Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[Sa_artman]

Boy thank you for setting us all straight. I failed to see how much you care about the rest of us. I can tell you care nothing for your self gratification and give selfishly of your personal freedoms for the rest of society. Your philanthropy must be legendary. If you start a country, count me in.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It is the hypocrisy that incites...and he knows it.

If most people want non-smoking?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want to maintain criminlization of prostitution?...these folks shout Individual rights.

If most people want healthcare reform?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want more freedom of religion in schools?...these folks shout Individual rights.

If most people want to tax the rich?...these folks shout Majority rules.

If most people want to remove illegal aliens...these folks shout Individual rights.

They don't believe in a Majority rules sytem. They don't believe in an Individual rights system. They don't believe in any system but themselves.

Frankly if enough people want a whack off bar to entice a proprieter to open one?...Fine by me. You won't see me in it and you won't see me asking for it to be closed down (even though I might ask for the windows to be dark enough to where you can't see in). And I don't care whether it is smoking or non-smoking.

But I'm not sure why that is "Fine by me" on a whack off bar...and it is not "Fine by these folks" on a smoking bar. I don't have to go into the whack off bar. They don't have to go into the smoking bar. They don't want to be around me. I don't want to be around them. Everyone should be happy. But they are not. I, OTOH, am tickled pink to be in my smoking bar watching the game...surrounded by those folks who aren't bothered by such a bar.

As Miss Brandy said...It is really pretty simple. Like people want to gather with people they like. We have already said those gatherings can't be based on race, creed or color. That works for me. But these folks want to be able to walk in any bar, in any place, and have everyone adhear to their mores...and call you inconsiderate if you don't. It was BS years ago...it is BS now...and it will always be BS.

[oden]

The wild card is the courts. Even in communities that allow for separate smoking areas there are lawsuits by employees even though they took the job knowing they would be exposed to smoke. Makes about as much since as the guys that sue because they can't get a job at Hooters.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

(From his signature line.)

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Doove, aren't you the guy who attacked me multiple times with childish, condescending cheap shots when the discussion turned to economic issues in the "Nationalize BP" thread?

Nowhere in that thread did i insult anyone. Well, except maybe Sarah Palin. The closest i came was comparing someone to a ditto-head when she claimed she was being sensible. That was it. The rest was simply back and forth sarcastic banter and i took as well as i gave. Geez, get over it already.

On the flip side, in that very same thread, terms/phrases such as "dumbass", "dumber than a box of rocks", "dumber than dirt", "you clowns", and "like talking to a stone" were used by the very people who my sig line is intended for. And i think we all know who they are.

Ansley: I wasn't defending RK. I just noticed that you were following him and you complained that his ass wasn't up to par.

Fair 'nuff. My comprehension of sarcasm needs improvement also, i see. Sorry for jumpin' on ya.

Brandy: What if we replaced the topic of smoking with that of prostitution and re read this thread. Would it be my civil liberty to be a prostitute?

The problem with that Brandy, is I think we'd all probably agree, so what fun would that be?

I vote we all calm down and look for another thread to start screaming at each other in, because i'm starting to feel like Fast Gunn, i've been getting knocked around so much.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Nowhere in that thread did i insult anyone. Well, except maybe Sarah Palin.

Come on.

Nothing was said about Sarah Palin in that whole exchange. You took umbrage at my objection to Obama's reckless fiscal agenda, fatuously comparing those who do so with the "birther" movement. Then you even accused me of "failing to understand" my own post. And you did it in a snarky, obnoxious way. And continued with the childish, obnoxious behavior, even though you had no clue what you were talking about.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Come on.

Nothing was said about Sarah Palin in that whole exchange.

I mentioned Sarah Palin when i was addressing someone else. It's not always about you, CM.

And you did it in a snarky, obnoxious way

Listen Dumbass (joking! ) 3 weeks later and you're still going off on my being snarky? I mean, really. Did i call anyone a name? Yourself included? No, i did not. So maybe i should have edited my sig a bit more to cut out the part about how you shouldn't be snarky. Good grief. Let's move on.

[Texas Contrarian]

Doove, I pointed that out merely to note that you seem to make a continuing practice of hypocrisy and irritating behavior...

Originally Posted by Doove

...i'm starting to feel like Fast Gunn, i've been getting knocked around so much.

...and then seem surprised when you get "knocked around!"

Have you stopped to consider that when a number of people make comments that bother you, the problem just might be you?

Some of us seem not to be blessed with a limitless supply of tolerance for cretinous behavior. Just a thought.

[BammBamm]

"Someone has anger management issues." - PJ

From your perspective I have anger management issues.

From my perspective I don't.

How about we agree to disagree. That is certainly reasonable, yes?

"Please tell me that you aren't trying to deal with your parental issues on a hooker board?" - Ansley

lol, you said "hooker", hehe

"I particularly liked the statistics and science comments. Lots of words put end to end with no meaning whatsoever."

More accurately, you seem not to know what the words mean when put together in this way.

I have two advanced degrees in hard physical science and engineering. Nevertheless, if you believe the bean counters have somehow managed to come up with something I don't, or can't, understand, then by all means, feel free to bring it to the mat and teach me a lesson, old man. (By your own admission.)

"I've had tougher debates with my granddaughter." - RK

Who is probably choking on your second hand smoke. Did you introduce her to the advantageous health benefits of inhaling second hand smoke, one of the many facts stated on the site you refered us all to?

"Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect." - davehitt.com

Listed, of course, while promoting one edge of the correlation-is-not-causality argument, without addressing the other edge.

Do your encourage your granddaughter to smoke for the pleasure and the benefits? Do you buy her cigarettes? If she is not of age to purchase them herself, will you buy cigarettes for her when she is? Perhaps to ensure that she does not miss out?

If you won't, is it okay if someone else does it for you? I mean, if grandpaw does it, it must be okay, even if he says it isn't.

"Try to put my cig out...you're liable to draw back a stump." - RK

Then you'd be the first to try.

I'm surprised you are capable of an emotional response. Good on ya. I figured you for handing me another pocket guide to statistics.

"Actually the main things I get upset about are folks who play on others emotions...not based on any real facts." - RK

Did not realize Spock walked among the Earthlings.

For me, personally, "real facts" vs "artificial facts" detracted from your appeal to uber-rationality. But, I get what you are saying here Spock, some facts are more factual than other facts.

This, I did not know.

"But that is not what the no smoking laws got pushed through on. Thye got pushed through on the basis that the cigarette or cigar smoke wafting through the bar or restaraunt, was like a carcinoginic time bomb waiting to explode upon the patrons. And that is BS>" - RK

Not exactly. More accurately: unreasonable people who do not like the stench of cigar or cigarette smoke, and it's ill effects, exploited a clear link between smoke, toxins in the body, and resulting sickness, to persuade other more reasonable people to ban smoking in most/all public places.

"Annoying to some patrons?...hell, yes. And if I fire one up I certainly have no desire to offend those around me. I would just like a private businessman to be able to cater to folks like me...without some asthmatic being able to walk through the door and change things on the rest of us there. Thats all most folks who don't like the smoking laws want. Let the establishment choose. If they want to cater to you...so be it. I live with those rules. If they want to cater to me...then if you don't like that environment...stay the hell out." - RK

I do not want private businessmen to be able to cater to you, anywhere, not even in your own home. I want the percentage of smokers in the world to be zero. I don't want to drive you to your own special place with your own special friends, I want to eliminate any opportunity for you to smoke anything at all, anywhere. I will vote with the "anti-smoking nazis" as you call them, every time, until that is achieved. When on a jury I will argue for unreasonable damages and everything else imaginable to be levied on you and on the tobacco companies until you and they are out of commission.

I don't care if you don't get what you want and can't have what you want.

Just like you. You have no desire to offend those around you, but you do it anyway, and you don't care.

So it seems we are even on that account.

The main difference is, I am unreasonable, and you are not, which gives me and those like me a meaningful advantage.

"But why can't the place next door cater to the smokers?" - RK

Because I don't want them to. I am in the majority and I will press it until there is no more smoking, by anyone, anywhere. I don't care what you want.

"Why not have licensed smoking bars, all others smoke-free? Then both sides have some place to go." - JB

Because I don't want smokers to have a place to go, and a lot of other people like me don't want them to either.

If I was in the minority I would have no choice but to avoid the haze. As it happens, I'm not, so when others ask me to help them press the case, I do.

-----

When you can show me that smokers bear 100% of the cost of smoking - all in, seed to product to lost productivity to health care to life insurance through death and disposal of your body - then I will let up. Because in that case, it doesn't cost me anything. When that is true, and I can live my life unimpeded by "smoker's rights", then I don't care if you want to smoke you and your granddaughter to death, it doesn't affect me.

You are either too stubborn to quit or incapable of quitting; or, you don't care about smoking some if not all of your health away. Either way, as long as it doesn't cost me anything and I'm not exposed to it, I don't care. As long as it does, then my reasons to press the case against you every time I am asked (because I want to) are as good as your reasons for resisting (because you want to).

But, you want me to be reasonable and bear some of the costs of you smoking, under the guise of statistical analyses.

No.

Funny thing about being reasonable. Reasonable people seem somehow to never accomplish anything truly meaningful. To the unreasonable, go the spoils.

Surely you have learned this by now, Mr. Spock.

[China Doll]

Alright, that's ENOUGH!!

Ha ha, excuse my temporary delusion of grandeur. I really wanted to pretend for a moment that I had that kind of power.

I wanted to stay away from this one; I swear I did! Sometimes, though, a friendly but mischievous little worm works his way into my brain to tell me that I must add one more opinion to the already overabundant stash. So here it is.

There are countless laws enacted by the government to protect people. That's what laws are for. I can't go into a restaurant and beat the silliness out of some of you, nor can you masturbate in someone else's face at that same place without consequences. The government tries to prevent people from hurting each other by making these smoking ban laws.

Smoking is (sort of) a right. I say "sort of" because it has now been declared by the authority we abide by that smoking is not allowed in certain places. It makes sense, though. Doove, you're a smoker, right? If you're smoking outside, the risks to me are far less than if you are smoking next to me in a closed building.

One person brought up that fact that ventilation systems could lessen the impact of smoke on people's health. Why, then, shouldn't the government just order businesses to install better ventilation systems? I have a strong feeling that they don't want to: A) Impact the environment negatively by vastly increasing energy usage in these buildings, and B) Hurt business by forcing them to bear these costly burdens.

And before someone starts getting on at me about how smoking bans hurt businesses, please think again. Evidence shows otherwise.

So it is far less costly to simply implement a ban and potentially very profitable for the economy as well. Another important point is that there are plenty of other laws controlling when and where people can do certain things. We have a right to bear arms, yes? Well, not everywhere, we don't. We also have a right to jump on our truck beds and rock out to Bon Jovi whilst imbibing Smirnoff vodka. Not anywhere we want, though...or any time of day or night, for that matter. I think you get the point. There are times and places for things, and those times and places are generally determined based on when and where they will cause innocent bystanders the least harm and/or aggravation.

Furthermore, does the government have the right to impose a ban on smoking? Well, yeah. They already did it, didn't they? It is just as constitutional for the government to make smoking completely illegal. Nicotine is a drug, after all. The real question is, should they have the right? It seems to be the general viewpoint that as long as you are only hurting yourself, perhaps it should be legal. In this sense, the government is protecting the right to smoke; now it is much harder to argue that smokers are consistently harming others with their carcinogenic second-hand smoke.

In any case, if you don't think that the government should have the right to try to protect people from certain things in specific public places, then be prepared to say goodbye to many, many similar laws that protect you, too.

Phew! Now that little worm can go bother someone else. Oh, and for cripe's sake, can we all stop attacking each other? Doove seems to have become everyone's favorite punching bag, but I have seen plenty of guilt from all sides. This is quite clearly a very emotional topic for some, and I understand why that is. Now are you guys coming to my all-you-can-masturbate bar with separate, enclosed smoking sections or not?

[oden]

Well I guess the whole point of this thread has been lost. I did not intend for it to be about whether smoking was harmful or whether the majority is in favor of banning smoking. Smoking is a volatile issue and more like a fad, who knows, maybe we will go back to sniffing snuff up our noses again. (snuff not stuff)

The main issue is where do you draw the line between what an owner allows on her/his property and what government (the majority) restrictions can be put in place.

Let's take alcohol for example. Like smoking it can have long term effects on health and has second hand effects from loud obnoxious behavior to car wrecks. Yet it is legal for a licensed establishment to require that everyone who enters must buy two drinks. So what is the problem of having a licensed venue to smoke? I'll bet they wouldn't require that the patrons buy tobacco from their bar or restaurant but in my opinion they should be able to.

My point is today its cigs and tomorrow it will probably be something else that is important to you. A pure democracy without protections of personal and property rights can be the cruelest dictator.

[China Doll]

[quote=oden;374386]The main issue is where do you draw the line between what an owner allows on her/his property and what government (the majority) restrictions can be put in place.

Let's take alcoholic for example. Like smoking it can have long term effects on health and has second hand effects from loud obnoxious behavior to car wrecks. Yet it is legal for a licensed establishment to require that everyone who enters must buy two drinks. So what is the problem of having a licensed venue to smoke? I'll bet they wouldn't require that the patrons buy tobacco from there bar or restaurant but in my opinion they should be able to.quote]

The government protects the public from drunkards by making public drunkenness illegal. Smoking, however, is allowed outside. Back to my previous post, it's all about where the behavior of the individual harms innocent people the least.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think we should be able to smoke Cuban cigars...This is not a Federal ban

Actually, the ban on Cuban cigars is federal.

[Guest030911]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Actually, the ban on Cuban cigars is federal.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Actually, the ban on Cuban cigars is federal.

I'm sorry charles, I was talking about local bans on smoking. But I think the Federal ban is beyond stupid. Had you quoted the entirety it might have made more sense.This was referring to the present topic. My Cuban cigars and a whole lot more for that matter!was just a dream.

Originally Posted by WTF

I think we should be able to smoke Cuban cigars and a whole lot more for that matter!

This is not a Federal ban.....it is a local ban from community to community, so all you state rights cowboys just getting whatca ask for. Vote your local city council member out if he ain't smoking what you're smoking!

[atlcomedy]

Cha ching! Charles you can finally sit at the cool kids table all next week!

[TxBrandy]

Screw this.. I'm going to China's masturbation bar to enjoy a smoke and a show...