No more smoking in New York State

[Axtech]

[Narbus]

[nelison]

[Narbus]

[Axtech]

[Narbus]

[Venom]

[Sufjan Stevens]

Venom, that has been said dozens of times, but people just don't want to listen to simple logic. Apparently having someone regualte their lives and make crazy rules to "better their lives" is a smarter choice than not letting the state walk all over them.

[Axtech]

Some things go beyond ownership.

This was a matter of looking at two options (if it was left to owners, most would be left smoking, so everyone can come and spend money):

Inconvenience to non-smokers; making them sit in a smoke-filled restaurant or find a non-smoking place to eat.

or

Inconvenience to smokers; making them go outside to smoke.

The second is a MUCH smaller inconvenience. Plus, smoking is a choice. Therefore, it is more logical to inconvenience the ones who chose to smoke than the ones who don't smoke. Besides, it's a filthy habit (even most smokers won't deny that). Why would the ones with the addiction be given privilage over those without?

[Sufjan Stevens]

[Ignignokt]

[Axtech]

[Axtech]

[Narbus]

[Venom]

GO ALAN GO!!!! (I'm rooting for Alan....whats gotten into me??)

Anyway hes right. Some people choose to smoke just as non smokers CHOOSE not to smoke. Therefore everyone should be allowed to CHOOSE if their establishment is SMOKING or NONSMOKING. Then everyone can CHOOSE where they want to eat, drink, hangout, etc. I'm baffled at why this is so hard to understand. Oh wait.....I forgot who we're arguing with.

[Axtech]

My point is that smokers choose to have an addiction, so they should choose that knowing that there will be setbacks (ie, waiting to go outside to smoke).

The government went into this with a goal in mind. If it was left to the owners, that goal would not be met.

Efforts to open and maintain the business? Smokers will go to non-smoking establishments if everything is non-smoking. Non-smokers are less likely to go to a smoking establishment. That means more even business for everyone.

The government can tell the owner to do this just as they can tell the owner how to do other things. Laws apply to property owners just as much as they apply to everyone else. So now there's a rule that no new laws can ever be made if it affects someone?

You said that the law doesn't make any sense. I've explained numerous times exactly why the law does make sense.

Since no one is bringing up anything new, I'm pulling myself out of this debate. We're just running in circles. Instead of arguing with my reasons that the law is just, you turn around and talk about ownership. When I talk about how the law being just overrides ownership, you talk about how the law isn't fair to smokers. When I explain why it's just (again), you go back to ownership.

[Narbus]

[Axtech]

[Sufjan Stevens]

How many times can you avoid telling us how the law makes sense?

[Axtech]

?

I've told you many times why it makes sense.

- Second hand smoke harms and kills
- Second hand smoke is also unpleasant (ie, breathing it and tasting it)
- Non-smokers can rarely find places to go that are non-smoking
- Non-smokers (being the ones that DIDN'T choose to have an addiction and a filthy habit) shouldn't be forced to search for places that are non-smoking, and should not be limited to those places for a clean place to eat
- Since smokers choose to smoke, they should be the ones - if anyone - to be inconvenienced, by waiting only a short time before going outside to smoke
- The above mentioned inconvenience is a much smaller inconvenience than the one forced on non-smokers before the law
- If it was left up to the property owners, nothing would have changed
- Establishments will now have more even business because non-smokers will be more comfortable going, and smokers will go because all places are non-smoking, so that doesn't affect their choice