Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2007, 01:52 PM   #21
Shashakiro
TWO THOUZAND COMBO
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Shashakiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Booflagville
Age: 32
Posts: 9,082
Send a message via AIM to Shashakiro
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

There's no way all restaurants could ever be monopolized by smoking. Basically anyone can make food and open a restaurant, and if all the restaurants allowed smoking for some reason, someone could just open a non-smoking restaurant and instantly get business from everyone who detests secondhand smoke, which would be an awful lot of people.
__________________
4th Official FFR Tournament - Master division champion!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogiebear
use ur bain. Itz there for a reason.
Shashakiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 02:40 PM   #22
Sir_Thomas
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Yeah true but thats like saying "Hey! No blacks are allowed here! MAKE YOUR OWN RESTARAUNT!"

Some people like fast food like Tacobell, McDonalds, Burgerking, etc... and before laws were passed you had a smokers section in everyone of them.

I quote my friends... "A smoking debate is combining the worst. Its like rolling a Global Warming and Religious debate all into one."

Honestly, if they had a well ventilated, seperate room for smokers, I would be all for it.
The only problem with that would be when a family goes out to eat the parents who smoke would probably end up dragging her kid into the room too.

Like I said, you CAN go to an Non Smoking restaurant, sure... Most upclass restaurant are probably non smoking.. Business wise though, it would bad move.

People are used to smoking sections... and smoking in bars... They wont leave because they know that it will be the same no matter where they go, so they wont leave. Opening one restaurant wouldnt really change that much... Now sure, if they did that nation wide, and it ended up evening out the ratio of smoking establishments to non smoking establishments thats cool... Right now it doesnt have enough support, and wont get enough support because society is too used to it.

A smoker walks into a restaurant or a fast food place and sees a Non Smoking sign.
He walks out and finds another one with smoking. They are losing business.

A non smoker walks into a restaurant and sees people smoking. He wont walk out because he knows it will be pretty much anywhere he goes.

In both situations the customer isnt happy, but in the first persons case, he can and knows he can just walk out and find a dozen other places with smoking. The person would lose business... In the second persons case though, he will end up staying because he knows this as well, and leaving would cut down his options a ton.

The service industry knows this too, im sure. Think of it like this.
-If we dont allow smoking, we will lose business from smokers and will hardly increase our business from non smokers.
-If we do allow smoking we would hardly lose business from non smokers, because smoking is such a common place, and will keep our business with the smoking population.

Its a downhill spiral, an uphill battle. It's pretty much a huge paradox. One thinks "I cant go anywhere else." and the other thinks "Well they wont go anywhere else so why change?". Same with gas.

Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-11-2007 at 03:01 PM..
Sir_Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 02:53 PM   #23
flawofhumanity
MMM WATCHA SAY
FFR Veteran
 
flawofhumanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 30
Posts: 628
Send a message via AIM to flawofhumanity
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Yeah true but thats like saying "Hey! No blacks are allowed here! MAKE YOUR OWN RESTARAUNT!"
Bad comparison. The color of your skin isn't optional, and it's the non-smokers choice to not be around smoking, not a necessity. I definitely maintain that it should be the choice of the owner of the business to allow smoking or not, until cigarettes are illegal the government shouldn't interfere with what is and isn't allowed on the private business premises.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Some people like fast food like Tacobell, McDonalds, Burgerking, etc... and before laws were passed you had a smokers section in everyone of them.
Drive Thru, take out, and they even have places to eat outside in most cases.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by pntballa18 View Post
flaw cause he's well hung


flawofhumanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 02:59 PM   #24
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Government making smoking illegal = Government making taxes on cigarettes higher = Governments legislating towards the health of the population.

If you are ok with governments making such decisions in general, you'd support a smoking ban. If you are not ok with governments making such decisions on general, you'd not support a smoking ban.
No ****. Guido obviously doesn't like the government doing what the government thinks is best for the people. It infringes on their rights to screw themselves over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
No matter what you want to say, you cannot deny that smoking is -bad- for you and those around you. It comes down to which right is "more important" My right to go to all the same buildings you do without being made to second-hand smoke, or your right to create an atmosphere where a large segment of the population won't want to go, and which is intrinsically harmful to you as a person.
Taken other things he's said about smoking in other threads, I take it Guido has never smoked nor does he plan to. He is just against limiting freedoms by regulation. Naturally, being a libertarian, I am, too.

With that said, it should be the owner's choice. Your ultimatum is wrong--it truly comes down to the right for a building owner to choose or not choose what the people inside are allowed to do. By allowing smoking in public space, it does not need to be granted everywhere. By all means, ban smoke from your own public space. Or allow it.

Don't like the people smoking there? Don't go. It's as simple as that. You do not need to go anywhere you do not want to for any reason. And if people stop going because of the smoke, wouldn't it be good business practice to ban it from your restaurant? See how the whole system balances itself out without limiting the freedom for an owner to do what they want? In this model with more freedoms, they can do what is more practical for their business. This opens up competition--maybe X restaurant doesn't have a smoking section. That's the owner's choice. But, hey, Y restaurant does, and you want to go to a restaurant with a smoking section. To restrict or not promotes business and appeal to consumers, and you can give people more incentives to come to Y over X, even if X has slightly better food and prices and you'd get overran by them without your choice to open a smoking section.

And, by the way, it is not crazy to assume people would go to a restaurant because it has a smoking section. I mean, some people wouldn't go to one because they have them. And that's the magic of capitalism and the free market--let people nitpick. No reason is a bad reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Quote:
Not hyperbole.
Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.
Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 07-11-2007 at 03:15 PM..
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 04:20 PM   #25
BzT
Chronic Bud Toker
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
BzT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: w/e
Age: 28
Posts: 940
Send a message via AIM to BzT Send a message via Yahoo to BzT Send a message via Skype™ to BzT
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

...

BzT
__________________



BzT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 04:26 PM   #26
teh_masterers
Mashes on every song.
FFR Veteran
 
teh_masterers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: I'm a Gypsy.
Posts: 136
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

it kinda likes men when u here all of the stories about people dying, but then u realize most of them hung around smokers all of the time lol which is pretty funny when u look at it, but u shouldnt smoke anyway cause its crap 4 your body an the environment... oh screw this!!!! why do i care. yours truly,
__________________

Last edited by teh_masterers; 07-13-2007 at 10:44 PM..
teh_masterers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 04:48 PM   #27
Sir_Thomas
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by flawofhumanity View Post
Bad comparison. The color of your skin isn't optional, and it's the non-smokers choice to not be around smoking, not a necessity.
The fact that people have no choice on what the color of there skin is, is not as relevant to the comparison really. The comparison was aimed an example on how the choices of private businesses breach someones constitutional rights and how the mindset "You can go somewhere else.." is the equivalenet to the mindset of Jim Crow laws. A black person cannot eat at a white mans restaurant, but they can eat at black restaurants." What black restaraunts? What non-smoking restaraunts? One out of every 20? Some crappy cafe that you may not even like?

While the blacks had no choice whether to stay or go whatsoever while smokers can.. but like I said before, we are back to the issue that both examples have in common "What other places?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by flawofhumanity View Post
Drive Thru, take out, and they even have places to eat outside in most cases.
When you are limiting people to the extreme, in America at least, that is a breach of ones constitutional rights. You are allowed to live your life how you want as long as you do not put intrude on someone elses rights to live how they want. Now even if you arent living in America, its a common sensed, and humanist right. Everyone should be able to live there life how they want, as long as they dont intude on others rights. One may say that a business owner has rights as well, but by setting certain rules, and allowing certain activities to take place, he is is intruding on others rights as well.


This breach of rights is to the extreme when people cant sit or eat where they want without enhaling non productive and harmful chemicals (That are not produced by natural minds, mind you...).
Sir_Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 05:21 PM   #28
flawofhumanity
MMM WATCHA SAY
FFR Veteran
 
flawofhumanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 30
Posts: 628
Send a message via AIM to flawofhumanity
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
The fact that people have no choice on what the color of there skin is, is not as relevant to the comparison really. The comparison was aimed an example on how the choices of private businesses breach someones constitutional rights and how the mindset "You can go somewhere else.." is the equivalenet to the mindset of Jim Crow laws. A black person cannot eat at a white mans restaurant, but they can eat at black restaurants." What black restaraunts? What non-smoking restaraunts? One out of every 20? Some crappy cafe that you may not even like?

While the blacks had no choice whether to stay or go whatsoever while smokers can.. but like I said before, we are back to the issue that both examples have in common "What other places?"
Actually, it's not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws at all. A non-smoker can eat at a smoking restaurant, he just chooses not to. Also, there isn't a difference between what a smoker and non smoker earn in terms of wages that is nearly as significant of that between blacks and whites during the Jim Crow Laws.

As for the health problems, I'm not saying that it should be allowed, I'm saying that it should be the choice of the private business owner on whether to allow it or not. By government interference and disallowing it at all, you effectively make it impossible for smokers to fully enjoy their time in a bar, club, restaurants, or even cafes. Why don't smokers have the right to have facilities in which they can both have a bite to eat and maybe a smoke afterwards?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by pntballa18 View Post
flaw cause he's well hung


flawofhumanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 05:34 PM   #29
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Wow Carbo. No...
Youre rights are void if what you are doing infringes on multiple peoples rights.
That one is common sense, and common legislation.
What? Newsflash: NOBODY IS INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS! You have the right to go by them and they have the right to smoke. Don't like the smoke? Stay away from them! Your rights are infringed when they are taken away from you by the government.
__________________
last.fm
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 05:22 AM   #30
Sir_Thomas
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_carbo View Post
What? Newsflash: NOBODY IS INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS! You have the right to go by them and they have the right to smoke. Don't like the smoke? Stay away from them! Your rights are infringed when they are taken away from you by the government.
Wow...
You need to take legislation classes.
Read my arguement because THE REBUTTAL ALL YOU SAID IS THERE!

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". While Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions", Adam Smith coined the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". The expression "pursuit of happiness" was coined by Dr. Samuel Johnson in his 1759 novel Rasselas.
By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.

Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.

Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.
And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.

By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights. The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.

Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-12-2007 at 05:42 AM..
Sir_Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 10:34 AM   #31
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.
The others around them voluntarily bring the harm upon themselves, therefore their rights are not infringed.

Quote:
Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.
Name the specific part of the constitution that shows that allowing private businesses to allow smoking is unconstitutional.

Quote:
And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.
You could go somewhere other than a restaurant. There is no constitutional entitlement to business exchange.

Quote:
By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights.
Define "extremely". How few places can you go before all other places have collectively infringed upon rights. 500? 200? 3?

Quote:
The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.
Someone else already addressed this. The Jim Crow laws were flat out designed to allow businesses to not serve Blacks. On the other hand, restaurants that allow smoking do not ban people that do not smoke. Because of this, anyone can go to virtually any restaurant and if there is second hand smoke there, by staying they are consenting to pay the extra cost associated with second hand smoke to receive the services of the restaurant.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 10:39 AM   #32
jpcduran
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ill-NoiZe
Age: 34
Posts: 394
Send a message via AIM to jpcduran
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

This is a very good subject. Myself being a smoker I understand how non-smokers feel about second hand smoke and I do agree with banning in public places. But for private place I don't understand.
__________________

Tier Points: 109 (109 + 0 for 81 AAAs)
Engler's School Of FFR: Drop Out
jpcduran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 11:21 AM   #33
alainbryden
Seen your member
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
alainbryden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: noitacoL
Age: 33
Posts: 2,873
Send a message via AIM to alainbryden Send a message via MSN to alainbryden Send a message via Yahoo to alainbryden
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

I agree with Jewpin and Guido in that smoking in privately owned businesses should not be regulated. People are knowledgeable enough of the dangers and unpleasantnesses of second hand smoke - but there will always be alternatives and options.

That's how the free market works. If you don't like what one private business is doing, you use the services of another. If second hand smoke was enough of a problem for individuals to warrant making laws about it - then some competitor would start making a killing off of smoke free environments and a balance would be established.

The desires of people dictate how the services market behaves - and should also dictate how the law behaves. If there aren't enough smoke free private facilities then it's not because the law isn't protecting the interests of individuals - it's because the number individuals that care enough to go somewhere else are outweighed by the people wanting to smoke, and so the private owners see no reason to change their policy and decrease their traffic.

Naturally the same distribution of people who are annoyed by smoke to people who are annoyed by lack of a place to smoke should also determine the outcome of a vote to implement a non-smoking bylaw. In a way, the market already held the vote.
__________________
~NEIGH
alainbryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 02:57 PM   #34
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcduran View Post
This is a very good subject. Myself being a smoker I understand how non-smokers feel about second hand smoke and I do agree with banning in public places. But for private place I don't understand.
Er...they -aren't- banned from private places. They aren't even banned from "ten feet outside a public place" either.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 03:03 PM   #35
sk1mNskat3
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 88
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.
sk1mNskat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 03:38 PM   #36
twitching77
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
twitching77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 88
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk1mNskat3 View Post
Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.
lmfao. . .
well you do bring up a good point. . .i'll give you that
__________________
twitching77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 06:13 PM   #37
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Wow...
You need to take legislation classes.
You need to learn the workings of the free market including and not limited to how giving businesses more options and not legislating them promotes more competition by allowing businesses to appeal to smaller crowds that would otherwise go to an otherwise better place. You ALSO need to learn more about your own darn free will along with your rights and privileges as a person in the USA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.

Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.
What if their customers, rather, the market they're trying to appeal to, is a smoker's market? Isn't that infringing on the businesses' rights? The smokers' rights? Just don't go to the restaurant. You are not entitled to enjoy going there, and you are only harming yourself by doing so. It is your choice to go to a place full of smokers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.
And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.

By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights. The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.
Jim Crowe laws were disallowed for a very different reason. There is no comparison. That is the denial of services due to race. Nobody is denied services by having a smoking section in a restaurant. It is your choice to go or not. And as I said before, if smoking sections make customers stay away, it is good business practice (a.k.a. greed, becuz all buznes ownurs r greedy amirite?) to ban it from your own personal restaurant, thus balancing out this pointless legislation.

Lastly, that last sentence makes no sense. Erm, you told me to take courses on legislation? I suggest you do. Or listen to your professor better. Or get a better professor. Or use better clarity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk1mNskat3 View Post
Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.
A bartender deliberately takes that job knowing there will be smokers, assuming the guy isn't an idiot and that smoking isn't banned at the bar. By chance are you a bartender? Then if this is such a concern, I only have one question for you and your common sense: what were you thinking?

Secondly, this is debate. No **** we are not out to change the law. We are here to enlighten each other.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 07-12-2007 at 06:20 PM..
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 01:53 PM   #38
Sir_Thomas
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_carbo View Post

Lastly, that last sentence makes no sense. Erm, you told me to take courses on legislation? I suggest you do. Or listen to your professor better. Or get a better professor. Or use better clarity.


While I was a bit clear last night on that one...

I would consider limiting someones options on where he/she can eat or drink in an industry where almost every placed allowed smoking (before laws started getting passed) is a breach of someones rights.

Essentially, by saying they have a choice to be there or not, you are saying they should just cut themselves off from using the service industry, or die from second hand smoke... when allowing second hand smoke in an establishment is a violation the ones constitutional rights in the first place.


This is not the half of it. Just trying to make that bit unclear.. More later

Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-14-2007 at 04:19 PM..
Sir_Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 02:59 PM   #39
Dragula219
FFR Player
 
Dragula219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Much sexier than Hayden Panettiere
Age: 30
Posts: 629
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas View Post
By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.
That is a completely false statement, and it's been told to you at least 10 times in this thread. You still insist on not listening to anyone else.

Just because all businesses are private doesn't mean you have to go to the ones that allow smoking. You don't have the right to go where ever you damn well please with encountering something you don't like. Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that "Non-Smokers have nowhere to go, because all businesses allow smoking. To not allow it would be a bad business move." I guess you can't see how many things are wrong with that statement. To reinforce what lord_carbo already said:

1. That is false! There are SO many private businesses that don't allow smoking. In fact, I'd venture to say that move businesses don't allow smoking than do.
2. It can be seen as a bad businesses move to ALLOW smoking, because no non-smokers will want to go there.
3. Visa-Versa: It can be seen as a good business move not allow smoking, because non smokers will go there. That's how capitalism works.
4. If you're saying that all businesses will have a smoking section, then what's the problem? You're not in the same area as the smokers anyway. The fact that you said parents would bring there kids into a smoking section just because they smoke shows you have prejudice against smokers to start. You think that just because someone smokes they don't care about there kids health?

The Main Point: None of that even matters. Why? Because, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO A PLACE WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED. There will always be places you can go that don't allow smoking. End of discussion.
__________________
Violent Skank is Violent!
Dragula219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 03:10 PM   #40
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Second Hand Smoke

Quote:
The fact that you said parents would bring there kids into a smoking section just because they smoke shows you have prejudice against smokers to start. You think that just because someone smokes they don't care about there kids health?
I was exposed to more second-hand smoke from my parents as a child, than from any other source at any other time in my life. At no point do I consider that to be a result of poor parenting, or a lack of knowledge about second hand smoke. That is almost entirely "I am physically addicted to smoking, and when I crave a cigarette, I must have one" and if you're in a situation where you can't go elsewhere for a smoke (ie. that to do so you would have to leave your child unattended in a public place) well, I guess that just means your kid gets some second-hand death.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution