[All4BigGuns]

Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.


Nascar anyone?

Whats Nascar?

Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.

[Kat9]

Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.


Nascar anyone?

Whats Nascar?

Oh its just thing where people race cars around in circles. Just like one big loop really. Goes on for hours. I mean HOURS.

[Black]

Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.


Nascar anyone?

Whats Nascar?

Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.

Could be fun... wait, is that from Nicole Kidman's early movie... Days of Thunder?  Cool... very old school.

[Kat9]

Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.


Nascar anyone?

Whats Nascar?

Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.

Could be fun... wait, is that from Nicole Kidman's early movie... Days of Thunder?  Cool... very old school.

I haven't seen that film.


Have you seen Cockney's Vs Zombies? Now that's a funny flick.

[RHat]

Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke.  You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.

[Kat9]

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

Hi, you're new here, aren't you?

[RHat]

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

Hi, you're new here, aren't you?

I'm trying to be nice, is all.  It's the way we do things north of the 49th - even if we have to kick major ass, we do it politely.

[All4BigGuns]

Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke.  You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.

Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others.  Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.

[RHat]

Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke.  You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.

Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others.  Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.

Actually, no.  You impose the secondary effects of your smoking upon them.  But good job continuing to act like you have to be lead by the hand to every conclusion!

[All4BigGuns]

Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.

I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least.  And new depths of ridiculousness.

But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke.  You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.

Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others.  Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.

Actually, no.  You impose the secondary effects of your smoking upon them.  But good job continuing to act like you have to be lead by the hand to every conclusion!

Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?

[Kat9]

Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?

Extreme outlier of an example. It doesn't happen often enough to even bear serious consideration.

edit mine.

[All4BigGuns]

Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.

The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.

Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.

[Kat9]

Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.

The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.

Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.

*shudders* That's just ridiculous in my opinion, but then again I was raised that only women and homosexuals wear earrings and that other piercings are sick, disgusting and wrong.

[RHat]

Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.

The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.

Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.

Except, you know, none of that's actually the case.

And I'm just going to tell you right now:  I've gone back and forth with some of the most frustrating, immune-to-logic-and-evidence people that exist.  You do not have the capacity to overrun my patience.

[Mara]

Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?

You have not paid attention to set backs of business entrances from parking lots lately, have you? This is for two
reasons: to have a space 25 feet from the building for people to smoke and to put the businesses away from
the higher emissions of automobiles.  Most new businesses have to be off set a good bit from the roads, as well.

Of course, to the OP's original post, something to think about is that: It does not matter whether the guy was
smoking inside or out, whoever it was is guilty of, at the very least, criminal negligence, if not attempted arson.
Hence why I asked if the store video cameras(something I am assuming most FLGS have based on the fact that
they are prone to being vandalized by the "Religious Right" and broken into over recent years) caught the guy
so they could press charges. Regardless, the store would have to, now, even if not in a state that prohibits
public smoking(which is what surprised me: that there WERE still any that allowed it), prohibit smoking inside
just because of this one person's stupidity/malice.