Replies

The gentleman's personal problem is brought about by the actions of another, had there been no smoke he would not have had the asthma attack, the smoker's rights end at the other fellow's nose.... Literally.... I am for the banning of all smoking in all public places by force of law; it is sickening, dangerous, caustic, irritating. etc.etc.

I am for the banning of all smoking in all public places by force of law; it is sickening, dangerous, caustic, irritating. etc.etc.

I am for the banning of all non-smoking areas, rulings, covenants, and laws. They are sickening, dangerous, caustic, irritating, etc., etc., etc.

I'm still drawing parallels. Much like the example you used, a wheezing, inhalator wielding asthmatics rights end at the eyes and ears of anyone offended by such, to borrow your logic.

The gentleman's personal problem is brought about by the actions of another, had there been no smoke he would not have had the asthma attack, the smoker's rights end at the other fellow's nose.... Literally.... I am for the banning of all smoking in all public places by force of law; it is sickening, dangerous, caustic, irritating. etc.etc.

But what about the right of the restaurant owner to permit smoking in his establishment. Do his rights end when you walk through the door? No one is forced to enter that restaurant.

There are plenty of non-smoking establishments in and around where I live, but that's not good enough for nannies like you. I had a discussion with an anti about this some time ago.

My question was "why don't you go to XYZ restaurant, they are all non-smoking?"
Response - "I don't like the place."
Me- "Why not PDG, they're non-smoking?"
Response - "I don't like the food."
Me - "So because you don't like XYZ or PDQ, then ABC and all the rest MUST go non-smoking by government edict just to accomodate you?"
Response - "YES."

Sorry - that is not only unreasonable, it is down right childish.