|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2005 : 06:27:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And then, there's this:
quote:
New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car
NJ Proposes Banning Smoking While Driving
Jul 24, 2005
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) Ashtrays have been disappearing in cars like fins on Cadillacs, and so could smoking while driving in New Jersey, under a measure introduced in the Legislature.
Everyone who's seen The Big Lebowski would know it's dangerous to drive while smoking. So I'm all for it. Same goes for talking in mobile phones while driving.
And I. Why should the lives of others be put at risk because some clown couldn't wait a half an hour have his coffin nail, and managed to drop it in his lap at 70 MPH?
It would be unenforcable, of course. Pity...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 06:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Valiant Dancer,
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on the choice of employment issue. I suggest you chat with a social worker who works with the homeless and unemployed and see what their opinion on this matter is. And just to avoid any semantics arguments, a hypothetical: a guy has a choice between a dollar a day or twenty bucks a day accompanied by a hard beating. If you consider that a choice of employment, I agree with you.
The government does not owe you a good paying job. You have to weigh the benefits and risks of any job.
quote:
Hard scientific evidence that secondhand smoke in the workplace is dangerous:
In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980's. Non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack and are also more likely to suffer a stroke, and some research suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate.
One recent study in the [i}British Medical Journal [/i]found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent. Secondhand smoke is especially risky for children and babies and can cause low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.
In 1993, the EPA issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United State were caused by secondhand smoke every year.
Tobacco industry lobbyists were the first to attack the legitimacy of the secondhand smoke studies. In 2002, a group fo 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, and reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evalucation of the risks of exposure to secondhand smoke, and classified it as being “carcinogenic to humans”.
Some studies have called the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke “weak”, and that term has been used largely by the tobacco industry as an argument against the dangers of secondhand smoke. However, the term “weak” in those studies referred to how the risks of secondhand smoking was weak IN COMPARISON TO actually smoking. In Addition, while most experts now conclude that moderate and occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents only a low cancer and other (particularly respitory) risks to humans, the risk becomes significant when an individual WORKS of LIVES in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent.
Too bad the evidence is seriously flawed.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
The same 1993 EPA study that was invalidated by science as the subjects were cherry picked to arrived at a pre-ordained conclusion.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000707.html
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 06:47:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Someone asked for evidence that smoking bans help people quit:
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarises the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average."
And to add a personal story to this aspect of the argument: a group of buddies of mine from home meet at this bar every Monday night. They have for 6 years now. They all have dinner, a beer or two (or ice tea for those preferring to stay totally sober) and chat for a couple hours. Of these 12 people, 4 smoke, and all 4 of those want to quit and are always trying new ways to quit or cut down.
Anyway, one of the smokers got pregnant. She didn't want the kid exposed to secondhand smoke, so she avoided the bar for most of the 9 months, and she quit smoking. She returned after the baby was born, with the intention of staying clean. Within 3 months she had fallen off the wagen, entirely because hanging around the other 3 smokers broke her will power. (I should mention that 2 of those other 3 admit that they often go for weeks not smoking at all, except at the bar.) If she lived in NYC, or Columbus, or some other city where smoking in bars is banned, it is reasonable to predict that she wouldn't have started smoking again.
The strong cultural corrolation between smoking and drinking in a bar - which causes so many people to cringe at the idea of banning smoking in bars - is exactly what contributes to the difficulty of quitting. People think that hanging out in a bar just won't be the same, won't be as satisfying or fun without the smoking. I thought so too, but when I went to my old bar in Columbus after the ban, I found that it smelled better, looked better, was full of customers, and I enjoyed myself without the cravings or guilty associated with smoking, because it just wasn't an option. Instead, I enjoyed the time with my friends and could actually taste my drink.
And this proves that smoking is a social activity. That was not disputed. So what? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
GeeMack,
Lots of people on this discussion seem to be acting like legislation is inherently wrong, and should only be a last resort in extreme circumstances. Are you also offended by bans of smoking on airplanes? After all, you don't have to fly. What, your job makes you fly? Well, you don't have to take that job. What about public intoxication? Or prohibition of alcohol consumption in certain establishments? Or regulations on gambling?
"That government is best which governs least." -- Henry David Thoreau. (1817-1862)
Regulation is warranted when there is a clear safety issue. Due to the flawed 1993 EPA ruling, we get the spate of clean air act rules which ban smoking from all public places with the exception of resturaunts and bars (although those establishments may choose to ban smoking) and the addition of aircraft which have a flight time under 6 hours. (and you didn't even know that not all domestic flights have smoking bans, also international flights do not have smoking bans.)
Public intoxication is a safety issue.
Consumption of alcohol in certain establishments goes back to prohibition, when communities deemed it prudent to licence establishments which served intoxicating liquors after prohibition was repealed.
Gambling had ties to La Cosa Nostra and is regulated mostly towards excluding these members from ownership of such establishments or working in such establishments.
quote:
If there are any hard-core libertarians in this discussion, we might as well give up debating right now, 'cause certainly we fundamentally disagree about what legislation should be used for. But anyone who is OK with restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and YES even public nudity, or who supports any other sort of government restrictions or taking tax dollars to pay for social goods, such as prevention or public education, then there is no *fundamental* reason why smoking bans in bars should be considered particularly "offensive" public policy. Not to say that you'd necessarily support this particular restriction on smoking, but please, don't act like I'm some sort of fascist for supporting it.
Form over substance fallacy. Prejudgical language fallacy to boot. Attaching a value of good or bad to people who don't agree with you does not support your position.
quote:
I am perfectly willing to be responsible for my own decisions, and how dare you accuse me of otherwise. I expressed a preference for what I think is socially beneficial public policy, that happens to also benefit me personally. That is not shirking my personal responsibility. For example, an ex-gang member in prison might advocate tax dollars going toward inner city prevention programs, in the hopes that they might steer future generations clear of bad choices they made. That doens't mean they don't accept responsiblity for their own actions.
Let's not pretend that environment has nothing to do with behavior when mountains of evidence prove otherwise.
I don't see where this is either disputed nor relevant to smoking bans. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:19:47 [Permalink]
|
Knowing what is now known about tobacco use and its side effects, any country which doesnt make it totally illegal gets whats coming to it, a ridiculous death and cancer rate along with an enormous medical expenditure. But we cant hurt the North Carolina economy so thats out...
That said I was a smoker for 9 years and I have no issues being in smokey places. With smoking sections and proper ventilation I dont see what the problem is. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:43:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Retrictions on smoking have been a cultural movement for over twenty years now...
quote:
Burning bars was not a cultural movement, no more than banning smoking in bars is, by itself, a cultural movement.
So. The burning bras, which we still wear despite the suppression of women indicated by the wearing of the offensive item, was to indicate that banning smoking as a cultural movement carries the same weight as the reason for burning bras. So, is banning smoking a cultural movement or not? You seem to say both.
However, burning bras was not the point of that particular section of my post. Your assertion that banning smoking in bars directly results in a decrease in smoking. I asked you, is that corollary or causal. I offered other factors in a decrease in smoking.
quote:
(Yes, I know Trish, for some people due to psychological combined with environmental circumstances, one might say it is not a choice any longer, I get it.)
Smoking is recreational drug use. (Then again, perhaps you want to jump on Humbert's smoking culture bandwagon. I'm not saying smoking isn't an essential element of certain subcultures, but what the hell, while we're at it, there's a crack-addict culture, too.)
Nicotine is an addictive substance. Any addictive substance substantially alters our brain chemistry where the brain 'needs' the substance to function properly. BTW, I'm not a bandwagon jumper, I actually prefer to consider a subject then decide, based on the best information I have, where I stand on the issue. If someone can effectively convince me, that my position is in error, then I will examine new information and readjust my views. You have yet to present any information that I find sufficient to begin to reexamine my current position on banning smoking. When and if you do, I will let you know. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 07/26/2005 07:50:52 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 09:09:27 [Permalink]
|
And the anti-smoke people say it won't go farther than bars and that smokers can go outside.
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/cookstory.asp?id=77110
Not in Buffalo Grove Park District. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 09:23:33 [Permalink]
|
"Form over substance fallacy. Prejudgical language fallacy to boot. Attaching a value of good or bad to people who don't agree with you does not support your position."
You interpreted that totally the wrong way. I didn't say that libertarians were bad, so where's the prejudicial language? I meant that if I was arguing with a libertarian I'd stop arguing, because an anti-smoking ban position from a libertarian point of view has an internal logic. (I don't agree with it, mind you, but I could respect the consistency of their position.) I also didn't say that people who support legal regulations and restrictions on legal behaviors MUST agree with smoking bans to be logically consistent themselves. They certainly don't. So what were those fallacies? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 09:31:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
Kil drew a parallel between anti-gays and anti-smokers and did a cute parody of me as a Bible thumping moralist. I really shouldn't have to point out the reasons that's stupid comparison, but here's' a few while I'm still conscious:
You missed my point. I was not trying to draw a parallel between anti-gays and anti-smokers. My little parody was an attempt to demonstrate that after saying you are not the moralizing kind, you did just that.
quote:
marfknox:
The ex-smokers want the bans because they want to live in a society that socially discourages smoking because that strengthens their willpower. In other words, yes, they want public policy that protects them from themselves, as someone else put it. And according to a study done by the NYC Health Department, 7 out of 10 NYC smokers want to quit. So yeah, we're doing most smokers a favor by making it easier to quit.
I was responding to the notion that, like the preaching's of religious moralists, you are making the argument that you know what is best for a segment of the population that, the last time I looked, are not breaking any laws. Sure, smoking is bad for us. But we don't need you not only telling us that, but worse, harassing us through legislation to make us quit, for our own good. See, that is the key here from my point of view. The moment you decided that one good justification for banning us from smoking in bars was that it was for our own good, you became an evangelical in the style of a religious moralist for the cause of anti smoking, like it or not.
Forget the anti-smoking Nazi stuff I said. That was hyperbolic language I used to get your attention. And you missed the point anyway. (Being from California, I know that you will not stop at banning smoking from bars unless at some point you apply some critical thinking to temper your bias.) So I will be happy to tone that down with this observation: I already have a mother. It is not your job to be my parent. I am a responsible adult able to make responsible decisions without your intervention.
Get it?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 09:36:57 [Permalink]
|
Again, the slippery slope arguments about the anti-smoking movement not stopping at bar bans is invalid. Almost everything is a slipperly slope in law. As with any cultural movement, things eventually go too far, then slide back, and end up somewhere in the middle. I earlier mentioned that perhaps the bar ban is going to far, but I doubt it, considering the success it has had in NYC, when opponents claimed there would be mass chaos as a result.
The movement is going to affect different places to different extremes. If people in Buffalo Grove Park are trying to extend the ban, that's BGP's problem. It was mentioned earlier in this discussion that the bar ban in Chicago didn't pass because it didn't have enough public support.
This would probably be a good place to mention that because of Humbert's aformentioned "smoking culture", I would not support a federal ban on any sort of businesses. I think it should be up to local communities. No, Humbert, I wasn't trying to say that the smoking culture is as bad as the crack-addict culture. Just pointing out that just because something is a culture, doesn't mean society shouldn't restrict and discourage it. I support the decriminalization of crack, because it doesn't help anyone to put crack addicts in prison, and it does a lot of harm. But that hardly means I support the marketing of crack as a recreational drug, or that I would support making it legal to smoke crack in ANY public places.
Some people on this discussion have tried to paint me a hypocrite for supporting decriminalization of recreational drug use while simutaneously supporting restrictions on how and where those drugs can be used. There is no conflict. They are different things with different consequences. Criminalizing any activity that adults engage in while not harming others always does more harm than good because getting a criminal record and going to jail are damaging for a person's career, self esteem, health, social status. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/26/2005 09:39:53 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 10:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
"Form over substance fallacy. Prejudgical language fallacy to boot. Attaching a value of good or bad to people who don't agree with you does not support your position."
You interpreted that totally the wrong way. I didn't say that libertarians were bad, so where's the prejudicial language? I meant that if I was arguing with a libertarian I'd stop arguing, because an anti-smoking ban position from a libertarian point of view has an internal logic. (I don't agree with it, mind you, but I could respect the consistency of their position.) I also didn't say that people who support legal regulations and restrictions on legal behaviors MUST agree with smoking bans to be logically consistent themselves. They certainly don't. So what were those fallacies?
"If there are any hard-core libertarians in this discussion, we might as well give up debating right now, 'cause certainly we fundamentally disagree about what legislation should be used for."
Not included in my assessment.
"But anyone who is OK with restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and YES even public nudity, or who supports any other sort of government restrictions or taking tax dollars to pay for social goods, such as prevention or public education, then there is no *fundamental* reason why smoking bans in bars should be considered particularly "offensive" public policy."
This is the classic if you support X then you can't bitch about Y prejudgicial language fallacy. Especially since X and Y are dissimilar. You have not proven your case that smoking causes harm because the studies you cite are fundamentally flawed.
"Not to say that you'd necessarily support this particular restriction on smoking, but please, don't act like I'm some sort of fascist for supporting it."
I'm not suggesting that you are a fascist for supporting the smoking ban. I'm pointing out that the studies from which you draw your contention are fundamentally flawed. I am also pointing out where it already has gone overboard with similar rhetoric in my own home state of Illinois. This also attaches a value of good or bad based on agreement to your position. (Form over content)
Kil used the N word (Nazi). It evoked an emotional response. Not everyone currently responding to your posts have used that word in describing your position. Lumping your opposition together based on the worst arguements and choices of words does not strengthen your position or address the refuting evidence supplied.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 13:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Val:
Kil used the N word (Nazi). It evoked an emotional response. Not everyone currently responding to your posts have used that word in describing your position. Lumping your opposition together based on the worst arguements and choices of words does not strengthen your position or address the refuting evidence supplied.
Gee whiz, I'm not sure how I should take this… 
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 13:52:09 [Permalink]
|
"This is the classic if you support X then you can't bitch about Y prejudgicial language fallacy."
I didn't argue that one couldn't "bitch" about smoking bans. I argued that one can't accuse smoking bans of being fundamentally offensive public policy and still be consistent if they support other public policies that restrict other harmful recreational behaviors. They can still bitch about smoking bans for other reasons, like Kil saying the bans are based on bad science. That is a very consistent, and very GOOD argument. But this "smoking culture" or "what about smokers' rights" stuff is rather inconsistent unless one takes a libertarian or similar stance on all similar issues.
Example of a reasonable law that protect people from themselves: seatbelt laws. They aren't so ridiculous as to put someone in jail for not wearing their seatbelt, and in fact, one can't even get pulled over solely for not wearing their seatbelt. And while not wearing one's seatbelt is a personal choice, and any potential harm is only done to the person choosing to not wear their seatbelt, requiring seatbelt use is a minor inconvenience to those who might oppose it.
The smoking ban issue is definitely different from seatbelt laws. Many smokers will argue that not being able to smoke in bars is a much greater inconvenience than having to put on a seatbelt. However, the MAIN REASON for the bans on smoking in bars has been to protect employees, and to a lesser degree, customers. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/26/2005 13:56:16 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 14:21:34 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
You didn't offend me with the Nazi comment. I thought it was funny, and most of your arguments are soundly phrased and persuasive.
However, you have totally misrepresented my argument.
To make things crystal clear (if that's even possible) I would vote in favor of a ban on smoking in bars in Philadelphia for these reasons and in this order:
1.) I think there is enough evidence to suggest that regular exsposure to secondhand smoke (such as in a work environment) is a serious health risk.
2.) I favor a cultural movement that conveniences smokers who want to quit and those who have quit by facilitating a general social environment where excessive social smoking is an activity particular to special businesses specifically for that purpose (shisha bars, cigar bars, etc.) or private homes. I do NOT view the ban as helping smokers who have no intention of quitting, nor do I scorn those individuals. If a person is perfectly happy being a regular smoker, fine, but don't act like someone's oppressing you just because of restrictions that make smoking less convenient.
"Being from California, I know that you will not stop at banning smoking from bars unless at some point you apply some critical thinking to temper your bias."
And there is where your argument, Kil, totally lost credibility with me. There is a minority that actually makes up the hard-core anti-smoking movement, but most people who support these kinds of restrictions in their local communities (like me) do draw our lines before the extremes. For one, I've already made it very clear that I personally do not support criminalizing or banning smoking. And I was getting around to responding to the whole smoking in cars issue, which I'll address right now: A couple years ago I read an article that said eating in cars was fast becoming the third major cause of car accidents (behind drinking and falling asleep at the wheel). So it seems premature to ban smoking in cars, since I'm sure far more people eat in cars, and it would be dangerous for the same reason. I highly doubt that smoking while driving in a major cause of car accidents, and I therefore I absolutely do NOT support such bans. Also, as filthy said, it's not really enforceable.
Just because a minority of people go to the extremes in a cultural movement (like extreme feminists, for example) doesn't mean the movement in general is bad. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 14:52:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Example of a reasonable law that protect people from themselves: seatbelt laws. They aren't so ridiculous as to put someone in jail for not wearing their seatbelt, and in fact, one can't even get pulled over solely for not wearing their seatbelt. And while not wearing one's seatbelt is a personal choice, and any potential harm is only done to the person choosing to not wear their seatbelt, requiring seatbelt use is a minor inconvenience to those who might oppose it.
In Illinois the state and local police regularly set up roadblocks to stop every driver for no reason other than to catch those who aren't wearing their seatbelts. So not only are you incorrect about seatbelt violations not being an offense that in itself merits a traffic stop, the laws actually have become an additional tool for overseeing the subjects in a police state. If it is not so now, it eventually will be where you live, too. Not so ridiculous? Your papers, please!
Seatbelt laws are designed for several purposes. Among the higher priorities are to add to the revenue stream of the government and to increase the control mechanisms available to the police state. If that were not true then the resources applied to enforcement of seatbelt laws would actually be applied to reducing or preventing the kinds of accidents that might cause the injuries supposedly being reduced by requiring everyone to wear seatbelts. I've noticed most of the support for seatbelt laws comes from the government and from people who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves.
Interestingly enough, the exclusive reason given to the people for mandatory seatbelt requirements has nothing to do with increasing their safety. We are told in no uncertain terms that we must wear seatbelts specifically to avoid the alternative, being punished by the government. Click it or ticket.
Back to the original topic, to support or not support laws that infringe on the rights of bar owners to manage their own private property as they see fit. Obviously, marfknox, you missed my previous postings where I actually gave you the intelligent solution to your problem. If you don't like going to bars where people smoke, don't go to bars where people smoke.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
