ClumsyMonkey.net

bitch, bitch, bitch.

Let's cool it guys.

i am not wrong until i am proven so. since none of you have attempted to do so, i am assuming that you accept my position as valid.

if you do not, please explain why. if you cannot explain why you think my position is invalid, i should think you would feel rather silly.

ugh, is this issue really that important? Even if it goes through, 20 years from now no ones going to care or even notice anything. Lets just let it go

Corey wrote:What if I'm a business owner, and I steal money from my employees' wallets when they are in my store. They accept the risk of that by working there so its ok right?

no because stealing is illegal, smokings not.

you know what
i smoke

and if im walking down the street puffin on a cig, people dont complain about it

and you know what else? how many people who go to the bars/ bowling alleys smoke u think? percentage wise? they did a lil study here of some bars and bowling alleys, and overall 80% of the people in the establishment at any time were smoking. they tried to do this already once here, and it was struck down by the ohio supreme court... u know why? BECAUSE ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. think of it like this. do i come into your home and smoke? no. do i sit in your car and smoke? no. what i do when i go to a public place is my business, if you dont like the smoke then move away from me, its easy. besides that.... someone in here tell me ONE case thats been SINGLE HANDEDLY ATTRIBUTTED TO SECOND HAND SMOKE.
i guarantee you won't find one.

its the same as those commercials that claim people who "had marijauana in their blood" crash their car. well guess what, what they dont tell you is that the kid was also drunk off his ass, and the weed was in his blood from 2 weeks b4. don't believe all that fuckin crap u see on TV. all these "Truth" ADs? thats BS... tobacco companies cant have commercials or anything but people can slander them all they want? thats crap.. there's beer commercials on all time... and guess what, alcohol can kill you instantly unlike a cigarette.

to make a long story short, if you don't like the smoke, then don't go near it, and if you sit next to me and complain im smoking, ill tell ya to fuck off.

You're an idiot.

You used the term "public place" which would mean it IS other people's business and they DO have a right to tell you what you can do there. If you had said "private" then that would be a different story.

Dan is right though. People are going to do things that you don't like, but you can't make them stop doing it. I live in a neighborhood where everyone now thinks they're black or in Good Chartlotte, and as much as I would like to punch each little fucker in the face, I don't, because it's their right to look like a complete ass clown. I have no right to tell them how fucking stupid they look and to tell them to stop dressing like morons.

So I still don't see why anyone should have the right to go into a privately owned building and tell everyone to stop smoking. If the statistics Dan said were true, then why should the smokers have to change? Remember how America works for the well-being of the majority? Well, last time I checked, the 20% are not the majority.

If you don't like being in smoke-filled bars, then I'd recommend you don't go there anymore. No one is forcing you to go to these places and inhale smoke. You make the conscious decision to get dressed up and go to the bar, therefore, you have no right to come home and complain about how your clothes smell like smoke. You didn't have to go there. Anyways, the majority of people in a bar are drinking and smoking, and you know this well in advace, so if you really have such a huge problem with the smoke, remember this, no one is forcing you to go there. So either you don't go to the bar or you put up with smoke for a night, but you can't go and tell the majority of people going to bars to change what they've done since they started going.

if this law is so wrong
then why is it not wrong to prohibit smoking in schools and hospitals and malls and places like that?

and i'm pretty sure that in michigan, if a restaurant has less than a certain amount of seats, it has to be all non-smoking

so what if a smoker goes into one of those restaurants and wants to smoke, and the server says that it is a non-smoking institution. Are they denying him of his privilages or anything

OLPMazurite wrote:if this law is so wrong
then why is it not wrong to prohibit smoking in schools and hospitals and malls and places like that?

In out school they lock all the bathrooms but one. All the smokers go into that bathroom, and the people who aren't going to smoke and really do have to tink have to sit there in the smoke because it's too much of a hassle to ask a teacher for a key, and they usually say no anyway.

Is it fair? I don't think so. The students think they should have a designated spot for people to smoke because they're not going to stop it by having almost all the bathrooms locked, and they're too stupid to put silent alarms in there to bust the kids whenever they're in there (or maybe they thought of that allready, I don't know). But that would be illegal.

kind've offtopic, just felt like mentioning it..

OLPMazurite wrote:so what if a smoker goes into one of those restaurants and wants to smoke, and the server says that it is a non-smoking institution. Are they denying him of his privilages or anything

It's the building's choice to be non-smoking, and therefore, everyone should follow the rules. I'll say it for the 98th time now, because no one here can read what I type or something, but it should be the building's choice if they want people to smoke there or not. People that never go into these establishments should not have the right to dictate what goes on there, as long as it's legal. If you don't want people to smoke, make smoking illegal. There, I said it yet again. Read it a few times, I am sick of repeating myself.

Taken from an email Chris sent me about this topic last night:

Say you are a participant in murderthon 2000.

Murderthon 2000 is an event where all the participants who attend will be shot and killed by a murderer. If you willingly go, knowing these are the rules and you will be shot if you attend, then those who shot you have done no wrong.

The difference, of course, between this and the state is in the case of murderthon 2000, if you decide not to go and be murdered, you are not followed home and killed against your will. You have no such choice with the state. You can withdraw from murderthon 2000, just as you can from a bar where there are smokers. You cannot withdraw from the state.

Consider another example. Say you had a room in your house which was heavily padded. You and your friends like to gather in this room, spin in circles as fast as you can while firing your machineguns. Others are welcome to attend, but there are risks involved. If somebody gets shot, have you done any wrong?

Say you had a sign clearly posted on your property stating everybody who went onto the property without written permission would be chopped up and eaten. If you chop up and eat a person who is on your property without your permission, have you done any wrong? Perhaps your reaction is a bit severe, but nonetheless.

The people who may die as a result of your bizarre actions are all there by choice, accepting the risks involved. I am not an underling of the state by choice. It is forced on me. The smokers at the bar stay in the bar, they don’t follow me home and smoke in my house whether I like it or not.

if this law is so wrong
then why is it not wrong to prohibit smoking in schools and hospitals and malls and places like that?

simple answer.

it is wrong.

There has to be a point when the well-being and health of yourself and others needs to be taken into consideration. It's called compassion, and in an anarchist society there wouldn't be any of that. The society we currently live in has that in great amounts. This law is about compassion. It's about making sure our children can grow up healthier. It's about making everyone even the slightest bit healthier. Hell, if this law means I don't have to sit through a couple hours a week's worth of smoke inhalation which inevitably will have some sort of an affect on my life than I'm all for it. Even if it means that I live to be 85 plus a day, at least that's an extra day I'll get on this world to be with those I love. It may be somewhat selfish but considering your entire beliefs are based around selfishness, I think it's tolerable.

Besides, should I have to die earlier because you want to by smoking?

well being and health of others is not my concern. it should be the concern of the so-called "others".

i'm only interested in personal freedom, and that includes the freedom to decide if i want to permit smoking in my establishment or not.

Then how about these smokers make smoking only bars? That way, us non smokers who would prefer to abstain from lung cancer can enjoy a night out, and so can those who would prefer to kill themselves ever so slowly.

exactly Mosaik. As I said, Your beliefs are based around selfishness and a horrible lack of compassion. Our society has compassion and that's why this law has gone into effect in so many places.

ihatethunderbay wrote:Then how about these smokers make smoking only bars? That way, us non smokers who would prefer to abstain from lung cancer can enjoy a night out, and so can those who would prefer to kill themselves ever so slowly.

how about we non-smokers start a "no smoking" bar? that would be one way to get the benefit of this law w/o having to infringe on property rights.

i have a hard time figuring out how a "smoking" bar would be any different from bars before the law. a non-smoking bar would be easier to enforce, and best of all, it would be the choice of the property owner not to allow smoking and not the decision of the state.

Jim - my beliefs are based on reason and logic. there's nothing horrible about them. do you disagree? do you know why?

no, i didn't think so.

firstly:

if you're going to continue this irritating demonization of my philosophy (horrible lack of compassion etc.) that way J-Neli, i'm going to have to ask you to either put up or shut up. either you will drop the lame epithets and veiled insults or you will prove to me in a reasoned and logical manner that I am in fact, incorrect.

If you are not prepared to do so, or cannot explain why I am wrong, then I believe two things should occur. Firstly, you will desist with the emotional remarks, and secondly, I should hope you will start <I>thinking</I> about your reasons for feeling the way you do.

secondly:

Besides, should I have to die earlier because you want to by smoking?

no, you shouldn’t. and nobody is <I>forcing</I> you to inhale my secondhand smoke. You <I>choose</I> to go to locations where smoking is permitted, and therefore, you <I>choose</I> to submit yourself to the risks of secondhand smoke inhalation.

And you still haven’t answered my question. From what logic do you derive the belief that you have the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot permit on their own property?

Ihatethunderbay -

We can’t start “smokers-only” bars, because it’s illegal. Furthermore, even if we could, that would be highly illogical. Why bar any group of the population from frequenting your establishment. A more likely and potentially profitable venture would be a non-smokers only bar.