Is it right to discriminate against tobacco smokers

It should be up to the bar owners as to what they want to do. If they want have a smoking section they should be entitled to do so... if not .. that's ok too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And if it wasn't for government interference, most establishments would allow smoking. This is nothing less than the government taking away liberty and self determination in the name of public health based on faulty science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally ... I like to see a fat tax... we will have to do something to offset all the lost revenues from the smokers quitting.

So you go to the grocery store .. you get your height scanned and you get weighed... it calculates your BMI.. and if it's high you get charged more for food... less... you get a discount.

Same thing at a restaurant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate taxes, more so because I'm paying out this year, but I've never liked the idea of a "sin tax."

 

I posted this link on another thread. Maybe I should do the same here. It explores the validity of some of the studies regarding second hand smoke...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

 

I don't like the taxes either.. but what's good for the goose is good for the gander

after all my medical insurance rates go up due to the obesity factor... yet they get a free ride

 

Besides making a room hazy, haven't people died from inhaling too much smoke? Not saying that smoking causes that, while smoking may not kill you (instantly), saying it's perfectly harmless is an understatement. Plus to those of us of who (at least me) aren't avid smokers, it's like someone came and sprayed you with stinky stuff. The room smells, the smoker smells, anyone who was near the smoker smells, anything the smoker touches smells, and anything a person who was near a smoker touches also smells; just like smoke. Not only am I irritated for smelling it once I have to smell it all day because it follows me and everyone and everything else.

 

I'm a heavy smoker, and I smell like Old Spice. Honestly, anything the smoker touches smells? I think you're taking that a bit far.

 

People don't die from going to a bar where smoking is allowed, come on..
Besides, they have a choice don't they ? They don't have to go to the bar..
And if the smell is an argument.. well, lets just say a lot of other things would be banned as well.
What amazes me most is that anti-smokers are quite happily inhaling exhaust fumes and think nothing of it.

 

If social awkwardness and inconvenience saves lives. So be it.

 

What else should we ban ?
Alcohol in pubs ? Banning it would surely save some more lives.

 

A Baron Max argument. How far is too far.. eh ?
Banning Alcohol doesn't work.
Perhaps a ban on alcohol above a certain limit.

 

Banning smoking from pubs and bars doesn't work either. People don't smoke less, they just smoke at different places. Perhaps they smoke at home more now, good news for the kids.

 

So, you as a smoker would propose?.

 

Global ban on tobacco.
I bet you didn't see that one coming..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You surprised me. Just a bit. I will admit.

That wouldn't work, the tobacco companies would call in all their favours and even then, people would smuggle it around.

Same reason why a global ban on drugs doesn't work.

 

Governments may accomplish just that through excessive taxation:

Revenues Down Again - http://www.heartland.org viewed 04/05/09 at 11:03 AM EST (citation formatted to keep T happy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Conversely, this taxation policy can produce some bizarre implications:

22 Million New Smokers Needed: - www.heritage.org - viewed 04/05/09 at 11:03 AM EST

[Emphasis mine]

Interesting that governmental policy has managed to create this "unintended consequence": It requires more people to smoke or it fails to generate necessary revenue for health care - i.e. more people will be healthier because they stop smoking because the government tried to pay for health care by taxing the shit out of smokers which causes them to quit smoking and become healthier which reduces the revenue needed to fund medical care to make people healthier... ad infinitum. (I think I managed to lose my own train of thought contemplating this one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I didn't say it killed you, but it's very uncomfortable, and i hate inhaling exhaust fumes as well, exhaust makes it difficult to breathe, but it doesn't cause me to break into coughing fits, and maybe you like coughing, but I find it really uncomfortable. I can hold my breath when I pass all the people smoking in the courtyard so I don't mind that they smoke, but if I'm in a restaurant or office building I can only hold my breath for so long. The may only bother me because I have developed a conditioned response to cough when I smell it. I guess this is one prejudice I have very little sympathy for.

 

Should I be all for a high tax (which you can't afford) on whatever the hell you do???

 

That is not in all fairness. MANY things tax the public health system much more than smoking.
Some people's health care is more important than others'?
After paying a lot back into the system for that "choice", do the poor receieve as good treatment as others?