's ENFORCING my right to not breath cigarette smoke. Blame it on the liberals... thats always a sure fire sign of a desperate argument.

Your right to blow smoke ends where my air supply begins.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by ChrisH
Popup,
I know it's hard for you to understand and even tougher for you to swallow but, Rupublicans are for fewer regulations than Democrates.

Just the facts man.

You want facts?

GOP calls for wider powers to track citizens
Critics rip bid to make Patriot Act permanent

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- With the war on terrorism lagging behind the war in Iraq, Republicans in Congress and the White House are pushing legislation that would give federal authorities sweeping new powers to monitor, track, profile, and even revoke citizenship of U.S. citizens.

The effort is being directed along two controversial fronts, involving current law as well as new proposals. Both have generated fierce resistance on Capitol Hill and from civil liberties groups.

On one track, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, with the backing of the White House, wants to make permanent the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the sprawling 2001 law hastily passed only weeks after the Sept. 11 attack.

The law greatly expanded the government's ability to search records and monitor people and their property.

It gave the government new authority to conduct telephone and Internet surveillance with minimal judicial oversight and created a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could lead to the investigation and prosecution of people engaged in acts of political protest.

It also gave federal agents the power to survey all book and computer records at libraries, and permitted non-citizens to be jailed without formal charges for up to six months.

Because of concerns that the law might go too far and harbor unintended consequences, Congress stipulated that the Patriot Act dissolve in 2005.

But Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week that he wants to make the law permanent.

At the same time, the Bush administration is drafting new legislation, dubbed Patriot II, that would provide federal agents even more authority to issue wiretaps, conduct "data mining" and monitor people presumed or known to have terrorist connections.

Although the bill is still being drafted, those with knowledge of it say it would, among other things, allow federal authorities to make secret arrests and to "infiltrate and monitor" worship services.

Critics say the proposals are troubling.

"We know the government has used some of these laws incorrectly, and we know that this has been the least cooperative Justice Department in anyone's memory," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in response to Hatch's plan to strip the "sunset provision" from the Patriot Act.

"History shows that a government that doesn't want oversight often is a government that has something to hide."

The Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the state's two senators Wednesday urging them to oppose Hatch.

Other groups also are mobilizing to fight the proposal.

"After a mere 18 months since the enactment of the legislation, it is simply too soon to measure the impact of these provisions and move to make them permanent," said the letter to Sens. Dick Durbin and Peter Fitzgerald.

Hatch declined to comment, but Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the law has been crucial in the fight against terrorism. "It has been an invaluable tool in our efforts to prevent terrorist activity," Corallo said.

"The Patriot Act gives us the tools we need to better protect the American public while also protecting civil liberties."

Corallo declined to comment on Hatch's proposal, but a Justice Department official who asked to remain nameless said Hatch has the support of the department. Republican aides believe Hatch's amendment could pass the Senate. It could run into trouble in the House, however, where Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., has stressed the importance of congressional oversight. Sensenbrenner was instrumental in inserting the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act.

Opposition also is coming from a more surprising direction -- mainstream conservative organizations that usually count Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha among their heroes.

"Already, government investigative powers have been dramatically expanded," said former Rep. Bob Barr, a well-known conservative who once was a close ally of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Already, intelligence is working under the flawed premise that to get the bad guys you need to spy unmercifully on the good guys."

Barr appeared at a forum yesterday with three other influential conservatives, who have banded together with, improbably, the American Civil Liberties Union to try to defeat the initiatives.

"We hope that the White House will take notice from the shared concern expressed today that Americans of all political stripes want leaders who strive to make us all both safe and free," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office. She joined Barr and David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; and Lori Waters, executive director of the Eagle Forum.

Murphy said the draft bill would, if passed in its current form, represent a big shift away from America's long-standing commitment to the right 'to be left alone,' " she said.

Among other powers, Murphy said the bill would "give the government the unprecedented authority to revoke Americans' citizenship and open the door to government suppression of lawful protest activities."

Waters said passage of the two measures would edge the country closer to a philosophy "where there are two types of people: the caught and the uncaught. .... We see a growing effort of the government to tag and track everything we do," she said. "We don't think these are the most effective way of preventing terrorists from getting on planes and blowing them up."

A Justice Department official who didn't want his name used said the initial criticisms would be moot because many of the objectionable provisions will not be included in the final bill. Some of the ideas, the official said, were proposed only to get discussions started within the department and were never intended for inclusion. He wouldn't say which provisions fit in that category.

Civil libertarians and conservatives alike are still unnerved by an earlier proposal by the Justice Department called Operation TIPS that would encourage citizens to watch and report strange behavior. That proposal died last year in Congress.

Another worrisome idea, critics say, is a plan by the government to develop a system to "profile" all airline passengers to gauge their risk. Critics also worry that federal officials might try again to win approval for a national ID card. Congress has rejected that idea.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by Hooper
Cancer is a modern miracle of the 20th century, prior the 20th century cancer was virtually unheard of.

"Evidence of the existence of cancer can be dated back as far as prehistoric times. It has been found in the skeletons of prehistoric animals and even in Egyptian mummies." (http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kgordy/cancer.html)


"Cancer is a process that has affected humans since prehistoric times and is also common in domestic and farm animals, birds, and fish. Apart from childhood cancers, which may be associated with events during pregnancy, such as exposure to radiation, most cancers are a feature of aging." (http://www.ndif.org/Terms/cancer.html)

I think you're confusing the identification and naming of cancer with its inception. It goes back...way back.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by GotGauge


They are FREE to smoke.... In thier own HOME...

And they should be free to smoke in a bar as well. No one in a bar is there with a gun to their head. Perhaps a child care center with children who have no choice but to be there should be an exception, but a bar is a place one goes to voluntarily and even to some extent works in voluntarily.

Let bars who want nonsmoking customers be free to forbid smoking then folks who want to avoid smoke can go there and both you and the smokers can be happy.

You, like a lot of antismokers, can't be happy with liberty. You have to control other people.

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

You, like a lot of antismokers, can't be happy with liberty. You have to control other people.

ha.. no, it's more like you don't want other people controlling what YOU breath when you go to a public place. Liberty is like hooper said, Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Nothing shits me more than going to see a gig and having your eyes water, having ash fall on you, or getting burnt by some inconsiderate fuck. In a confined venue it can get like mace sometimes. Personally I can't wait until it's totally banned in public, It's about the lamest habit to have, I hold pot smokers in higher regard.

[iwantchixx]

Originally posted by dnsmonster
I am a non smoker and I would love for nightclubs to become smoke free. I go to a nightclub to have fun and dance my sorry ass off and I absolutely hate finding myself amidst smokers and fighting for breath.

Give me a fucking break... "fighting for breath." It's not like you have a fucking exhaust pipe stuffed down your throat with a 12 cylinder engine pumping nothing but toxic fumes into your lungs.

Truth be told you would get the same toxic fumes and smoke by walking downtown on a saturday night when all the ricer boys are out playing on the streets. Or you would get the same toxicity by riding a motorcycle behind another car

BAN RICE MOBILES! (I'd actualy like to see that law passed but for other reasons)

BAN ALL CARS DRIVING IN FRONT OF A MOTORCYCLIST....

Originally posted by MrPopup


Maybe you should talk to the oil companies who sold the gas that pollutes the world that gave you asthma.

The difference is that some of us need cars to get from one place to another. Do smokers need cigarettes to help them travel? Have you ever stepped back and looked at your statements? There are quite a few holes in everything you've said in this thread. I think the smoke may be getting to your brain my friend!

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by punkworld


Driving a car pollutes the air and thus might end up killing you or someone that you love. The same goes for nearly everything in life.
Besides that, cancer existed long before people started smoking, even lung cancer. Genes play a larger role in getting it than second hand smoke.

According to fairly recent studies, second hand smoke is slightly less carcinogenic than tap water and white bread, and slightly more so than vegetables and fruit.

This is true but the Gov. has most people convinced that it's second hand smoke that is killing people. What people
forget is there were Million's and Million's of babies born with no health problems and the mother's smoked, but this was before the anti smokers got the power. I might add same with drinking booze, coffee. Now I'd venture to say NO way NO how are you going to convince' em any Diff. You see if they don't like something and they pass a law against it then
it must be a good law. Wait until they pass a law, that you have to have a breatherlizer at the door before entering bar and every 30 min.'s. Or Camera's in all rest room's, to check if you wash you hands after using it. If you don't then the door won't open. Until it's effect's you then the law is a good one. And if you nonsmokers thinks its just about smoke and smokers you got's your head up your ass hole.

Don't know if you know it, but if everyone quit smoking, you're Taxes would go up a Min. of 5% and most likely more like 10% plus.

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


You, like a lot of antismokers, can't be happy with liberty. You have to control other people.

This is soooooooo very true.

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by Hooper


No it didnt. Cancer is a modern miracle of the 20th century, prior the 20th century cancer was virtually unheard of.

Anybody who thinks banning smoking in public places is a violation of their rights is an idiot. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins is the saying... and you have a right to smoke til you die if you want... but you dont have a right to make me or my children smell it, get headaches from it, come home stinking of it because i decided to have one beer etc...etc..etc..

It's not regulating your behavior.. it's ENFORCING my right to not breath cigarette smoke. Blame it on the liberals... thats always a sure fire sign of a desperate argument.

Your right to blow smoke ends where my air supply begins.

Were you home schooled?

[angeleyes]

I've been a smoker and a non-smoker and one thing that has already happened in states where it is banned is a high turn over rate of bartenders because their tips dropped because smokers quit turning out....... eventually a few clubs closed their doors.

The ban is going to take place here in Florida in a few months and the jokers that passed/wrote the law actually made it "illegal" to even posess tobacco products or even a lighter whie in the establishment and even illegal to smoke in your car in the parking lot with all of the windows rolled up. I doubt this portion of the law will be enforced but they expect people to "check their lighters at the door" and pick them up when leaving the establishment.

..... fuck that.

[Wizzo]

Being a capitalist, I think it should be left up to the owner of a business, if it's smoke free or not...

[Interlude]

Smokers have no right to light up in my restaurant. Nor do nonsmokers have a right to prevent smokers from lighting up in my restaurant.

To put it bluntly, the owner of the property should be able to determine ? for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all ? whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, neither, or both. Customers or employees who object may go elsewhere. They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed. By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government violates his rights.

That's the controlling principle. Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, or providing services to lots of people, is not sufficient to transform private property into public property. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not the size of the customer base or the workforce.

I thought this quote fitting...

?Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron?s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.?
-- C. S. Lewis

[Interlude]

Also, I think it is an insufficiently commented-upon irony that cigarette prohibition and the public shaming it entails is the work of modern liberals. They're supposed to be the ones who are nonjudgmental, who live and let live, but they approach smoking like Carry Nation with her ax. Conservatives on the other hand let you smoke. They acknowledge sin and accept imperfection. Also most of them are culturally inclined toward courtesy of the old-fashioned sort.

Why do liberals punish smokers? Could we discuss this? Is it that it makes them feel clean? Some parts of our culture in which liberals largely call the shots--Hollywood, for instance--are fairly low and degraded. Maybe liberals can't face this, and make themselves feel clean if they ban unclean air? Or maybe banning smokers makes them feel safe, like they'll never die.

Maybe it makes them feel in control. Maybe it makes them feel superior.

Or maybe they just want to bully someone.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


ha.. no, it's more like you don't want other people controlling what YOU breath when you go to a public place. Liberty is like hooper said, Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Nothing shits me more than going to see a gig and having your eyes water, having ash fall on you, or getting burnt by some inconsiderate fuck. In a confined venue it can get like mace sometimes. Personally I can't wait until it's totally banned in public, It's about the lamest habit to have, I hold pot smokers in higher regard.

Many people find fragances as bad or worse than tobacco smoke, so we should forbid anyone wearing perfume or cologne from going to gigs also, right? Because they would be, in your inimitable words, "controlling what YOU breath."

The fact remains that in the sense of liberty most people find meaningful, a ban on smokers limits people's freedom more directly an onerously than allowing people to choose not to attend events where there might be tobacco smoke or perfume.

[MissEve]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


Many people find fragances as bad or worse than tobacco smoke, so we should forbid anyone wearing perfume or cologne from going to gigs also, right? Because they would be, in your inimitable words, "controlling what YOU breath."

I have NEVER come home after a night at a bar and had someones shitty perfume permeate my clothes, hair and contacts like the disgusting smell of smoke.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by MissEve


I have NEVER come home after a night at a bar and had someones shitty perfume permeate my clothes, hair and contacts like the disgusting smell of smoke.

Then stay the fuck home.

[MissEve]

lol, why don't YOU stay the fuck home with all of your smoker friends? How fucking boring you must be if smoking is what makes the party for you.

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


Many people find fragances as bad or worse than tobacco smoke, so we should forbid anyone wearing perfume or cologne from going to gigs also, right? Because they would be, in your inimitable words, "controlling what YOU breath."

The fact remains that in the sense of liberty most people find meaningful, a ban on smokers limits people's freedom more directly an onerously than allowing people to choose not to attend events where there might be tobacco smoke or perfume.

I hate people that wear too much perfume too, but perfume isn't going to kill me, and if I go to the other side of the room It isn't going to annoy me, unlike the haze when smokers are in a room. It's insanely rare for someone to be wearing that much perfume it affects people in a pub situation - it's more flying on planes, buses, public transport. People are not universally affected by perfume either, it's only a small percentage, there are many reasons perfume wearing is not equivalent.

To have to go outside for a few minutes to indulge in their habit is far less of an intrusion than giving other people cancer or preventing them from going to the event. It allows both parties to enjoy the event, I don't see the problem - people today choose to have the addiction, there are responsibilities that come with that choice.

[KC]

Originally posted by MissEve
lol, why don't YOU stay the fuck home with all of your smoker friends? How fucking boring you must be if smoking is what makes the party for you.

What a dummy... A club isn't cool at all, unless it shortens the lifespan of it's customers!

Breathing is so 1990's... Get with the program

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by MissEve
lol, why don't YOU stay the fuck home with all of your smoker friends? How fucking boring you must be if smoking is what makes the party for you.

What makes the party for me when everybody is out having a good time without punk ass motherfuckers trying to force bullshit rules that infringe on personal liberty.