- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 17,036
- Reaction score
- 9,084
- Location
- Montreal, QC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No one said you have to stand next to someone that smokes or sit in an establishment that would allow it. What makes you so morally superior that allows you the right to deny another the use of a legal substance in a restaurant or bar or deny a business owner the choice of offering a smoke free establishment or allow smoking?
my second favorite waitress of all time at a TGIF was a former nurse (she waited tables after her husband got transferred to Cincinnati). She hated smoking but she always worked in the smoking section. I said-Jenny why do you work in that section-she said easy-smokers tip a lot better-especially 28 year old really gorgeous servers
Well the general good of society due to the public health risk. No one should be able to opt out of a vaccine for the same reason, they are a goddamned public health risk.
The bolded certainly seems to be true. Perhaps I should give up nursing, and wait tables. :lol:
The bolded certainly seems to be true. Perhaps I should give up nursing, and wait tables. :lol:
You need to work on that collectivist mindset you are stuck in. You can do it. Individualism brings such liberties with it, and when you stand up for the liberties of others you protect your own. Cheers!
she was maybe the prettiest female friend I ever had. quiet, brilliant, and really kind. But she got great tips for looking stunning in a short black skirt. and smokers tended to tip that far better than the families who were in the non smoking section.
I have found that smokers tend to be much better tippers, no matter what the waitress/waiter looked like, as long as service was good.
Based on my observations in working in and owning restaurants many years ago, I believe this is true. Many smokers view sitting around and smoking while eating & drinking as something of a relaxing and fun social event, and thus are more free with their gratitude.I have found that smokers tend to be much better tippers, no matter what the waitress/waiter looked like, as long as service was good.
No you are wrong sugar. If a substance is deemed legal the federal government has no constitutional right to hinder a business owner in making decisions whether to allow smoking or not. State governments take such things to the vote of the people. They often forget it is a legal substance. If they are so damn against it why do they keep voting for all those increases in sin taxes? They as states actually have the right to ban the substance if they wish. But you don't see the hypocrites do that now do you? In fact most of those who vote for increases in the sin tax and bans on smoking in public are social conservatives or control freak liberals. And if you were to take a poll within their congregations who often frown on the use of tobacco and alcohol you would find a good portion of the congregations taking prescription drugs to ease their pain and anxieties. I call that hypocrites what about you?It is the job of the government to pass legislation for the good of society and anti-smoking legislation is an example of that. It is a ****ing disgusting activity that damages pblic health.
No you are wrong sugar. If a substance is deemed legal the federal government has no constitutional right to hinder a business owner in making decisions whether to allow smoking or not. State governments take such things to the vote of the people. They often forget it is a legal substance. If they are so damn against it why do they keep voting for all those increases in sin taxes? They as states actually have the right to ban the substance if they wish. But you don't see the hypocrites do that now do you? In fact most of those who vote for increases in the sin tax and bans on smoking in public are social conservatives. And if you were to take a poll within their congregations who often frown on the use of tobacco and alcohol you would find a good portion of the congregations taking prescription drugs to ease their pain and anxieties. I call that hypocrites what about you?
Well a lot of states here in the U.S. are doing the same. And there are many who do not apply the same standards to smoking weed to cigarettes which makes not a damn bit of sense. Cigarettes do not alter your ability to function. This is all due to a consorted effort by those who think they must charge forth and make the decisions for all what is best for them. It is the nanny state effect. If you are one of them, you need to be stopped because you rob people of their rights.We tax it to stop hope using it, for example I believe New Zealand is slowly increasing cigarette taxes to 100% in an effort to eradicate smoking. I don't knwo about where you live but smoking is frowned upon by almost every group on both sides of the political spectrum, except maybe the older generation (65+). I don't care if you smoke weed but if you smoke cigarettes most of society now frowns upon that.
Well a lot of states here in the U.S. are doing the same. And there are many who do not apply the same standards to smoking weed to cigarettes which makes not a damn bit of sense. Cigarettes do not alter your ability to function. This is all due to a consorted effort by those who think they must charge forth and make the decisions for all what is best for them. It is the nanny state effect. If you are one of them, you need to be stopped because you rob people of their rights.
That's what they say. Part of me believes that they actually believe it to some extent.We tax it to stop hope using it, for example I believe New Zealand is slowly increasing cigarette taxes to 100% in an effort to eradicate smoking. I don't knwo about where you live but smoking is frowned upon by almost every group on both sides of the political spectrum, except maybe the older generation (65+). I don't care if you smoke weed, weed is fine cigarettes are not.
I think it should be up to the owner, if they want it to be a smoking bar/restaurant then let them do so. Just put up a sign, if you're concerned about second hand smoke then don't go there, if you do want to smoke or it doesn't bother you then feel free to go. I hate smoking, it's unhealthy and terrible for your health. However, it's legal and smokers should be allowed to have establishments for them to smoke socially.
What about perfume? I have allergies, and perfumes set it off so I want a law passed that bans all perfumes, colognes, or other forms of "scent hazards".
That has just as much validity as your claims do.
And if you would notice what 90% of us are saying, it should be the choice of the business owner, not a "free for all with smoking allowed anywhere". If you do not smoke, simply pick a location that does not allow it.
See, it is that simple!
And if you think I am joking, I am not. Sausalito is already a "fragrance free zone", with no scents allowed in public venues. And many communities have laws of varying degrees, with New Hampshire trying to pass one now.
Businesses, governments ban scents to accommodate allergy sufferers
And these people can claim just as much of a right to ban scents as you do tobacco. So, do we just ban everything?
Much of the SHS hype is overrated.
The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Truth about Secondhand Smoke | Heartland Institute
No it doesn't make his argument invalid. You want a smoke free home then you have that choice. You want to eat in restaurants that are smoke free then you have that choice too. But what you don't have is the right to force on others your choices. When you cross that line you are violating their rights and their choices. If a business owner wants to allow smoking then there is no good reason for you to give a flying flip because you need not enter and give your business elsewhere. If workers are offended by an establishment that allows smoking they can move on and seek employment in a place that is smoke free. If parents smoke it is none of your damn business. Take care of your own business and keep your nose out of everyone else's.
If a restaurant owner wants his or her restaurant to be smoke free, then it really isn't an imposition.
And if they want smokers in their restaurant? Then what? Screw them? My previous comment wasn't just about smoking and restaurants it was about other impositions as well. Tolerance is a TWO way street.
Why would it be a problem?No, if you read my posts you would see I said it should be up to the owner. I acknowledged that it could pose a problem for those restaurants that wished to remain nonsmoking though.
Why would it be a problem?
The only problem is that the restaurants who don't allow smoking will lose a customer base, so more than likely there would be very few nonsmoking establishments.
That's what they say. Part of me believes that they actually believe it to some extent.
But... fact is they like the money, and have created and/or expanded government programs and bureaucracies... not all of which are smoking-related... that are funded by this tax money. If push comes to shove, they'd rather have their programs than healthy people not paying taxes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?