Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

So free riding on society is your your idea of responsibility. How liberal.

PJ, stop, you're killin' me with your nonsense. Yeah, that's my quote you reference......which when taken in proper context means exactly the opposite.

1)You make a point.
2)My contradictory point is then 180degrees opposite of what you said.
3)You then twist my point into 180degrees opposite of what it was (which would then essentially bring my point around to being what your point was)
4)Then you tell me i'm wrong.

Brilliant, PJ, brilliant!

Learn to keep up with the conversation, will ya PJ?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by WTF

I do not think the government should tell a private business how it should run its business in this regard. That said I'm glad they did!

Perfect!

This whole thread reminds me of the old Steve Martin line:

"You mind if i smoke?"
"You mind if i fart in your face?"

The problem here isn't over-reaching government. The problem here is people being so ignorant and inconsiderate that they need to have common manners legislated to them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oden

Although I am not a cigarette smoker, I find it wrong to say that one can't smoke in a bar or restaurant. I would prefer that the establishment declare that they are smoking or nonsmoking and I will choose to frequent them or not. The same goes if I wanted to work for a smoking establishment or visit a provider that smoked or permitted smoking in their incall.

Where does government get the notion that they have the right to decide these things? I don't frequent places that have heavy smoke because I don't want to smell like smoke when I return to work or home and smell that way ,but why should that not mean that people that do like to smoke should have nowhere to go?. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, quit going around it and if places are losing money because of it, they will adapt or go out of business.

What law(s) do you think are ok? Should people be able to fuc in public? Jack off next to you in the movie theater? Inquiring minds want to know!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Shrieking kids won't give you cancer.

And I'm guessing you have peer reviewed medical research showing that occasionally eating in a restuarant that allows smoking in a designated section does produce cancer. Because that's what we are talking about here.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

PJ, stop, you're killin' me with your nonsense. Yeah, that's my quote you reference......which when taken in proper context means exactly the opposite.

1)You make a point.
2)My contradictory point is then 180degrees opposite of what you said.
3)You then twist my point into 180degrees opposite of what it was (which would then essentially bring my point around to being what your point was)
4)Then you tell me i'm wrong.

Brilliant, PJ, brilliant!

Learn to keep up with the conversation, will ya PJ?

No I reread your drivel, it still doesn't make any sense. Your basic idea of taking responsibility for your actions is forcing society as a whole to pay your hospital bills by declaring it a "right". That is not being accountable for your actions.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

The problem here isn't over-reaching government. The problem here is people being so ignorant and inconsiderate that they need to have common manners legislated to them.

Now thats actually the most interesting and revealing things you have said in this whole exchange.

Your basic premise is that it is okay for an overreaching government to impose your required manners on the rest of us "heathens". Therefore, using your logic, if my sensibilities are offended by ignorant parents who either a) ignore their children so that they act up in public or b) are too lazy or stupid to teach their children proper public behavior, it would in your opinion be okay to have the lovely government usurp that role -- and lets of course do it at a Federal level so that we have the same standards of performance on the Upper east Side of Manhattan as we do in West Bumfuck Montana. Interesting!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

No I reread your drivel, it still doesn't make any sense. Your basic idea of taking responsibility for your actions is forcing society as a whole to pay your hospital bills by declaring it a "right". That is not being accountable for your actions.

Society is always forced to pay for others screw ups. Who do you think will pay for this oil spill? Is drilling a right? Is mining a right. Is doing business that harms the enviorment a right?

Some seem to think so and bestow in on a lucky few....same as some think healthcare should be a right.

People that live on the coast and get wiped out by a storm that have government insurance are bailed out by all of us. Nobody seems to ever take complete responsibility (except people that commit suicide ). We all want something for nothing. Moral Hazzaed is a bitch!

[Tiffany Cums]

A child of smokers, sibling of smokers, and have been a smoker off and on all my life (started smoking at 3). I also have damage in my lungs from many bouts of bronchitis.

I beleive the government got this one right. We should not be exposing anyone to excessive second hand smoke. Now that I've said that, I DO beleive that more provisions should be made for smokers. There should be a disignated smoking area in every public arena. This is currently not the case. I don't beleive the business establishment should pick and choose, I think they should have to make those provisions. But then, that would mean the government would be MORE involved!

[discreetgent]

Excellent, lets now go a step further in logical conclusions.

Atl: so a business should be able to not server people based on race, etc. Taken further should we abolish the FDA? drug companies should be able to send any medication to market; if something goes wrong they will get sued and pay for it; the marketplace will deal with it. Similarly, should we abolish all food inspections. Meat plants can run as the owners wish; if e-coli kills people, the meat plants will be sued; marketplace will make sure only the good ones stay in business. Should we get rid of all workplace safety regulations? companies that have workers injured will get sued and paid, only those with exemplary records will stay in business.

[Doove]

PJ: No I reread your drivel, it still doesn't make any sense. Your basic idea of taking responsibility for your actions is forcing society as a whole to pay your hospital bills by declaring it a "right". That is not being accountable for your actions.

WFT: Society is always forced to pay for others screw ups. Who do you think will pay for this oil spill? Is drilling a right? Is mining a right. Is doing business that harms the enviorment a right?

Forget it WTF. PJ is carrying on an argument with himself by twisting my words into something entirely not what i said, and then arguing against it. A bit off the beaten path of the topic of the thread, but i'm trying to agree with his premise that people need to be responsible for themselves. But he seems to not want to let me do that because in so doing (by pointing out that mandated health insurance is required so that people's bills will be paid for.....just like with car insurance) i pointed out to him how his own position disagrees with his political ideology. And he doesn't like it.

Or perhaps PJ can explain - just how does my defending mandated health insurance so that hospitals get paid for treatments (as i've argued here in this thread) correlate to my insisting that people don't need to be responsible for themselves and should let society pay for them (as you've argued i've argued in this thread)?

And if your argument is that insurances in and of themselves are bad things.....then i just give up.

PS: i got $100 that says he'll ignore the question and just rant about the evils of mandated health insurance.

And one more thing PJ. If you've got a problem with health care being considered a "right", take your whines to Ronald Reagan.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Excellent, lets now go a step further in logical conclusions.

Atl: so a business should be able to not server people based on race, etc. Taken further should we abolish the FDA? drug companies should be able to send any medication to market; if something goes wrong they will get sued and pay for it; the marketplace will deal with it. Similarly, should we abolish all food inspections. Meat plants can run as the owners wish; if e-coli kills people, the meat plants will be sued; marketplace will make sure only the good ones stay in business. Should we get rid of all workplace safety regulations? companies that have workers injured will get sued and paid, only those with exemplary records will stay in business.

We are also going to get rid of the courts system....afterall that is another government function! Government Baddddddddddddddddddddd.

I say we go back to pistol dualing to settle up!

[Rudyard K]

If you all really want to look at this issue…without a predetermined outcome…you need to read this website. Particularly read “Statistics 101”, Statistics 102”, “EPA ‘93” and “WHO”.


I recognize that most dissenters don’t really care about the facts. They don’t like it…they don’t want to be around it…it annoys them…so using the perceived second hand smoke ruse suits their purpose.

But the facts don’t really support the perception. And it is no more valid than saying hookers and johns engage in a high risk lifestyle which, when they interact with the non-hobby world, endangers the population as a whole. Most in the world would believe such a statement, and take it at face value, with very little sound statistical evidence to support such.


If you are really interested in facts…you will find this enlightening. Sadly, I think most are not.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

If you all really want to look at this issue…without a predetermined outcome…you need to read this website. Particularly read “Statistics 101”, Statistics 102”, “EPA ‘93” and “WHO”.


I recognize that most dissenters don’t really care about the facts. They don’t like it…they don’t want to be around it…it annoys them…so using the perceived second hand smoke ruse suits their purpose.

But the facts don’t really support the perception. And it is no more valid than saying hookers and johns engage in a high risk lifestyle which, when they interact with the non-hobby world, endangers the population as a whole. Most in the world would believe such a statement, and take it at face value, with very little sound statistical evidence to support such.


If you are really interested in facts…you will find this enlightening. Sadly, I think most are not.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

RK, don't be spreading no facts around here. The tooth fairy will be very upset with you!



Where you been? Fight the good fight, I hope!

Glad to see you back but no more facts, ok. Fucs up a perfectly good story!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now thats actually the most interesting and revealing things you have said in this whole exchange.

Your basic premise is that it is okay for an overreaching government to impose your required manners on the rest of us "heathens". Therefore, using your logic, if my sensibilities are offended by ignorant parents who either a) ignore their children so that they act up in public or b) are too lazy or stupid to teach their children proper public behavior, it would in your opinion be okay to have the lovely government usurp that role ..... Interesting!

Oh my God, PJ actually makes a point in this thread that has some legitimate logical reasoning to it. Let me address it, if i may.

If a business of any kind permitted an air quality environment equivalent to what exists in a room full of cigarette smoke, that business would likely face OSHA sanctions, as well as a visit from the board of health if it were a business open to the public. So the poor air quality for it's customers and employees should not be excused simply because that air environment is caused not by it's own actions, but by the inconsiderate and ill-mannered actions of it's customers. And unfortunately, since the owners of the business will not police their customers, and more to your point, the customers will not police themselves, there needs to be a law.

So again, there's a difference between unruly kids, or most other ill mannered behaviors, and smoking in a bar or restaurant. It's a pretty easy concept to comprehend so you need to be asked, why do you not get this?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

Forget it WTF. PJ is carrying on an argument with himself by twisting my words into something entirely not what i said, and then arguing against it. A bit off the beaten path of the topic of the thread, but i'm trying to agree with his premise that people need to be responsible for themselves. But he seems to not want to let me do that because in so doing (by pointing out that mandated health insurance is required so that people's bills will be paid for.....just like with car insurance) i pointed out to him how his own position disagrees with his political ideology. And he doesn't like it.

Or perhaps PJ can explain - just how does my defending mandated health insurance so that hospitals get paid for treatments (as i've argued here in this thread) correlate to my insisting that people don't need to be responsible for themselves and should let society pay for them (as you've argued i've argued in this thread)?

That's what you were arguing? You sure stated it in a weird manner because even after rereading it three times, I don't see it.

But glad to hear that we agree on the need for people to take responsibility for their own healthcare.