Are soda machines the new cigarette machines?
- Thread starter London
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Fat people don't get fat from having a fat food....they get that way from having to many of them, which is their choice...not someone else's.
I just don't think it's right for a goverment to stick their nose's where it doesn't belong. Just as I don't think they have any right to tell me which guns I can or can't have or how ammo I can have.
I do agree that a drunk shouldn't be served anymore
rsayloriii
TGT Addict
the article said:
I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ...
35Remington
TGT Addict
I think it becomes partly my choice when I'm asked to pay the medical bills for fat people who are also broke. The 5 poorest states in America all make the Top 10 Fattest list. In my mind, that is no coincidence.
Would your opinion change if the story was about Rackspace instead of CoSA?
I and God only knows how many other asthmatics as well as people who are sensitive/allergic to tobacco and/or cigarette/cigar smoke would beg to differ. Smoking in a public building directly affects everyone there, whether you know it or not. Hell, I've had to be rushed to the nearest ER in the back of an ambulance because some prick three tables over decided to (literally) blow smoke towards me after I (politely) asked him to put it out, which triggered a severe asthma flare.
Let's see. Banning something that is indecent and potentially lethal to the people around you, or banning something that only affects you, but only if you MAKE THE CHOICE to consume that product...
Bitch, please. If you're gonna try a comparison, compare it to something that makes sense.
And yes, I mad.
You have that choice on whether or not you'll do that. I fail to see where the government should. Now, if were talking food stamps then I have a different opinion.
Thereby removing your choice from vending machines. True, you're free to bring your own, but that isnt the argument.
Yeah, I moved from a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants. I prefer those that do not.
But I see what you are saying, if it the the owners choice its one thing, when its mandated 'for your own good' its something completely different.
First if the business is privately owned its not a public building. Second,you're saying if you own a business you're ok with the government telling you that you aren't allowed to let people smoke there?
Third, if you're allergic, and that fragile, don't go to places that allow smoking.
Lastly, don't call me bitch. And fwiw I really don't care if you're mad.
First off, there is no need for the name calling out of anger. It makes sense for some to smoke in a bar that ALLOWS IT. It is completely stupid for the city to tell businesses that they cant do something legal in their own establishment. Next thing is no beer in your home. If you dont like something, dont go there. People with CHL are smart enough to figure that out when they notice the 30.06 signs.
Exactly. I'd love to have the money to open a bar and afford the legal fees to challenge such a ban in court. My idea is simple, instead of a non smoking bar or restaurant, it would be smoking only. If you don't have cigarettes on you you're not welcome and service would be refused.
I completely understand that people are allergic and that "second hand" smoke is an issue. However, I believe it's a persons choice to frequent a place that allows it and their rights to be in a smoke free private establishment should not trump the smokers right to be in a smoke allowed environment as provided by the private business owner. The market will decide and take care of itself. If enough people refused to do business with my hypothetical place of business I would either change my rules or close down. No reason for government nanny state to get involved.
If you want to smoke, fine by me. Just have the common God damn decency to do so outside, where the risk of it affecting someone else is near zero. Your nicotine addiction does -not- take precedence over another person's health or give you any right to endanger someone else.
As I said. There is no correlation between banning something that can rather easily kill someone and banning something that has no effect on you or anyone else unless and until you -choose- to consume that product.
And yeah, I admit that I lost my temper there, and I apologize, really.
As I said. There is no correlation between banning something that can rather easily kill someone and banning something that has no effect on you or anyone else unless and until you -choose- to consume that product.
And yeah, I admit that I lost my temper there, and I apologize, really.
You miss the point. Do you do so on purpose or do I need to break out the crayons?
A little cig smoke is way better than driving with your windows down. You want clean air? Move to colorado..
Don't know anything about Rackspace but them and the city of SA have no business telling an individual what is and isn't good for them and trying to shove it down their throats. We all have to make our on choices whether they are good or bad
Oh, I get the point. You don't like the government interfering with private businesses (most of which cater to the public, in case you forgot), and I'm the same way. I just feel that certain interferences are permissible, because they really are for the good of the public. Smoking bans (IMHO anyway) fall into the "they're actually doing shit right for once" category. Shit like banning soft drinks or certain size drinks (in NY, the biggest any place can legally serve you is a 16 ounce cup with two refills, IIRC), however, that just doesn't make sense to me, because soft drinks can't land someone in the hospital or morgue (not directly anyway).
Also, little note here. Your bar would last -maybe- half a year before you're either forced to close/change your policy or you get sued out the ass, in all likelihood. I can easily see the ACLU or a similar organization trying to ram a discrimination lawsuit down your throat.
Also, little note here. Your bar would last -maybe- half a year before you're either forced to close/change your policy or you get sued out the ass, in all likelihood. I can easily see the ACLU or a similar organization trying to ram a discrimination lawsuit down your throat.
recoveringyankee
Active Member
If you were forced to go into a location that allowed smoking your argument would have weight. The Austin smokeing ban in private locations is just a property rights grab and it's existance is wrong, any Freedom loveing person should be against it.
They ARE the same, nanany government trying to force behavor to what they think is best for us. The smoke solution is easy for you, you don't need to go to locations which allow smoking. The "fat food" non-problem is easy, eat it in moderation and burn more calories then you put in your pie hole. The extent government's involvement in those two issues should be one of advisory only, with the final choise left up to us. Even if that choice is self destructive.
Remember: Don't come to Texas then try to "fix" it, it ain't broke, well, except for Austin, that city needs lots of fixin.
Soft drinks will land you in the hospital or morgue just as fast as cigarettes. It is never ok for the government to dictate what private business can allow when it pertains to a legal product. (Obviously government can dictate that the use of illegal product even in a private establishment is still illegal)
Your argument is the exact argument Bloomberg makes for his nanny state rules. This discussion, couples with a few more of your stated beliefs, lead one to believe you're a closet liberal who wants cradle to grave government. However, you're drastically inconsistent. You stated above that this was a bad idea yet now you defend it. Make up your mind.
ETA: you missed the part where I said I hoped to get sued. It's as much discrimination as, no smoking allowed, by government fiat is. It is a property rights issue that the government and the nanny state liberals want to force on private business owners.
Last edited:
"closet liberal"? Don't make me laugh so hard, man. As I said, there are -some- restrictions/regulations that I'm in favor of (mostly for reasons based on personal experience), but there are quite a few that make me sick to even consider. And before you rag on me for that, I'm pretty damn sure you're the same way. For example, if you support an FFL being required for a business to sell guns/ammo, and a background check for in-store purchases, but are against things like ammo or gun restrictions, you're in the same boat as I am.
Also, where did I defend the shit Austin is trying to pull? If you got that impression then you took my post(s) out of context.
Edit: For what it's worth, I'll say this. I'm alright with restaurants, bars, etc etc allowing people to smoke inside - provided that the smoking/non-smoking sections are separated, either by a wall or a good bit of open space. It's when the two are jammed right up against each other that it becomes an issue for me.
Also, where did I defend the shit Austin is trying to pull? If you got that impression then you took my post(s) out of context.
Edit: For what it's worth, I'll say this. I'm alright with restaurants, bars, etc etc allowing people to smoke inside - provided that the smoking/non-smoking sections are separated, either by a wall or a good bit of open space. It's when the two are jammed right up against each other that it becomes an issue for me.
Last edited:
