This is why it's important to fight any vaping restrictions

[DrMA]

http://linkis.com/blogspot.com/Hryn2

«People have a right to clean air, free from our vapor.
What supports this claim? It's not in the Constitution. There's no laws that state that right. "Clean air" certainly isn't a basic human right or else every other emission would be illegal. That includes emissions from cars, trucks, buses, boats, planes, factories, restaurants, heating systems, fireplaces, grills...well, you get the picture. There is simply no way for there to be a "right" for clean air. If people don't have a "right" to be free of all of those other emissions, then they don't have a right to be free from our vapor. It's just plain silly to claim they do and just supports the ANTZ fallacy.»

 

[edyle]

People have a right to clean fog, free from fumes.

 

[sparkky1]

And that haze especially on the hot days in the overly populated city's ( you know which one's you are ) ya it's not fog, I had to breath that stuff for years as a kid, so bad it would make your lungs hurt some day's, for those that haven't experienced big city living it's called SMOG.I don't believe for one minute they care about clean air, you ever drive / walk / been around a paper mill, glue factory, 3m plant ? oh and some of that nice stuff goes in our lakes too but big money will do as they always do and put there hand out .......

 

[sparkky1]

Mercury levels climb in Pacific yellowfin tuna, study finds | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

 

[jpargana]

http://linkis.com/blogspot.com/Hryn2

«People have a right to clean air, free from our vapor.
What supports this claim? It's not in the Constitution. There's no laws that state that right. "Clean air" certainly isn't a basic human right or else every other emission would be illegal. That includes emissions from cars, trucks, buses, boats, planes, factories, restaurants, heating systems, fireplaces, grills...well, you get the picture. There is simply no way for there to be a "right" for clean air. If people don't have a "right" to be free of all of those other emissions, then they don't have a right to be free from our vapor. It's just plain silly to claim they do and just supports the ANTZ fallacy.»

Non-smokers demanded the "right" to have "clean air" in ANY and EVERY venue they felt like going to, and even on those venues they did NOT go to anyway.


Smokers stopped going to pubs, because they had been forced to smoke outside, in the cold and the rain. By people who NEVER went there.

Non-smokers never showed up. Not even after they had the pubs "smoke free", just like they wanted to.

They never showed, because they usually have an "healthier" life style, which does not include going to pubs. They did not usually go to pubs, not because they were "full of smoke", but simply because they did no feel inclined to do so.

The result? Pubs had been closing at a rate of about 300/year until 2007. After that, that number tripled.

Why do those people feel that their "right" to "clean air" (whatever THAT means) should overcome the business owner's RIGHT to run his business the way he sees fit ?

As a sidenote, I believe most non-smokers who demanded their "rights" and thus led to the closing of those business have no regrets about it: "What about if pubs are closing, anyway? Those were just meeting points for filthy smokers..."

 

[catlady60]

Non-smokers demanded the "right" to have "clean air" in ANY and EVERY venue they felt like going to, and even on those venues they did NOT go to anyway.


Smokers stopped going to pubs, because they had been forced to smoke outside, in the cold and the rain. By people who NEVER went there.

Non-smokers never showed up. Not even after they had the pubs "smoke free", just like they wanted to.

They never showed, because they usually have an "healthier" life style, which does not include going to pubs. They did not usually go to pubs, not because they were "full of smoke", but simply because they did no feel inclined to do so.

The result? Pubs had been closing at a rate of about 300/year until 2007. After that, that number tripled.

Why do those people feel that their "right" to "clean air" (whatever THAT means) should overcome the business owner's RIGHT to run his business the way he sees fit ?

As a sidenote, I believe most non-smokers who demanded their "rights" and thus led to the closing of those business have no regrets about it: "What about if pubs are closing, anyway? Those were just meeting points for filthy smokers..."

ANTZ attitudes can be summed up as this: "We don't like it; therefore, it must be banned."

Isn't that attitude more befitting a dictatorial regime than a democracy?

 

[DrMA]

«Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of “the public interest” with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. Since the concept is so conveniently undefinable, its use rests only on any given gang’s ability to proclaim that “The public, c’est moi”—and to maintain the claim at the point of a gun.»
-Ayn Rand

 

[skoony]

Non-smokers demanded the "right" to have "clean air" in ANY and EVERY venue they felt like going to, and even on those venues they did NOT go to anyway.


Smokers stopped going to pubs, because they had been forced to smoke outside, in the cold and the rain. By people who NEVER went there.

Non-smokers never showed up. Not even after they had the pubs "smoke free", just like they wanted to.

They never showed, because they usually have an "healthier" life style, which does not include going to pubs. They did not usually go to pubs, not because they were "full of smoke", but simply because they did no feel inclined to do so.

The result? Pubs had been closing at a rate of about 300/year until 2007. After that, that number tripled.

Why do those people feel that their "right" to "clean air" (whatever THAT means) should overcome the business owner's RIGHT to run his business the way he sees fit ?

As a sidenote, I believe most non-smokers who demanded their "rights" and thus led to the closing of those business have no regrets about it: "What about if pubs are closing, anyway? Those were just meeting points for filthy smokers..."

i would add after having worked in the bar/grill business for over
20 years that when the smokers left they took their nonsmoking
friends with them.
regards
mike

 

[DrMA]

i would add after having worked in the bar/grill business for over
20 years that when the smokers left they took their nonsmoking
friends with them.
regards
mike

Yes, a demonstrable fact vehemently contested by anti-smoker militant extremists in the tobacco control industry.

 

[AndriaD]

Maybe this thing about bars is a good illustration that GA, so far, has managed to resist much of the ANTZ incursion; here in GA, anyplace that is open ONLY to those 18 and up -- such as bars, where you can enter if 18, though still not drink till 21 -- permit smoking. Anyplace that *allows* those under 18 to enter, smoking is prohibited.

That may be the only case though, where ANTZ politics and thinking have been resisted. When my mom told her physical therapist last year that I had quit smoking by using e-cigs, his response was "She was still smoking? I thought all the smart people had quit years ago." As if being "smart" somehow makes you immune to addiction. That really steamed me -- I told her to give him a msg from me which cannot be repeated here.

Andria