RE: Second hand smoke

RE: Second hand smoke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 4:38:03 PM)
If you're anti-smoking and you drive a solar powered car, I salute your cause. If you're anti-smoking and infecting my lungs with masses of carbon monoxide, I really fail to see where your argument can be anything but sheer hypocrisy.

Level -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 4:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 quote: ORIGINAL: MistressStchWich I actually had a guy who was 400 = pounds sit next to me one time (while I was smoking) and then whine that his doctor told him to stay away from second hand smoke and I needed to put my cigarette out...I laughed and told him apparently he didn give three figs what his doctor said if his physical condition was any indication... And for you whiny non-smokers...when you park your car, stop killing animals and wildlife with your chemical plant out put and chopping down the rain forest, I'll put them in the trash and never smoke another one. I don't imagine there are going to be very many of you buffet over- eating, couch potato-where's the remote? SUV driving whiners can just put on your big girl panties and deal. So bring on the ugly emails....lol OMG...thats just too funny.LMAO I am a Whiney Non-Smoker...I am also a Tree Hugger who doesnt leave Her car running or believe in killing animals for sport.I also happen to be a veggie-saurus.Who supports Her local Growers.I do own an SUV,but I make sure its not polluting the air,by maintaining it.If I didnt have to be Moms Taxi Service,as We live in the woods of Maine,I would have a smaller car.Ohhh and by the way...I reuse My shopping bags and have canvas ones also...The really big ones for My Big Girl panties,so when I do My Volunteer work at the local Library,My fat white ass aint hanging out...LOL LOL Sassy [sm=applause.gif]

swtsouthernsub -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 4:45:05 PM)
im moving to holland so i can smoke weed and cig and still be my happy fat self

gooddogbenji -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 4:46:00 PM)
If you believe in your right to smoke, but not in my right to piss out of my window on the 25th floor on a windy day, you're a hypocrite. Okay, this thread has been brought down to a new low. Non-smokers are making decent arguments, smokers are mocking others and saying that any non-smokers with bad breath are polluting as much as they are (not quite, but close enough) I'm not anti smoking, but seriously, if you can't argue for your cause, walk away. You're making the smoking lobby look worse than it already does, and that's bad. Yours, benji Edited because pissing out of a widow seems a bit too kinky.

Alumbrado -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 4:46:56 PM)
quote: If you're anti-smoking and you drive a solar powered car, I salute your cause. If you're anti-smoking and infecting my lungs with masses of carbon monoxide, I really fail to see where your argument can be anything but sheer hypocrisy. Ahhh yes, the old blame the victim strategy. If people were driving their cars into restaurants and theatres to leave the motors running, that would be one thing. But saying that you have a right to add to pollution because there is already pollution is no better than saying women who have enjoyed sex shouldn't bitch about being raped.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji If you believe in your right to smoke, but not in my right to piss out of my window on the 25th floor on a windy day, you're a hypocrite. Okay, this thread has been brought down to a new low. Non-smokers are making decent arguments, smokers are mocking others and saying that any non-smokers with bad breath are polluting as much as they are (not quite, but close enough) I'm not anti smoking, but seriously, if you can't argue for your cause, walk away. You're making the smoking lobby look worse than it already does, and that's bad. Yours, benji Edited because pissing out of a widow seems a bit too kinky. Yes of course, because the argument "pissing out of the window" is a strongly reasoned argument on behalf of the anti lobby. It's illegal. Smoking isn't.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: If you're anti-smoking and you drive a solar powered car, I salute your cause. If you're anti-smoking and infecting my lungs with masses of carbon monoxide, I really fail to see where your argument can be anything but sheer hypocrisy. Ahhh yes, the old blame the victim strategy. If people were driving their cars into restaurants and theatres to leave the motors running, that would be one thing. But saying that you have a right to add to pollution because there is already pollution is no better than saying women who have enjoyed sex shouldn't bitch about being raped. What utter utter nonsense. It's nothing like "rape" or peeing out of a window, or shooting someone in a lung. You'll notice all the things being quoted are much worse than tobacco smoke (and all illegal). Please keep your argument based in reality. I don't smoke in restaurants. I don't know anyone that does. If you object to my tobacco smoke, don't infect my lungs as a non-driving pedestrian with your carbon monoxide. Otherwise it's hypocrisy.

gooddogbenji -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:15:14 PM)
I was actually making fun of your argument about cars. But since you decided to make the worst possible argument for you own side, here goes my response: Smoking is, in many areas, now illegal in various venues, for example bars, restaurants, trains, planes, public buildings, and so on and so forth. What you just said is akin to me saying that, because welding is legal in certain areas, I should be allowed to weld at bars, in restaurants, and if someone approaches me on the street about me welding on a crosswalk, I should be allowed to punch them. Its legality and it being unhealthy, annoying, disgusting, and highly addictive are two very different things. Yours, benji PS: No, I'm not taking this debate all too seriously. Edited because English has different words meaning different things. Live and learn.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:24:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji What you just said is akin to me saying Why do anti-smokers always drift off topic and say "it's the same as......" when it obviously isn't. quote: that, because welding is legal in certain areas, I should be allowed to weld at bars, in restaurants, What on EARTH are you talking about, "welding in a bar"??!?!?!?!? quote: and if someone approaches me on the street about me welding on a crosswalk, I should be allowed to punch them. What?????? quote: Its legality and it being unhealthy, annoying, disgusting, and highly addictive are two very different things. What's also very different is "welding, punching, peeing, shooting and rape" to smoking a cigarette.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:27:01 PM)
Anyway, I'm going for a cigarette. I'll close the window in case it drifts across the Atlantic and directly up a non-smokers nostrils and causes them to shoot and rape a welder in a restaurant. Goodbye.

gooddogbenji -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:29:31 PM)
I'll draw you a few parallels, Dom: Smoking: Welding: Generally safe Generally safe Can be done privately without issues Can be done privately without issues Annoying if done near others Annoying if done near others Potential fire hazard Potential fire hazard Potential health risk to bystanders Potential health risk to bystanders Can be done minding others' right to exist Can be done minding others' right to exist Can be done to deliberately annoy Can be done to deliberately annoy So, what I'm trying to say is, both are legal activities that serve a purpose to a certain portion of the population. Both can be done safely, and respectfully if done at the appropriate time and the appropriate place, but if you simply decide that it is your right to do so, and damn the others, it will cause issues. The big difference I see is that one is addictive and has a major lobby on both sides of the issue, polarising it. Does that explain it, or do you need pictures to go with it. ("look, there's the little bunny that died of cancer... Goodnight") Yours, benji

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:35:28 PM)
Benji, I never want to go to the restaurants you frequent, the customers should complain about flash burns while finishing their soup. And isn't smoking illegal in enough restaurants now for a non-smoker to say "Well, I'm not going in that one, they allow smoking" ?

gooddogbenji -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:41:23 PM)
The main argument for the restaurant laws is not customers, but staff. It is a health and safety issue to have staff working 8 hours a day in a smoky environment. And before anyone even says it, staff can not simply decide to work at a non-smoking restaurant, just as window washers should not have to choose to work at a company that allows safety harnesses. (Do you get that analogy?) Yours, benji

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:45:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji The main argument for the restaurant laws is not customers, but staff. It is a health and safety issue to have staff working 8 hours a day in a smoky environment. And before anyone even says it, staff can not simply decide to work at a non-smoking restaurant, just as window washers should not have to choose to work at a company that allows safety harnesses. (Do you get that analogy?) Yours, benji Yes, because it makes sense, unlike welding in a restaurant, which clearly doesn't. If smoking in a restaurant isn't illegal, who is to tell the owner whether he can allow it or not? If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't work there, work somewhere else. The same as a a non-driver who objects to exhaust fumes shouldn't become a traffic cop.

gooddogbenji -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 5:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji (Do you get that analogy?) Apparently not. What I said is that staff SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. It is not always easy to find a job, and, much like any other health and safety regulation, should apply at all restaurants, so staff do not have to turn down a good job because they don't want to die early. Your analogy is a preference - city street air is not a significant health risk, except in tunnels or when sucked directly out of an exhaust pipe. Second hand smoke is a serious healh risk, especially when exposed to it for 40 hours a week. Now, if smoking in a restaurant is not illegal, that's different. I am simply saying I support the laws coming into effect, and that the reason for them is mainly for staff, not only for guests. And a quick last point about welding in a restaurant - I'm not saying it makes sense to do so, I'm simply saying that, on many levels, it is similar to smoking in a restaurant. It is a legal activity, which makes a lot of sense when done properly, but is a major nuisance in public. And as any addicted welder will tell you, it SHOULD be allowed in restaurants, mainly because anyone who doesn't like it is infringing upon his rights. (That last point was somewhat facetious. But anyway, my mother always said, "never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." I'd try to debate more, but it's apparent listening is not your strong suit.) Yours, benji

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 6:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji (Do you get that analogy?) Apparently not. What I said is that staff SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. The don't HAVE to. If America is anything like England, about 95% of restaurants don't allow smoking in the first place. Which means the overwhelming majority of non-smoking restaurant staff have plenty of options open to them rather than complaining about the occasional restaurant where it's allowed. To the best of my knowledge, there are very few (if any) restaurants on the entire planet that allow you to sit cutting your potatoes at the same time as welding yourself a new birdcage. quote: It is not always easy to find a job, and, much like any other health and safety regulation, should apply at all restaurants, so staff do not have to turn down a good job because they don't want to die early. Then apply to one of the 95% of restaurants where smoking is not allowed and stop dictating to restaurant owners what they can and can't allow in their own establishment? That seems reasonable to me. quote: Your analogy is a preference - city street air is not a significant health risk, except in tunnels or when sucked directly out of an exhaust pipe. I wish I had your way of thinking. So you're telling me if I'm standing on a street corner with heavy traffic going by, my cigarette smoke is causing people more harm than the carbon monoxide from their exhausts? You can't possibly even believe that yourself. quote: Second hand smoke is a serious healh risk, especially when exposed to it for 40 hours a week. Not if you choose to work in a non-smoking restaurant it isn't quote: Now, if smoking in a restaurant is not illegal, that's different. I am simply saying I support the laws coming into effect, and that the reason for them is mainly for staff, not only for guests. And a quick last point about welding in a restaurant - I'm not saying it makes sense to do so, I'm simply saying that, on many levels, it is similar to smoking in a restaurant. It is a legal activity, which makes a lot of sense when done properly, but is a major nuisance in public. And as any addicted welder addicted welder! quote: will tell you, it SHOULD be allowed in restaurants, mainly because anyone who doesn't like it is infringing upon his rights. I can honestly say I've never heard a welder demand his rights to enjoy his craft while eating his evening meal. It might have happened somewhere, I've just personally never experienced it quote: (That last point was somewhat facetious. But anyway, my mother always said, "never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." I'd try to debate more, but it's apparent listening is not your strong suit.) Mine always said "He who resorts to insults lacks confidence in his argument."

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 7:19:41 PM)
fast reply..... For chrissake....my point wasn't about someone's high fat diet affecting anyone else, my point wasn't about higher insurance premiums....my point was about FREEDOMS. My point is that this whole anti-smoking thing has gone too far. I agree that smokers and non-smokers should have their own private spaces when it comes to indoor public places....there I said it. I don't believe that smokers have a right to pollute someone else's air in a non consensual manner. And guess what....CURRENTLY I SMOKE!!! But I didn't want to get into all of this second hand smoke bullshit because COMMON SENSE should make that argument null and void. I was talking about FREEDOMS....FREEDOMS to do what you want to do in the privacy of your own home on your own time. I brought up Howard Weyers of Weyco Insurance, not because I was trying to make a point about higher insurance premiums....but because he is the first EMPLOYER who has set the precedent of giving all of his employees an ultimatum......quit smoking in ... amount of time or be fired. He is the first EMPLOYER who has set a precedent of randomly nicotine testing his employees. He is the first EMPLOYER who has set a precedent of making it standard practice that potential employees be screened for nicotine and denied employment based solely upon their smoking status. Now we are not talking about smoking on company property or in any enclosed space where one person's smoke may affect another....we are talking about an employer limiting the freedom you have to do what you want to do on your own time...in your own car....in your own home. Howard Weyers used his insurance business for the weight behind his efforts and succeeded. Now I can tell you that I have had many a personal conversation with Mr. Weyers. He wanted to push the weight issue first as that is his big pet peeve, but he thought that the smoking thing would draw more support. He fully intends to tackle weight next. An ultimatum to his employees to be within the recommended height/weight fat ratio, body guidelines, cholesterol and trigylcerides within normal limits, exercise that can be proven according to recommended guidelines within .... amount of time or you are fired. Potential employees will have to submit to testing and fall within the guidelines or they will be denied employment. My point was that we stand on a very slippery slope. When we allow our freedoms to be limited....we risk losing all of our freedoms.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 7:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji What I said is that staff SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. It is not always easy to find a job, and, much like any other health and safety regulation, should apply at all restaurants, so staff do not have to turn down a good job because they don't want to die early. Benji, I usually agree with your conclusions, but this one I would have to take exception to. If in fact smoking is allowed in a place of employment, it really is a decision that the potential or current employee should have to make on their own. If they honestly feel it is something that could possibly affect their health, then they do have to decide what risk they want to take or look elsewhere. This is no different than if you are looking to be a coal miner and have to make that decision about coal dust, or if you are scared of heights and are looking to do a lineman job for a utility company, or even if you utilize a computer all day, carpal tunnel is a potential hazzard. Anything is a real risk if you see it as such and something that each person has to act on. Most if not all occupations have some risk, or perceived risk and in all cases that needs to be taken into account by that particular individual.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 7:25:55 PM)
If irresponsible smokers do it around non-smokers, they deserve to be chastised for it. But this thread is an example of the hysteria that people will create against smoking just because they personally don't like it. If it was anything else, they'd be attacking users of alcohol too (which they won't do, because that's a vice most of them are guilty of themselves).

Estring -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/5/2006 7:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin fast reply..... For chrissake....my point wasn't about someone's high fat diet affecting anyone else, my point wasn't about higher insurance premiums....my point was about FREEDOMS. My point is that this whole anti-smoking thing has gone too far. I agree that smokers and non-smokers should have their own private spaces when it comes to indoor public places....there I said it. I don't believe that smokers have a right to pollute someone else's air in a non consensual manner. And guess what....CURRENTLY I SMOKE!!! But I didn't want to get into all of this second hand smoke bullshit because COMMON SENSE should make that argument null and void. I was talking about FREEDOMS....FREEDOMS to do what you want to do in the privacy of your own home on your own time. I brought up Howard Weyers of Weyco Insurance, not because I was trying to make a point about higher insurance premiums....but because he is the first EMPLOYER who has set the precedent of giving all of his employees an ultimatum......quit smoking in ... amount of time or be fired. He is the first EMPLOYER who has set a precedent of randomly nicotine testing his employees. He is the first EMPLOYER who has set a precedent of making it standard practice that potential employees be screened for nicotine and denied employment based solely upon their smoking status. Now we are not talking about smoking on company property or in any enclosed space where one person's smoke may affect another....we are talking about an employer limiting the freedom you have to do what you want to do on your own time...in your own car....in your own home. Howard Weyers used his insurance business for the weight behind his efforts and succeeded. Now I can tell you that I have had many a personal conversation with Mr. Weyers. He wanted to push the weight issue first as that is his big pet peeve, but he thought that the smoking thing would draw more support. He fully intends to tackle weight next. An ultimatum to his employees to be within the recommended height/weight fat ratio, body guidelines, cholesterol and trigylcerides within normal limits, exercise that can be proven according to recommended guidelines within .... amount of time or you are fired. Potential employees will have to submit to testing and fall within the guidelines or they will be denied employment. My point was that we stand on a very slippery slope. When we allow our freedoms to be limited....we risk losing all of our freedoms. And currently in West Hollywood, you cannot smoke on the balcony of your apartment because God forbid, someone else may smell it in their apartment. The whole point is to ban smoking because they don't like it. Why don't people just be honest and admit it?

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125