What is Digg?14 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Call me idealistic, but I like to believe in this little thing called freedom.
My opinion of smoking laws are perfectly summed up in the South Park episode "Butt Out". Essentially, it's total ***** to take away someone's right to open a bar where people can smoke, where you could put a sign out front that says "This is a smoking bar and if you don't want to be around smoke you can just stay out." For some people, a drink and a cigarette is the closest thing they get to a vacation; the free market should dictate which bars become smoke-free and which permit smoking. I'm an assistant manager of a bar and if we thought that smokers were hurting our business, we'd ban it in a minute. The opposite is true, however, and it's these ***** smoking laws coming into effect in the next few years that are going to hurt our business.
Give people freedom and let them make their own ***** choices. - hackman7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2florida has the same thing...
- tommorris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Congratualtions, Scotland, enjoy your chains! Why not ban alcohol too? That would make pubs just perfect, right?
- dude3609, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2a city here in california did the same exact thing.. they banned public smoking..
- Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This argument always makes me laugh.
You're saying people should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies?
So does that include heroin, crack, pot, coke, meth, shrooms, LSD, etc?
No? Then shut up.
Your right to smoke ends where my right to breath starts. - chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Passive smoking is *not* hazardous for people's health, the two researches (EFA's and WHO) always referred to to demonstrate the cancer hazards have conclusions that contradict the results. For even their false calculations say that the likelihood of cancer rises from 20,000 : 1,000,000 to 25,000 : 1,000,000.
If employers and bar owners don't mind and their clientel is mostly smokers... should they be forced to be smoke-free? - brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Employees who don't want to work in a smoky environment... shouldn't apply to work in a smoky environment. Work somewhere else. It's not like these places hired people and then added the smokers later. Who's being forced?
- tommorris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Xiol: "You're saying people should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies?"
Yes.
Xiol: "So does that include heroin, crack, pot, coke, meth, shrooms, LSD, etc?"
Duh, yeah. Just remember the twenties, man. Prohibition didn't work and still doesn't. - chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Xiol, I personally believe that everyone should be allowed to consume whatever substance they desire. Oh! Doesn't that mean that everyone would shoot up smack and get blasted off acid... ?
... NO! - icematrix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Even as a former smoker, I think this is a great idea. Other people, especially employees of restaurants shouldn't have to breathe smoke 8 to 10 hours per day.
- happbando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1even if employers don't mind, unless all employees consent, no one should be forced to breathe smoke all day, whether or not it's potentially hazardous. some of us don't like it. whether or not it's enforced by law, businesses need to pick either smoking or non.
- Narvs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Best idea ever! Smoking is a waste of time, money and people's lives.
- siliconglen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Personal background - I have been campaigning for this in the UK since 1989 and for many years have been compiling this list, which after today is redundant http://www.siliconglen.com/fooddrink/pubsfornonsmokers.html
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is