playing the allergy card is pretty weak. what about people that are allergic to perfumes and colognes? ban them all from establishments? you'd be begging for cig smoke to mask that B.O.

Way to miss the point.

Poor fucking baby. It's called decision making and prioritizing. People do this every day. When you choose to cross off these shows, it's your problem, not any smokers' faults.

As I stated before, I'm not a smoker either, but I don't think that legislating your personal preference on anyone is right. Of course, I'm not one of the "open-minded" masses who insists the things that they don't participate in should necessarily be outlawed, whether it be youth hunting, driving an SUV, smoking, doing recreational drugs, protesting a war or stockpiling pornography. It's very easy, and extremely selfish to be unable to separate your own activities from what everyone else should be doing.



Then let us teach all of our children in public and private schools across the country that the Earth and all of its lifeforms were entirely created in just 7 days by God.

it's wasn't really directed at you.

Dude, seriously, you are not reading what I'm writing. How can I get this through to you? Your comment above illustrates EVERYTHING that is wrong with smokers' arguments against anti-smoking provisions. What you are saying is that the smokers are the ones who get to do whatever they want to while the non-smokers - the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE - have to be the ones who choose to sacrifice whether they can or want to put up with the smoke. The smokers never have to deal with a decision like this.

What's great is that insulting crap like you say is exactly what is turning the tide against smokers. I don't care if you smoke or not - the more you talk like this and the less that smokers show a willingness to compromise, the more likely and the more swiftly anti-smoking legislation will clamp down on the behavior. So bring it on - the more snottiness out of smokers and their supporters, the better. You guys are doing yourselves in - and the result will likely be smoking bans that are a LOT more strict than they'd wanted them to be.

Why don't you explain why the majority is right.

While you are at it, perhaps you can also explain why your arguments are devoid of snottiness and the depth of your willingness to compromise.

Or you can save your pontificating and just tell us again how Anchorman is a real hoot.

man you really hate smokers

why don't you just move to california or something. aren't there smoking bans implemented throughout the entire state?

At what point did I result to childish name-calling with you? Grow up.

Again - your comment just illustrates exactly what I've been saying: the only solution non-smokers have is to go away from the smokers.

It's pretty simple - you could read back through every one of my arguments but I'll sum it up for you here: it's because the majority are not the ones who are choosing to not only entertain themselves with an addictive substance, nor are they the ones who are inflicting the exhaust of their addictive substance on others who do not want said exhaust spewed around them. That is why the majority is right.

well guess what, smokes and smokers aint going away any time soon, and the options are there rather than to complain about something that isn't going to change anytime soon.

and here's a revelation - I would be willing to wager that more than half of your "majority party" are lighting up in a bar (or outside, if there's a ban) on the weekends.

What's great about arguments like this is that it's really easy to tell when the other party has nothing to stand on: they resorts to completely off-topic "insults" like talking in a way they think is negative about their opposition's taste in things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll repeat what I said in a previous comment: grow up.

Yes, sir! Maybe you can answer the question. Your replies to this issue are just as snotty as anyone against the ban, but you fail to see that because you are sitting in a smoky cloud of self-righteousness and selfishness.

Imposing your will on others and demanding your way is immature. I grew out of that when i was four.

I don't care if smokers go away. I do care that they're not be able to smoke in public buildings.


"20.9 percent - 44.5 million people - are current smokers, down from 21.6 percent n 2003 and 22.5 percent in 2002 . . . " Nearly 80% of people are non-smokers = majority. By a huge margin.

Number one, the addictiveness of the substance to the person who consumes it is immaterial.

Number two, the "exhaust" is not addictive.

Just because you don't want something spewed around you is no ground for outlawing it, otherwise, I would never hear Little River Band on the radio while waiting for the dentist.

Yes, you're right, I meant patsy.

DumpJack, dude, why are you getting so hostile? They're just opinions. Take a smoke break.

I do realize I get on my podium sometimes about shit like this, but the difference between me and an evangelist is, an evangelist preaches -- I spout opinions. The evangelist thinks he speaks truth -- I know I don't. My opinion is based on lots of little datums that I have accumulated over the years. I will be the first to admit that I'm not very good at regurgitating them. So, for now, I'll just shut up. Please feel free to have the last word. (Although I have a tendency to be easily tempted into responding -- I'll try not to, but no promises.)

So you are advocating the will of the majority and the teaching of Creationism, right?

Again, you know - "O the irony." When will you come to realize that the smokers are the ones who are imposing their will on others. Remember: that's the minority of people who want to damage their health who are imposing their unhealthy habits on the majority of people who do not want to damage their health.

I've responded with actual answers every time I've responded and you know it. I've also done so without resorting to calling you a "poor fucking baby."

I'm advocating the will of the majority on a health issue. I don't recall anything about this topic having anything to do with Creationism. You are attempting to cloud the issue by bringing in a completely off-topic issue.

yeah, stats. how bout this, go to a bar this saturday and see how many people are smoking. i am willing to bet that a large percentage of those people are what we call "social smokers." and these social smokers would tend to answer "no i don't smoke" to a poll because they're from the "it's ok, i just do it on the weekend! I'm having FUN" school of thought. Of course I know that non-smokers outnumber smokers, but don't be so naive to think that every single person who marks "NO" on a questionnaire it means that they are 100% separated from the situation.

The majority of the country also believes in Creationism. Why don't we impose that will, as a majority on a public education issue? I posted that link a little ways back.

You want a comparable health issue? How about we fine people who don't wash their hands regularly? That's far more likely to make you ill than some smoke.

Again, I'll ask you to explain how far you are willing to compromise..

This is a theoretical example, non? I don't believe this is actually the case.