One place I would like to keep smoking legal

[Toots]

Gambling casinos....will save me a lot of money as I don't gamble well.

[havocmom]

1. So, you're OK with casino workers having to breathe toxic substances?

;)

[rubberducky]

4. Do people HAVE to work there who don`t smoke??

I hadn`t heard about that law.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Same argument used for bars and restaurants.

The answer in many cases is 'yes', many people really have no choice about where they work, they have to take the jobs that are available and will suffer extreme hardship if they refuse to take those jobs.

Take your smoke outside.

[Mojorabbit]

7. That argument

is a straw man. Everyone makes a choice of where they work.

[onehandle]

10. That argument is also a straw man. They why ban smoking in any workplace?

Why? Because you should be able to have the freedom to work anywhere without poison being sprayed through the air.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I am a believer in freedom

and if someone wants to work in a place that allows smoking they should be allowed to.

[havocmom]

49. And if you don't like sharing roads with drunk drivers, you can stay home

Drunks should be allowed to drive, they only hurt those they come into contact with, so if you don't want to encounter them you should choose not to be out on the road. If you want to drive on roads with drunks, you should be allowed to.

That is essentially the same argument.

[Mojorabbit]

55. It is not

the same arguement at all.

[havocmom]

62. Sure it is. If people don't wanna drive with drunks, they can choose to use other roads

or stay off the roads where the drunks are driving.

[cushla_machree]

84. HAHAHHAHA

Its not the same thing! WAH WAH

Of course it is. You can't convince an addict that they are hurting themselves, let alone another person.

[cushla_machree]

82. right

But i have had to work in places that allowed smoking, and it was awful. Its not so easy to 'just get another job.' How about smokers just go smoke outside. easy.

Don't like coal polluters dirtying the air? Just move to another country then and quit complaining!

[onehandle]

85. And they're not?

Nobody is stopping anyone from working in a poisonous environment.

The problem is that there are poisonous environments.

[Warpy]

11. Have you ever been over 45 and looking for work?

Choice, my ass.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Why have any OSHA regulations at all then?

What is it with all these damn gummint regulations getting in the way of our freedom to get ourselves killed on the job?

[rubberducky]

13. Bullshit!! There are other restaurant jobs out there.

Do they have a right to work in a smoke free environment? Of course, there are plenty of them out there. The tobacco nazis have seen to that. When will we start shuttering donut shops or all you can eat places because obese people tend to congregate there? Aren`t these places a health risk? Maybe nurses and docs will start refusing to treat these obese people, because these people did it to themselves. Then what? We already have phamacists refusing to fill scripts because it offends thier sensebilities. Where does discrimination end? All I`m saying is if you or I don`t like what is being done we still have alternatives. What happens when our alternatives are gone?? Peace

[Warren Stupidity]

16. How magnanimous of you. Will you guarantee those jobs?

So the difference between a donut and a cigarette is rather obvious isn't it?

Smoke free workplace requirements are no different than other workplace regulations that require a safe work environment. If you want to equate that with outlawing obesity or banning donuts then I suggest you look inward for the bullshit.

[havocmom]

50. Will OP drive worker so those jobs? Sometime location/ hours mean a lot to workers

Is there good mass transit in everyone's community? Lots of hours for public transportation? Or are hours, routes limited?

How about child care?

Choices are more limited for many than OP will admit.

[RainDog]

15. where I live

there has been a no-smoking ban in any interior place for a few years. one of the local restaurant owners had, before this, installed separate smoking and non-smoking areas that were divided by plexiglass. however, that wasn't good enough.

the place did a great business because they had big screen tvs (therefore the plexiglass) and a lot of pool tables and a lot of space. (I wasn't too crazy about the food, but liked to play pool with friends.)

soooo, after the smoking ban, the guy had to close down a successful business because no one came in anymore. no non-smokers replaced the smokers, or not enough of them for the guy to make a profit.

anyone who was employed there lost a job.

but the funny thing about that restaurant argument is that most everyone I've ever known who worked in a restaurant was also a smoker... chefs, bartenders, waiters...

local businesses asked why they couldn't have a choice, and let some places be non-smoking and others smoking, or, like the guy above, have sections that didn't mix. but that wasn't acceptable. not only government places had to be nonsmoking, but also privately owned and operated bizzes. the bizzes can't even have an outside smoking area, which is, imo, ridiculous.

In January of this year, the local U. will no longer allow smoking on its property. outside. even if you are 100 ft. away from anyone else. the only place smoking will be allowed is in someone's car if they are parked in a U. owned lot. they are also going to make an exception for people who come to town and stay at the conference center on campus for a while, until all previously planned conf. are done. they're also going to allow some dorm spaces outside for students who, as they say, are addicted.

I've thought many times about opening a smoking club. if the sole reason for a biz is a place for smokers to smoke, how could someone outlaw that? well, unless it's a private club, they can. I say if smokers want to kill themselves with tobacco, why should the state or anyone else deny them this right if they are outside and far from an entrance to a building, or if they are in a bar... what if someone opened a bar with one side smoking and one not?

btw, the smoking ban in bars doesn't extend to the green rooms. not too long ago I was with some friends who were playing a gig and there were ashtrays and lighters and all the rest. funny, that.

I thought that a democracy meant that people have the right to choose how to live - both smokers and nonsmokers. it would be interesting to see what sort of biz a place like a bar would do if they had two diff. environments.

I really detest the nanny state issues, if it's not already clear.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. I'm sure there are exceptions but in general

nobody has been able to demonstrate a negative economic effect on smoking bans. It just hasn't happened, despite your anecdotal evidence.

Workplace safety is an area where the state has a legitimate right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people. It is not a 'nanny-state' issue.

[RainDog]

21. so, no one can open a smoking bar?

if other bars were nonsmoking, and someone wanted to open a smoking bar, knowing there are other places to work, this is not allowed because..... ?

tobacco isn't illegal. we saw how well prohibition worked.

yes, all I have is ancedotal evidence of one person, but I know of many more who detest this ban and the limits it places on people to live and to operate their businesses and on people to associate with others in a way that they choose.

people can and do make choices. the point is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. it is not a workplace safety issue for someone who already smokes a pack a day.

it is a nanny state issue when people are not allowed to smoke outside.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Not if it is illegal as it is in may states now.

"if other bars were nonsmoking, and someone wanted to open a smoking bar, knowing there are other places to work, this is not allowed because..... ? "

For the same reason that you can't poison workers with other toxic substances. People have a right to a safe work environment and the state has an obligation to regulate workplaces to make sure that they provide a safe work environment.

"tobacco isn't illegal. we saw how well prohibition worked."

True and irrelevant. The issue is not the legality of tobacco, it is the right of workers to have a safe work environment and the obligation of the state to enforce that right.

"it is a nanny state issue when people are not allowed to smoke outside."

Yes. So?

There is a conflict between rights here. Your right to enjoy tobacco, which I support, and a worker's right to a safe work environment, which I also support. I agree with the resolution in favor of a safe work environment at the expense of your right to smoke at your place of work. You can easily smoke elsewhere, getting a different job, not so easy.

[RainDog]

34. even outside?

if a bar has seating outside, no one should be allowed to smoke there? -how is that a workplace safety issue? I really, really don't see that. maybe we should ban all cars. they produce more noxious by products than tobacco smokers.

as far as the issue above, I noted that there are OTHER non-smoking bars. but it is not okay to open an establishment that is for the purpose of smoking. no one would force anyone to work there because other places do not allow smoking. so it is not an issue of workplace safety if someone chooses to work in the place that is only open for the purpose of having a place for smokers.

the analogy to me is this: I have never been to Lost Vegas and don't want to go there. no interest at all in gambling. so I don't go there. I go places where I am interested in the activities, like listening to music. in other words, I avoid the establishments that have features that I am not interested in (since I detest Celine Dion, Lost Vegas music doesn't appeal to me either.)

in another example: I have no interest in going to a strip club (I have been to one, but didn't do anything for me). Maybe I think strip clubs are demeaning, and harmful to all women. (I don't, but still don't like them.) I could make an argument that any woman who works in one of them as a waiter is subject to harmful worker's conditions.

however, no one is forced to work at a strip club. maybe they make more money there, but they choose to work in that environment for their own reasons. others would not work there, no matter how much better the pay, because they object to the atmosphere.

this is the thing I cannot understand or accept. if you have children as part of your clientele, then, okay, no smoking. if you have adults, the choice is up to the owner. waiters can work in non-smoking places, just as they can work in non-strip joint places.

what's the difference? if you have choice, what's the difference?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. I have no problem with outdoor smoking.

I happen to agree that banning outdoor smoking is taking things too far. Your other examples, donuts, nude bars, etc. are ridiculous. Nudity is not toxic, smoke is. Your donut does not end up in my stomach.

[RainDog]

43. well, thanks for that one

because ridiculous is where it's at at this time.

I didn't use an example of donuts, btw. I mentioned strip clubs and gambling joints to make an issue about choice.

there are people who work in hazardous environments, much worse than bars with smokers, who are allowed to make the choice to work there...nuclear power plants, say. or oil rigs.

why is it that only places that allow smoking are so dangerous that they must be banned?

I think the current atmosphere is a bit like a witch hunt. I also think that demonizing smokers is a convenient way to avoid the issue that there are far more harmful pollutants in the environment, such as pcbs in ground water. govt doesn't seem to care enough about those issues to force adherence to clean up regulations, but polluting the ENTIRE ground water system for an area isn't given the same shrill denunciation that smoking is.

again, why isn't choice possible? I don't think all establishments would be smoking places. so why can't some be?

[Mojorabbit]

58. Here in Orlando

all three of the big hospitals got together in secret and banned smoking anywhere on their campuses including in one's car. They did it in secret and announced the same day so their nurses would not quit and go work at another hospital thus there is not any free choice to go outside and even sit in your own car and smoke on your break.

[sam sarrha]

14. why are you a democrat... you dont support protecting workers from a poison that kills 500,000people

a year... that is the total number is soldiers killed in the iraq war PLUS 1000 more... EVERY WEEK .. SOLELY TO A DANGEROUS ADDICTIVE DRUG MANY TIMES MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN..

the industry depends on addicting children under 18 to stay in business and to replace those killed off by their product... people over 18 rarely start smoking...

[RainDog]

22. you are a real *%$hole about this issue

I would ask you to pardon the phrase, but I wouldn't mean it. how dare you ask that question? why are you a democrat if you want to control everyone else's freedom to choose? you are really, really waaaaay over the line.

why don't you focus on environmental pollution? how about all the freaking plastic in the sea? (watch countdown in pol. videos on that one). I know, it's because of your own selfish interest because you have asthma, right?

I didn't start smoking till after 18, btw.

if someone smokes but they help millions of people help farmers who need to grow other crops, for instance, or they work to try to elect candidates that care about the working class... should that person not be a democrat in your little corner of the world? btw, John Mellencamp is the person I'm referring to in this paragraph.

come on, will you please stop trying to slam everyone who has a habit that you don't like?

[sam sarrha]

25. me.. i think toe ass hole is the one denying workers a safe place to work.. many people are not able

to pick and choose where they work like you and the ReThugs seem to think..

[RainDog]

27. I live in a no-smoking town

and I am not denying anyone a safe place to work.

but thank you for your post that affirms my statement above.

[sam sarrha]

30. you aparently fucking would if you could.. that is the point,

[RainDog]

35. wow.

today is quite a day. bu-bye.

I, thankfully, have a choice on DU not to see your posts, and I will avail myself of that choice right now.

and, may I state again, you are one obnoxious asshole.

[abq e streeter]

63. Better put me on ignore too

sam sarrha is absolutely right, and I'm profoundly disappointed to see a supposed progressive calling someone an obnoxious asshole for objecting to workers being FORCED to breathe toxic chemicals just to pay the rent. Having a difficult time resisting the temptation to lower myself to your level and call you the insulting epithets you have coming to you, so will stop right here..

[RainDog]

66. that's not what I said

but if you want to be an obnoxious asshole, and identify yourself with this reactionary then knock yourself out. sam is the one saying people should be arrested for smoking in front of children.

I am talking about choice, something that the church ladies don't seem to understand on either side of the aisle, not about being forced to breathe toxic chemicals. so, yeah, you are an asshole too.

and please, please don't lower yourself to my level. I don't want to have to see you.

[abq e streeter]

80. I disagree with sam on some of this

and on another point he (or she) made on a different,related thread too... Somehow didn't feel the need to refer to a fellow DUer as an obnoxious asshole for disagreeing...but again, choices; I guess you feel that need. Too bad for you...

[Maine-ah]

32. it's not a habit, it's an addiction. I'm a former smoker.

1 year and nine months ago I quit. I crave one daily. It is the "gateway" drug.

Now, I agree with you that there should be a choice of a smoking bar or a non smoking bar. However, smoking bars should only be able to hire people who smoke or people who are willing to sign a waver at time of employment.

[RainDog]

40. gateway drug?

whatever. I never realized that everyone who smokes cigs is a meth addict. the logic in that statement is that yes, some who smoke may also partake of illegal substances. Not everyone does. I wonder what the stats were relating to the number of cig smokers vs. say, heroin addicts in, say, the 1960s. just from that one juxtaposition, I think you can see that your statement is ridiculous. when smoking was a part of everyday society, it did not lead smokers to become druggies.

but you know, others argue that docs hand out drugs that are legal but that are just as addictive as non-legal drugs. does smoking lead to those drugs? what about SSRIs? Valium, etc?

but thank you for acknowledging that it is possible to both work for workplace safety and to allow the choice of an environment for both workers and clientele.

this is a no-win argument any way. whatever side of the issue you are on, the arguments on this thread are not going to change anyone's mind.

congrats on quitting. I quit before for years (when I had children). But the current attitudes toward smoking is so overthetop that I would NEVER consider quitting just because of the obnoxious attitudes of so many who demonize smokers... if their lives are the party, I don't want to attend.

[Maine-ah]

47. well, before you discount my ideas of it being a gateway drug

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2000/smoking_drugs.html

my statement is far from ridiculous. If you would like to have a serious conversation about this particular issue, I'm all for it.

- Maine-ah.

[RainDog]

48. okay

from your link:

The researchers recognize the need for further prospective studies because the data used were not initially taken for the purpose of this study. Also needed, they said, are additional investigations into the causes of associations between cigarette smoking and illegal drug use, such as the roles played by behavioral genetics, developmental psychology, and the ethnography of adolescent drug using patterns.

"Despite the need for further research," says Dr. Lai, "the study does clearly indicate that in the overall population surveyed, early tobacco use at least can be used as a predictor to identify those who will use illegal drugs later on in life."

when I started to read the study, I was wondering if they were going to address issues that were big questions for me right away, in terms of the study. they don't, but they do admit these issues need to be addressed.

for instance, the group that starts smoking at 15, etc. why do they smoke at that age? what environmental factors may contribute to this? Are people who smoke this young and smoke enough to develop a habit also living in poverty, or in an environment that would expose them to greater drug use whether they smoked or not?

the study noted that their findings were really only applicable to those who started smoking at a young age. how was their sample set decided, I wonder. they said cocaine was the drug the young were most likely to use. both cocaine and cigs can make people feel more alert, more focused on a task. are these children "self-medicating" (which is what a lot of alcoholics do, btw) because they do not have access to health care or guardians who see that they receive the health care they need?

I don't know, but that's an issue I think should be addressed.

this study, again, makes me wonder if anyone has done a study looking back at times when smoking was more permissible, as mentioned above. were those correlations true in that time? If not, what does that say about the issue of a "gateway drug" as a term? there was a large population of smokers in the 50s and 60s. What % of those smokers became cocaine addicts?

So, even tho you have a study, you have a study that admits it is not definitive and does not show causality.

[Maine-ah]

53. I never said the study was 100%

it was to prove that my thought on cigs being a gateway drug is not as ridiculous as you may seem to think. Obviously, more studies need to be done, and many have. There were quite a few when I googled for more.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. I reject the idea of gateway drugs in general.

But if you insist, as the problem cited is that tobacco use can lead to illegal drug use, we can end that dire consequence by allowing adults to use their intoxicants of choice, in suitable locations of course, without fear of imprisonment. Now what are you left with?

[Maine-ah]

83. I never said I wasn't in favor of legalization.

[Toasterlad]

38. Yes. Totally. It Would Do Them Good.

[soothsayer]

2. Some are smoke free (Delaware), and not AC has non smoking sections.

The Borgata put in really expensive air cleaners and stuff, but they still have to have nonsmoking sections.

[Warpy]

3. ROFL!

That keeps me out of them, too. Oh, gambling itself never particularly appealed to me, feeding money into a slot and pushing a button for hours looks like work to me, but those black clouds of cig smoke in all the local tribal casinos provide a total barrier to me.

By the way, nobody gambles well. The odds are always with the house.

[Ian David]

6. No. Smoking should ONLY be legal in The Republican Caucus Room. n/t

[Hand]

89. Legal, hell. Make it compulsory.

Chain-smoking required. Unfiltered only. :evilgrin:

[Joe Fields]

8. I agree, but not because I don't gamble well.

The vast majority of those who patronize casinos do indeed smoke. Let us not forget that all casinos have unbelievably fantastic air exchangers. I have never walked into a casino that reminded me of a smoky bar, and I've been in just about every casino in Nevada and many in other states. The air is replaces very quickly.

So, unless a rude customer continually blows smoke right into the face of a dealer, the dealer doesn't breathe in that much smoke.

[-..__...]

9. My own home.

It's only a matter of time before the anti-smoking Nazis attempt to ban that also.

[sam sarrha]

17. i pray you never have children.. to give respiratory problems, but you would be proud of that too

you do understand putting a childs healty at risk is child abuse

[Blue-Jay]

19. Lots of kids running around in casinos?

[rubberducky]

20. How long until our cooking habits come under inspection??

What if you supplied your child with fast food or fried fatty foods?? Take that child away from those abusive parents?? Where do you stop this madness? Tobacco is a legal substance, if you want it penalized and made illegal work toward that, but always know that will be the beginning of taking down our choices. How long until we must tow the line?

[sam sarrha]

24. don't change the subject, you personally decide to abuse your child is you expose them to tobacco,

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT YOUR DEADLY ADDICTION OR THE CHILDS HEALTH.

your responce was a beautiful example of DENILE...

[Blue-Jay]

29. Actually, YOU changed the subject.

The subject was about smoking in casinos. Kids (who I agree, *should* be protected from second-hand smoke) are not allowed in casinos.

If you want to talk about saving children from smoking-related dangers, start a new thread about it. This thread is about an entirely different premise.

[rubberducky]

36. Right answer Sam!!

My parents never smoked, but I`m dealing with cholesterol. We LIVED on fatty foods. Fried chicken, spagetti, noodles in any form or fashion, hamburger, cheap hot dogs, cheap lunch meat, tons of butter. 2 weeks ago I had a heart attack. I had a99% blockage in one area of my heart. I have been having blood checks for years, but never a bad cholesteral check. My dad passed away in `88. Do I blame my mom?? Tell me Sam, how would you feel?? The rest of my arteries have 1-70%, 2-50% blockages. How would you feel, Sam. Do I feel cheated, because we lived on unhealthy food?? Your damned right I feel cheated. If I wanted to smoke every day, all day , who cares cares, Sam??I won`t live a whole lot longer, because I don`t have insurance, but according to you, Sam that`s OK because it`s my fault. Maybe you wondered why I posted what I did, now you know. Your heart is in the right place, but please think of where action like this leads. Peace

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

33. Baloney !

How did The Boomers become such a healthy generation when most of them grew up in homes with one or both parents smoking?

Child abuse? A person could get quietly drunk and stoned evey night in a home with small children but god forbid they would have a cigarette. Smoking is child abuse my ass.

[mudesi]

57. Are you being sarcastic?

Boomers are a healthy generation?

:rofl:

[cushla_machree]

86. it is when they have asthma.

i see it all the time. Parents smoking while their kid is hacking up a lung from asthma. They don't care, they just get their kids medical paid for anyway...to stop smoking indoors for the sake of their child's health is too big an inconvenience.

My mother's parents would smoke indoors when she was a kid. She use to have headaches all the time from them. Smoking can have short term and longterm consequences. Any parent that smokes inside around their child, in my mind, is a complete asshole. Its like the pregnant woman smoking. You are free to do it all you want, but I am perfectly within my rights to think you are a grade A asshole and moron to boot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. I have two children

and neither one has ever had any health problems because their parents smoked. And they are grown now and are still very healthy. My aunt had 5 kids. None of them had health problems. Plus she smoked and drank a couple beers every day while she was pregnant. None had any problems at birth or at any time during their childhood. My dad smoked around 4 kids. We are all okay too. DH's parents had 3 kids and smoked around them. All healthy.

This is just the biggest pile of bullshit excuse to attack smokers. Yes it is a bad habit and yes it is harmful to THE SMOKER but massive numbers of children are not getting sick because their parents smoke. B.S.

[mudesi]

56. Your anecdotal experience is utterly meaningless

Sorry. Facts are facts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. So is yours.

[mudesi]

87. I don't have anecdotes

The facts are that second hand smoke kills thousands of people every year, and thousands of people who breathed it in as children suffer from athsma and other illnesses due to second hand smoke, including lung cancer.

If you choose to ignore those facts, there's nothing more to be said.

[rubberducky]

23. Toots, did you post this with an evil grin on your face?

;) Sure did get my blood pressure pumping!

[americanstranger]

28. I gotta quit reading these smoking threads.

Guess I'll go outside, light one up, and take a walk - gingerly stepping over the thousands of corpses of those killed by second-hand smoke that are no doubt littering the streets at this point.

- as

[rubberducky]

39. Thank You!

Exactly, where are those corpses now?? Seems they should be littering the streets.

[Snarkturian Clone]

54. I hear you on this

I regret it every time I click on these threads and see how many democrats really want to restrict the freedom of others. No better than the RWers, IMO. I do not smoke and I'm highly allergic to cigarette smoke but I know how to adapt to the conditions that surround me. The smoking nazi's are the people that are too unintelligent to understand that it's not the government's job to take care of you or adapt everyone else's behavior just to serve you. They don't make it the law to put on your coat when it's cold outside.

[stirlingsliver]

37. Most Casinos Are Part of Hotels

Most casinos are part of hotels.

And some of those toxic fumes from cigarettes will make it into the HVAC system of those hotels.

People should NOT have to breathe cancer-causing somke just because they happen to stay in a hotel that has a casino.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Then we need to stop forcing people to stay at hotels with casinos!

[stirlingsliver]

46. No One Is Forcing People To Stay There.

No one is forcing any one to stay at hotels with casinos.

But people who smoke in casinos attached to hotels ARE forcing people who stay in those hotels to breathe in cancer-causing fumes.

I don't think ANYONE should be forced to breathe cancer-causing smoke.

[RainDog]

51. what about carbon emissions from cars?

if you walk down a street you will breathe carbon emissions from cars that are surely in far greater concentrations than any tobacco smoke from a casino. should everyone stop driving so that no one has to breathe car fumes? it kills people. no doubt. try putting an exhaust pipe inside your car with the window rolled up. I bet you wouldn't die from tobacco smoke in the same circumstances.

but wait... I know, you want to drive a car, right?

[stirlingsliver]

60. More People Should NOT Drive Cars

I do not own a car, and I have no desire to do so.

I do not want to support Big Oil.

I do not want to support Big Car, either.

More people should just walk. Or Ride Bicycles.

What's your point?

[RainDog]

61. LOL

no point.

no point at all.

I'm outta this thread. gonna go take a smoke and find some baby's face to blow it in, hopefully in a casino hotel room with lots of hotel employees forced to be in the room with me. (j/k)

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Then they can choose to stay in a smoke free hotel.

I don't believe there are a shortage of them, are there?

[stirlingsliver]

68. A Person Should Be Free To Choose

A person should be free to choose to stay in whatever hotel he or she wants to.

That is precisely why ALL HOTELS should be smoke free.

If someone does NOT wish to breathe in toxic, cancer-causing fumes, then that is their right.

[americanstranger]

69. So, smokers = non-persons?

Just so we're clear.

- as

[stirlingsliver]

71. WTF??

I never said any such thing.

But, then, you already know that don't you?

Smokers are persons who are free to smoke wherever they want -- just as long as they do not pollute the air of ANYONE else with toxic, cancer-causing smoke. (I suppose if someone really wants to breathe in another person's toxic, cancer-causing smoke, that would be OK. What is NOT OK, though, is smoking anywhere someone who does NOT want to breathe in toxic, cancer-causing smoke is.)

[americanstranger]

72. You said 'a person' should have a right to choose.

But that choice should, according to you, only be a choice of which non-smoking hotel to stay at.

That leaves smokers with no choice.

'person' = choice.
'smoker' = no choice.

smoker = non-person. Deductive reasoning.

- as

[stirlingsliver]

73. Whatever

Some of us want people to be able to live without breathing in noxious, toxic fumes that cause cancer.

Others, apparently, want to force people to breathe in noxious, toxic, cancer-causing fumes.

I know I want people to be free to go into any hotel they wish and not put their health in dnager by doing so.

[americanstranger]

74. Yeah, it's my mission to 'force' you to smoke.

Like you said, whatever.

This is why I should just stay out of these threads. The rhetoric just gets downright goofy after a while.

- as

[stirlingsliver]

75. Thanks For The Admission

Thanks for finally admitting what is so very true of so many smokers.

They really do, I am convinced, want to force other people to breathe in what they exhale.

[americanstranger]

76. What are you, five?

Or do I need a 'sarcasm' smiley to give you a clue?

- as

[stirlingsliver]

77. I'm Only One Person

Why would you think that there would be five of us??

I'm only one person.

[americanstranger]

78. Five as in 'five years old.'

And willfully obtuse, to boot.

You must be a scream at parties. (Take the word 'scream' as literally as you'd like.)

- as

[stirlingsliver]

79. I'm Like Fine Wine

And willfully acute, too.

What five-year-old do you know that would know the difference between acute and obtuse?

And I don't go to parties.

[americanstranger]

81. You should try it sometime.

Mixing it up with humanity every once in a while is good for you.

- as

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. Only the non smokers have rights.

That's a great position.

[Basileus Basileon]

44. Yes, I agree we should poison

all casino employees and patrons.

[havocmom]

52. Gamble online - no smoke

Leave workers out of your plans to modulate your own behaviors.

[SoCalDem]

59. I go to vegas twice a year, and can tell you that the non-smoking areas

used to be a lot larger than they are today.. There used to always be available space in the NS area, and since Vegas wants those machines clanking away 24-7-365, they have shrunken them :)

[dapoopta2]

70. very naive thing to say

That is like saying... let those people over there die, I don't talk to them much anyway. You might not gamble well, but some people have to make a living working in places like this, and should not have to be forced to sniff peoples crap smoke air. And I know the response to this, DON'T WORK THERE, but, there should be no reason to take a job in hazardous environments.