General Discussion

Green_Lantern

(2,423 posts)

46. that is the basic argument against all regulation such as anti-discrimination laws...

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:44 PM

Aug 2012

That it is up to the business owner.

It is a public accommodation and you can't just say "if you don't like breathing smoke go somewhere else" when also most places would allow smoking.

Can't smokers eat one damn meal without needing a cigarette.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Plain cigarette packaging passes in Australia. [View all] Amak8 Aug 2012 OP

Good for the Aussies! Odin2005 Aug 2012 #1

I'm curious to see what percent of people here think this is a good idea Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #2

Colorful logos are for marketing to children. Amak8 Aug 2012 #3

So lets ban smoking then Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #4

Smoking impacts other peoples health. Eating does not. Logical Aug 2012 #5

except when you're a kid and your parents buy you twinkies and ice cream and cake and cookies... WooWooWoo Aug 2012 #6

Well, if you like that stupid argument I guess the parents could make the kid smoke also. LOL, wow. Logical Aug 2012 #9

How is that a stupid argument? Fawke Em Aug 2012 #42

that is why we have nutritional school food programs and other things... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #58

That would be tyranny. Amak8 Aug 2012 #11

No, but I do agree with the forced nutritional info. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #14

When smokers can keep that shit in their own lungs, Zoeisright Aug 2012 #10

When auto drivers can keep that shit in their own lungs... Luminous Animal Aug 2012 #13

woke up from a sound sleep to say +1000000 Cooley Hurd Aug 2012 #17

I'll be out in the wilderness with 10 smokers and smell mostly only fresh air... Luminous Animal Aug 2012 #20

Though they are long-dead from complications of smoking-related diseases lapislzi Aug 2012 #30

Studies show passive smoke is more dangerous than car exhaust joeybee12 Aug 2012 #24

What studies? n/t LTX Aug 2012 #43

auto exhaust is heavily regulated so with your example you Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #37

No it's not. Fawke Em Aug 2012 #44

sorry, I meant in production of cars... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #49

According to the EPA, these are ways we can keep the air cleaner. Sivafae Aug 2012 #19

I've never been forced to breathe in second hand smoke Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #21

that is good enough for me... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #38

So why are the smoking police trying to ban e-cigarettes? KamaAina Aug 2012 #31

I think it's a bad idea Major Nikon Aug 2012 #16

yep.. frylock Aug 2012 #28

Or how about a pic of a fat laden heart on your McDonald's bag? Major Nikon Aug 2012 #32

not everyone who eats McDonald's has heart disease.. Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #39

Who said anything about equivalence? Major Nikon Aug 2012 #50

they aren't even close... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #51

Who said they were close? Major Nikon Aug 2012 #52

well if it isn't a close comparison then... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #54

So where does it end? Major Nikon Aug 2012 #60

regulation of commercial activity isn't decided state by state... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #63

So is alcohol, caffeine, and masturbation Major Nikon Aug 2012 #64

well cigarette ads are banned on tv and that hasn't resulted in all ads being banned... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #71

And what good did that do exactly? Major Nikon Aug 2012 #72

Apples and oranges Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #73

Actually the reason why there aren't as many smokers has little to do with such campaigns Major Nikon Aug 2012 #77

you make a good point.... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #82

because just banning it won't stop it... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #36

Bloomberg is trying to reverse the fast "food" industry's social engineering - GoneOffShore Aug 2012 #56

So you are saying that people are idiots and need to be told how to act? Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #66

People are easily manipulated - Hence the idea of "Supersizing" GoneOffShore Aug 2012 #67

smoking is very idiotic Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #75

I, personally, don't think it will make any difference... yawnmaster Aug 2012 #7

Might as well place images of STD ravaged genitaila... -..__... Aug 2012 #8

Damn Dokkie Aug 2012 #40

Sure, if rubbers *increased* the likelyhood of pregnancy or STD transmission, then that'd make sense Electric Monk Aug 2012 #65

Not at all... -..__... Aug 2012 #68

That makes as much sense as putting pictures of healthy lungs and healthy mouths on cig packs Electric Monk Aug 2012 #70

Next up, they will have pics of aborted babies at clinics The Straight Story Aug 2012 #12

Hopefully pictures of disfigured bodies at military recruiting centers. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #15

Agreed. It's a slippery slope and I also think there are serious 1st Amendment concerns as well. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #18

I don't think the slippery slope argument works with smoking.. Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #45

If tobacco were a new product, it'd never be allowed on the market muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #22

Who is stupider, climate change deniers or tobacco=death deniers? CBGLuthier Aug 2012 #23

+1 joeybee12 Aug 2012 #26

Nice to see all the addicts trying to slam this great idea... joeybee12 Aug 2012 #25

And lot of straw men arguments in this thread too. RC Aug 2012 #27

When have you been forced to breathe in second hand smoke. Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #35

Right on Dokkie Aug 2012 #41

that is the basic argument against all regulation such as anti-discrimination laws... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #46

Either way you are discriminating against somebody Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #53

having sex is legal, yet I can't do it everywhere... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #55

Just because somebody is against this doesn't mean they are a smoker. Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #34

no people against it are either smokers or a bit naive about smokers... Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #47

This might discourage young people from taking up the habit. LiberalAndProud Aug 2012 #29

I suspect it won't discourage them. eom yawnmaster Aug 2012 #57

I'll smoke to that. If it makes the tobaccophobic a little less stressed, it's just fine with me. Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #33

smokers are either clueless are unreasonable Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #48

The people of the State of California made it nearly impossible to smoke in public...THANK YOU.. Tikki Aug 2012 #59

Picture worth 1000 printed warnings treestar Aug 2012 #61

I like this. Alduin Aug 2012 #62

Meh, bring back Joe Camel Ter Aug 2012 #69

The whole thing is pointless SOS Aug 2012 #74

even if it makes smoking slightly less attractive Green_Lantern Aug 2012 #76

Google "cigarette cases australia" jmowreader Aug 2012 #78

No it isn't - anything done to discourage smoking is good. reformist2 Aug 2012 #79

If it was pointless, Big Tobacco wouldn't be going nuts. Amak8 Aug 2012 #80

We also have single payer here, so discouraging smoking is in the public interest. mattclearing Aug 2012 #81