XPost: alt.activism, ny.politics, nyc.general 
 XPost: nyc.politics 
 From: liberty@once.net 
  
  wrote in message 
 news:uuvvh4p26b98uu67t8vtmq9rsgk7hirqd6@4ax.com... 
 > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:18:44 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" 
 >  wrote: 
 > 
 >> wrote in message 
 >>news:vebth4ta2jsvvk0du051fvhglmm9g8n2vd@4ax.com... 
 >>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:14:23 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" 
 >>>  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> wrote in message 
 >>>>news:31a2bedb-7466-45ec-afcd-7ee0dede2694@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... 
 >>>>On Nov 13, 4:58 pm, "Freedom Fighter"  wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> People that would inconsiderately subject others to their toxic, 
 >>>>> obnoxious 
 >>>>> smoke SHOULD be treated as second-class citizens. Blowing cigarette 
 >>>>> smoke 
 >>>>> in 
 >>>>> someone's face is an obvious act of HOSTILITY. Polluting the air other 
 >>>>> people breathe with such smoke is not much different. 
 >>>> 
 >>>>If you give them a place to gather and smoke, they can enjoy 
 >>>>themselves without bothering others.  What is wrong with this? 
 >>>>--- 
 >>>>Nothing, as long as non-smokers, who have a right to be in the same 
 >>>>public 
 >>>>places, are not forced to inhale their smoke. 
 >>>> 
 >>> 
 >>>  Errr...  Problem with logic here: 
 >>> 1.  Everyone has the right to go into any public 
 >>>    area. 
 >>> 2. If said public area is designated for smokers, 
 >>>    then you accept that condition if you go in, 
 >>>    if not you stay out of that area.  No one is 
 >>> "Forced" to go into the smoking area,  except 
 >>> perhaps smokers who must smoke. 
 >> 
 >>Granted. 
 >> 
 >>> 3.  Do you consider it your "right" to go into 
 >>> a place where people are doing something you 
 >>> do not like,  and force them to stop so that 
 >>> you can be there? 
 >> 
 >>No, but they should not be doing it in a "public" place, or they are 
 >>violating non-smokers' rights by forcing their exclusion. Let them open a 
 >>smokers' club, where members pay for the dubious privelege of poisoning 
 >>themselves and each other. 
 > 
 > But that's the point "designated places" are designated 
 > places!  If a place is designated for smokers,  then 
 > you are excluded by your choice not to go there,  just 
 > as the smokers are excluded from going into places 
 > where smoking is prohibited,  it works both ways. 
 > 
 > What you're attempting to do is call the designated 
 > smoking areas "public places" for the purposes 
 > of arguing your own exclusion by choice!  The 
 > point being you are not excluded at all.  If you 
 > choose not to breath second hand smoke,  then 
 > you are making the choice not to go into those 
 > areas that are designated for smokers. 
 > 
 > Smokers,  to be fair by these standards you're using, 
 > could say that you're excluding them by not allowing 
 > smoking.  That you are excluding them from public 
 > places.  Or that you're forcing them to into non-smoking 
 > areas.  Neither of which argument holds any water. 
 > 
 > If people have the right to smoke,  then businesses 
 > should have the right to cater to that crowd!  If they 
 > believe there is sufficient economic advantage for 
 > their business,  and smoking is legal,  then why 
 > should they not be allowed to serve smokers? 
 > Or should they not be allowed to serve gays? 
 > Or sports fans? 
 > Or punk rockers? 
 > Or Hip Hop? 
 > Or Jazz? 
 > 
 >  Do you go to clubs whose themes you dislike, 
 > and complaint that they should change their 
 > themes because they are excluding you? 
 > Certainly,  by this logic,  you should be able 
 > to attend a Jazz club,  and not have to listen 
 > to jazz!   Hahaha... 
 > 
 > See it? 
  
 Yes - thanks for the explanation. 
 I still oppose smoking tobacco however as it is proven to be harmful, and 
 though I would not outlaw it, I think non-smokers should be reasonably 
 protected from the "right" of smokers to pollute the air that they breathe. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)