Marylanders Support Smoking Ban

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It could be worse...

dck4shrt said:
So by your argument, the owner of a privately owned establishment has the freedom to keep an unsanitary kitchen, too. Hundreds of people will get sickened, word of mouth will spread that its a bum kitchen, and they'll close up shop. So maybe we should do away with sanitation laws for establishments and let the free market take care of it.

Oh, and they can also let hundreds of extra people into the joint to pack the place, and then when a fire breaks out and no one can get out and they all die, everyone else will know not to go there anymore because it was unsafe. The free market system will have figured out which places were safe and which ones weren't.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...+a+mobile...+and+lose+your+vehicle/article.do
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
dck4shrt said:
So by your argument, the owner of a privately owned establishment has the freedom to keep an unsanitary kitchen, too.
Ever hear of a little thing called "food poisoning"? And ever see what happens when an outbreak of it hits the news?

The free market system works. Move to China if you don't like it.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
:elaine: Cigarette smoke is the byproduct of a your pleasure. It contaminates the air, my hair, my clothes and my lungs. I also have a pleasure; I like beer. The byproduct of my pleasure is urine. How would you like it if I urinated on your head???? :elaine:
 

Tinkerbell

Baby blues
Bird Dog said:
:elaine: Cigarette smoke is the byproduct of a your pleasure. It contaminates the air, my hair, my clothes and my lungs. I also have a pleasure; I like beer. The byproduct of my pleasure is urine. How would you like it if I urinated on your head???? :elaine:


Just try not to drive drunk and kill anyone. :yay:
 

dck4shrt

New Member
vraiblonde said:
Ever hear of a little thing called "food poisoning"? And ever see what happens when an outbreak of it hits the news?

The free market system works. Move to China if you don't like it.

Didn't I insinuate that outcome in my post? The point of sanitation laws is to try to stop people from getting sick and/or dying because society views getting sick and dying as bad things to happen. Such a bad thing to happen that in fact society is interested in preventing food poisoning BEFORE an outbreak happens. Society does not want to let the free market system take care of it, after 100 people have gotten the runs, or 100 have died in a nightclub fire, or 3000 have died from lung cancer due to 2nd hand smoke.
 
Last edited:

pingrr

Well-Known Member
Calvert newbie said:
I think maine made it illegal to smoke when a child is in the car

Thats a dumb law. I blow smoke in my kids face all the time. I havn't herd any complaints about it yet.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ok...

Bird Dog said:
:elaine: Cigarette smoke is the byproduct of a your pleasure. It contaminates the air, my hair, my clothes and my lungs. I also have a pleasure; I like beer. The byproduct of my pleasure is urine. How would you like it if I urinated on your head???? :elaine:

...that's completely out of bounds, over the top and besides the point. I can't believe anyone would even remotely try and compare the two. You should be ashamed of yourself.






Urine is sterile. :lmao:
 

dck4shrt

New Member
vraiblonde said:
But what the sheeple DON'T have a right to do is take some activist's rhetoric as the gospel and turn them into laws that infringe on the rest of us (the ones who actually do some research to get a fact or two, and have a shred of common sense to sort it out with).


People with a shred of common sense don't smoke.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
dck4shrt said:
So by your argument, the owner of a privately owned establishment has the freedom to keep an unsanitary kitchen, too. Hundreds of people will get sickened, word of mouth will spread that its a bum kitchen, and they'll close up shop. So maybe we should do away with sanitation laws for establishments and let the free market take care of it.

Oh, and they can also let hundreds of extra people into the joint to pack the place, and then when a fire breaks out and no one can get out and they all die, everyone else will know not to go there anymore because it was unsafe. The free market system will have figured out which places were safe and which ones weren't.
That is the way it used to work before people got too stupid to think for themselves.
 

Ponytail

New Member
Pooh31 said:
New York already has this in effect and I thought I was gonna go crazy when we went to the bar and I could not smoke. I can agree with not smoking in resturants but a bar? Most people go to a bar and know that it is gonna be smoky in there.

Which is the prime reason that I dont go to bars around here. :wink: When I go home to Philly, I go to the bars in Delaware...they are smoke free. :yay:
 

johnjrval424

New Member
I don't think there is ever going to be a right or wrong answer to this argument. Any time you are dealing with someone's rights, it is going to be debated from here to eternity.

Some salient points:

Okay - so you aren't comfortable going into a bar where people are smoking and you are a non-smoker. The 3-4 hours you spend in there isn't going to make that much of an impact on your health. First of all, unless you are sucking the exhaling smoke out of the other person's mouth, the nominal amount of smoke you breathe isn't enough to cause you lung cancer. The other argument is that it is for the benefit of the workers. WELL - here's where common sense comes in. If the fact that you work in a smoky environment bothers you - get another job. No one is forcing you to work there. My husband is a welder. He inhales fumes from welding rods, asbestos (yes, it is still in the schools on the boilers and walls) and, when he has to go under a building and crawl through a narrow space to weld pipes, he has no choice but to inhale the stuff. He's been doing this for 30 years - why? Because he enjoys welding - point being, he knew the risks going into the job. If he didn't like the risks, he would have gotten one that didn't put him in harm's way - much like a lot of other occupations out there.

Now, for the smoking/non-smoking part of a restaurant/bar. This is already in place in virtually every restaurant I have visited. The first question they ask after you tell them how many people in the party is "Smoking or Non." Again, the amount of smokers in a restaurant, versus the amount of non-smokers, greatly reduces the amount of cigarette smoke being projected into the establishment.

Every one wants to say that "I have rights, too" and you do. You have the right NOT to go into a particular restaurant/bar if the smoke is too much for you. The smokers have the right to sit their butt on a bar stool and smoke until the visibility goes down to zero. We could quote statistics all night long but the fact is - basically anything we do these days is bad for our health. You won't go into a bar where there is cigarette smoke but you'll eat fried chicken from Popeyes? Or, as Tim McGraw sang in his song, you'll have a ".99 heart attack" - referring to the fast food burger joints. All of these things are "supposed" to be bad for you but you still eat them. What were you planning to do when you went in that bar? Drink a beer? Well, there goes your liver. I'm sure you could probably find a statistic or one of those useless studies that "suggests" that drinking alcohol shortens your liver/kidney life expectancy.

I say, leave well enough alone, shut up and go about your life. After all, people who jogged 5 miles a day have dropped dead of heart attacks. When it's your time, you're outta here...
 
johnjrval424 said:
I don't think there is ever going to be a right or wrong answer to this argument. Any time you are dealing with someone's rights, it is going to be debated from here to eternity.

Some salient points:

Okay - so you aren't comfortable going into a bar where people are smoking and you are a non-smoker. The 3-4 hours you spend in there isn't going to make that much of an impact on your health. First of all, unless you are sucking the exhaling smoke out of the other person's mouth, the nominal amount of smoke you breathe isn't enough to cause you lung cancer. The other argument is that it is for the benefit of the workers. WELL - here's where common sense comes in. If the fact that you work in a smoky environment bothers you - get another job. No one is forcing you to work there. My husband is a welder. He inhales fumes from welding rods, asbestos (yes, it is still in the schools on the boilers and walls) and, when he has to go under a building and crawl through a narrow space to weld pipes, he has no choice but to inhale the stuff. He's been doing this for 30 years - why? Because he enjoys welding - point being, he knew the risks going into the job. If he didn't like the risks, he would have gotten one that didn't put him in harm's way - much like a lot of other occupations out there.

Now, for the smoking/non-smoking part of a restaurant/bar. This is already in place in virtually every restaurant I have visited. The first question they ask after you tell them how many people in the party is "Smoking or Non." Again, the amount of smokers in a restaurant, versus the amount of non-smokers, greatly reduces the amount of cigarette smoke being projected into the establishment.

Every one wants to say that "I have rights, too" and you do. You have the right NOT to go into a particular restaurant/bar if the smoke is too much for you. The smokers have the right to sit their butt on a bar stool and smoke until the visibility goes down to zero. We could quote statistics all night long but the fact is - basically anything we do these days is bad for our health. You won't go into a bar where there is cigarette smoke but you'll eat fried chicken from Popeyes? Or, as Tim McGraw sang in his song, you'll have a ".99 heart attack" - referring to the fast food burger joints. All of these things are "supposed" to be bad for you but you still eat them. What were you planning to do when you went in that bar? Drink a beer? Well, there goes your liver. I'm sure you could probably find a statistic or one of those useless studies that "suggests" that drinking alcohol shortens your liver/kidney life expectancy.

I say, leave well enough alone, shut up and go about your life. After all, people who jogged 5 miles a day have dropped dead of heart attacks. When it's your time, you're outta here...

Can't say it any better than that, I totally agree!! :howdy: :yay:
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
OK, so smoking presents a "public health risk."

Bullschit. I've never had a problem with anyone smoking in my face. But why banning smoking? Why not stop there and ban drinking and then ban soft drinks and "fattening" food? Then what is next?

Alot of the people who are against smoking because of the public health (oh by the way, your car is more of a public health risk than a piece of paper that's been lit on fire) also say homosexuality should be banned because it affects their mentality.

Someone who drinks and drives is far more likely to kill me than someone who blows a little bit of smoke in my face.
  • During 2004, 7,810 passenger vehicle occupants under 15 years old were involved in fatal crashes. For those children, where restraint use was known, 29 percent were unrestrained; among those who were fatally injured, 50 percent were unrestrained. (NHTSA, 2005)
http://www.madd.org/stats/4567

So, it turns out more CHILDREN UNDER 15 are killed by drunk drivers than total people killed by second hand smoke. That's only children under 15!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
johnjrval424 said:
Some salient points:
Good post, Val :yay:

But trying to get the anti-smoking zealots to be reasonable is like teaching pigs to sing - just wastes your time and annoys the pig. They point, you counterpoint, they go...uhhh...then come up with some weird scenario, you point out how unlikely that is to happen, then they want to talk about some poor indentured servant who is FORCED against their will to work in a restaurant or bar where people smoke.

Two health hazards that I'd like to see banned: full-fat snack chips and sugared sodas. I only drink sugar-free soda and eat reduced fat chips, because sugar and fat are bad for you and lead to heart disease, which is the #1 killer of adult Americans. Who's with me on lobbying to get these killers banned?

Dick? Mike? Wanna save the world with me? :dance:
 

Azzy

New Member
Bustem' Down said:
I always sit in non smoking at a restaurant becuase I don't like to smoke when I eat.
Are you crazy? I smoke the whole time I'm eating! I LOVE smoke on my food :yum: :lol:
 

Mikeinsmd

New Member
vraiblonde said:
Good post, Val :yay:

But trying to get the anti-smoking zealots to be reasonable is like teaching pigs to sing - just wastes your time and annoys the pig. They point, you counterpoint, they go...uhhh...then come up with some weird scenario, you point out how unlikely that is to happen, then they want to talk about some poor indentured servant who is FORCED against their will to work in a restaurant or bar where people smoke.

Two health hazards that I'd like to see banned: full-fat snack chips and sugared sodas. I only drink sugar-free soda and eat reduced fat chips, because sugar and fat are bad for you and lead to heart disease, which is the #1 killer of adult Americans. Who's with me on lobbying to get these killers banned?

Dick? Mike? Wanna save the world with me? :dance:
:whoosh: You miss the point dearest one.

I don't want to smell the stench. I couldn't care less if you smoke yourself to an early grave. :huggy:

I can't smell a drunk drinking at the next table (usually) or the fat guy with him (usually).

Their drinking and eating has no effect on my health unless they drink & drive or sit on me. :smack:
 
Top