How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

In this case, while the oppressors are still smug white people, the oppressed minority are the smokers. It's almost a perfect analogy, except it's even worse. Blacks could at least own businesses catering to other blacks during the worst of Jim Crow. Smoker's aren't even allowed that small bit of freedom.

Analogous to Godwin's Law, the first person to compare how much worse today's smokers are off compared to black folk during segregation, automatically loses the argument.

In this case, while the oppressors are still smug white people, the oppressed minority are the smokers. It's almost a perfect analogy, except it's even worse. Blacks could at least own businesses catering to other blacks during the worst of Jim Crow. Smoker's aren't even allowed that small bit of freedom.

Analogous to Godwin's Law, the first person to compare how much worse today's smokers are off compared to black folk during segregation, automatically loses the argument.

Says you?

Others can analogize second hand smoke with murder, yet this is a step too far? Other's can analogize the victims of second smoke with the black victims of Jim Crow, but I can't flip the narrative the other way?

I'm thinking I'll just double down on the smug white people analogy.

Thanks.

In this case, while the oppressors are still smug white people, the oppressed minority are the smokers. It's almost a perfect analogy, except it's even worse. Blacks could at least own businesses catering to other blacks during the worst of Jim Crow. Smoker's aren't even allowed that small bit of freedom.

Analogous to Godwin's Law, the first person to compare how much worse today's smokers are off compared to black folk during segregation, automatically loses the argument.

Says you?

Others can analogize second hand smoke with murder, yet this is a step too far? Other's can analogize the victims of second smoke with the black victims of Jim Crow, but I can't flip the narrative the other way?

I'm thinking I'll just double down on the smug white people analogy.

Thanks.

I'd respond, but you already lost.

Analogous to Godwin's Law, the first person to compare how much worse today's smokers are off compared to black folk during segregation, automatically loses the argument.

Says you?

Others can analogize second hand smoke with murder, yet this is a step too far? Other's can analogize the victims of second smoke with the black victims of Jim Crow, but I can't flip the narrative the other way?

I'm thinking I'll just double down on the smug white people analogy.

Thanks.

I'd respond, but you already lost.[/quote]


I also thought it was getting a little extreme with the slavery/Jim Crow/almost Hitler comparisons.

But as much as I've busted Steve's balls in the past, when he's right he's right.

All it took was him being on the right side of an argument. Mine.

I'd respond, but you already lost.

Suits me fine. Yet you'll still be that guy who claims they can't understand why smokers get so upset.

almost Hitler comparisons.

I said I was holding back.


That said, the above analogy falls apart because black people aren't hurting others just by being black, but a smoker spreads cancer wherever he/she goes. Until, of course, you can prove that second hand smoke is magically rendered harmless by traveling through the smoker's mouth/lungs or by exposure to clean air from the end of the burning cigarette...

Except that really doesn't explain why smokers can't set up public places for other smokers to enjoy, does it? Of course, we know that *you* think getting a pizza anywhere you want is more important than any rights smokers might have.

Smokers can get a pizza at the pizza place, they just don't need to risk everyone's health by smoking there too. I'm not allowed to poo in the floor because it presents a health risk. Why do smokers get special privilege to risk the health of others? (sorry, Robin, I try not to work blue).


Can drunk drivers get their own roadways, while we are at it?

You do *not* get that smokers are not allowed to open a public place that welcomes smokers. And do you *not* get that they might want to do that so there would be zero chance of annoying you while you ate you pizza. How does it hurt you if they could leave you alone and go to their own place?

I'm fine with smokers -only establishments.

I'm fine with smokers -only establishments.

I agree with Charles and I said so in my previous posts several times.

You do *not* get that smokers are not allowed to open a public place that welcomes smokers. And do you *not* get that they might want to do that so there would be zero chance of annoying you while you ate you pizza. How does it hurt you if they could leave you alone and go to their own place?

Please please please list all the places that allow for smoking so that the rest of us can stay away. Happily. Gleefully. Joyfully avoiding secondhand smoke. I bet there aren't many now especially since many restaurant owners have seen their revenues go up since the smoking ban.

This is how this entire discussion seems to shake out...
For non smokers, the fact that secondhand smoke is harmful and hurts others is the trump card for not allowing smoking in public places.
For smokers, the fact that they WANT it is the trump card to do anything they please regardless of the harm to others. One group tends to think about the majority's need (including children, asthmatics , and those with respiratory illnesses) the other group only takes into consideration their own wants based on an addiction.

You do *not* get that smokers are not allowed to open a public place that welcomes smokers. And do you *not* get that they might want to do that so there would be zero chance of annoying you while you ate you pizza. How does it hurt you if they could leave you alone and go to their own place?

"separate but equal" Hey, that's worked in the past! Honestly, if a person wanted to open a business and allow smokers, I say go for it, let the free market decide. I know how I would vote. But I was looking for an option that was inclusive rather than exclusive. Smokers and non could all dine together in harmony, but it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to expect smokers to consider the health of others and maybe not smoke for an hour or so while they eat and share communal space.

You do *not* get that smokers are not allowed to open a public place that welcomes smokers. And do you *not* get that they might want to do that so there would be zero chance of annoying you while you ate you pizza. How does it hurt you if they could leave you alone and go to their own place?

"separate but equal" Hey, that's worked in the past! Honestly, if a person wanted to open a business and allow smokers, I say go for it, let the free market decide. I know how I would vote. But I was looking for an option that was inclusive rather than exclusive. Smokers and non could all dine together in harmony, but it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to expect smokers to consider the health of others and maybe not smoke for an hour or so while they eat and share communal space.

This is so Orwellian that I don't even know were to begin. I bet you are a hoot at the family picnic though.

You do *not* get that smokers are not allowed to open a public place that welcomes smokers. And do you *not* get that they might want to do that so there would be zero chance of annoying you while you ate you pizza. How does it hurt you if they could leave you alone and go to their own place?

"separate but equal" Hey, that's worked in the past! Honestly, if a person wanted to open a business and allow smokers, I say go for it, let the free market decide. I know how I would vote. But I was looking for an option that was inclusive rather than exclusive. Smokers and non could all dine together in harmony, but it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to expect smokers to consider the health of others and maybe not smoke for an hour or so while they eat and share communal space.

This is so Orwellian that I don't even know were to begin. I bet you are a hoot at the family picnic though.

You should come along sometime.

I'm assuming you've established the facts assumed in your post without aid of epidemiological studies, since they are inherently unreliable, or so I'm told.

I didn't really want to resurrect this thread. For those interested, here's a actual statistician that I recently came across who is likewise skeptical about epidemiological studies.