Smoking Bans

[Redfish]

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, and how the perp gets off scot free.

"victim" "perp" so you want smoking to be a crime?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.

That's what I thought. You don't agree, at all, that people should be allowed to decide or themselves how much risk is acceptable. You want to decide for them. What you mean by - "I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others." - is exactly the opposite: that people should decide for others and that individuals shouldn't have that choice. Are all your convictions this inside-out?

I have the right to "how much risk is acceptable" for myself.

Breathing in second hand smoke is not an acceptable risk I choose to take and I will leave if someone is smoking.

Smoke where its legal. Whine if you want but the majority have voted to make it illegal in shared places.

 

[Redfish]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.

That's what I thought. You don't agree, at all, that people should be allowed to decide or themselves how much risk is acceptable. You want to decide for them. What you mean by - "I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others." - is exactly the opposite: that people should decide for others and that individuals shouldn't have that choice. Are all your convictions this inside-out?

I have the right to "how much risk is acceptable" for myself.

Breathing in second hand smoke is not an acceptable risk I choose to take and I will leave if someone is smoking.

Smoke where its legal. Whine if you want but the majority have voted to make it illegal in shared places.

fine, ban it completely, OK with me. Better check with Colorado and Washington first.

 

[frigidweirdo]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

No, life isn't fair. But there's a difference between being born rich and poor, and being rich and almost dead.

ALL first world countries have made it against the law to kill people. Why all of a sudden do you think this is wrong? "Oh, it's not fair you got in the way of my gun, but get the feck over it biatch"

 

[Pogo]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.

That's what I thought. You don't agree, at all, that people should be allowed to decide or themselves how much risk is acceptable. You want to decide for them. What you mean by - "I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others." - is exactly the opposite: that people should decide for others and that individuals shouldn't have that choice. Are all your convictions this inside-out?

When a smoker lights up in a room with other people, he/she IS deciding for everybody else.
Don't you get that??

 

[rightwinger]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

Or better yet, bannish smokers to the cold, damp recesses of our society

 

[Redfish]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

No, life isn't fair. But there's a difference between being born rich and poor, and being rich and almost dead.

ALL first world countries have made it against the law to kill people. Why all of a sudden do you think this is wrong? "Oh, it's not fair you got in the way of my gun, but get the feck over it biatch"

care to try again and see if you can make sense?

are you now on a rant to punish those who are born to rich parents?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, and how the perp gets off scot free.

"victim" "perp" so you want smoking to be a crime?

Voters have made it a crime in certain places.

 

[Redfish]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.

That's what I thought. You don't agree, at all, that people should be allowed to decide or themselves how much risk is acceptable. You want to decide for them. What you mean by - "I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others." - is exactly the opposite: that people should decide for others and that individuals shouldn't have that choice. Are all your convictions this inside-out?

When a smoker lights up in a room with other people, he/she IS deciding for everybody else.
Don't you get that??

No one has said that smokers should be allowed to light up wherever they choose.

 

[Redfish]

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, and how the perp gets off scot free.

"victim" "perp" so you want smoking to be a crime?

Voters have made it a crime in certain places.

Yeah, so what? should it be a crime everywhere? how did that work out for alcohol?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lots of excuses, maybe. But the crux is what you're saying is "we know better", that people shouldn't be allowed to choose for themselves because they're too stupid.

No, not stupid.

Stupid is not knowing how to use information at your disposal.
Ignorant is not knowing stuff.

Now, everyone is ignorant. There are thousands of languages in the world and person who can boast they speak loads might speak 8 or 9. They just happen to be extremely ignorant of all of the others. It's actually quite normal.

How many people are up on the effects of smoking? Well we have tobacco companies telling us there's no harm. We have others saying there is harm. Unless I do my own experiments how to I become not-ignorant on this issue?

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yeah, so what? Those regulations make billions for the evil corporations that make sprinkler systems, sanitizers, safety harnesses, fire extinguishers, etc. Those regulations increase the prices of everything we buy, and yet, people still die from restaurant fires, oil rig fires, car wrecks, food poisoning, and infections of all kinds.

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Where they can do so reasonably? Yes

And I am sorry that you have to pay more because businesses have to conform to building and fire codes and provide the public with safe food

Sucks being a conservative doesn't it?

 

[Redfish]

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

Or better yet, bannish smokers to the cold, damp recesses of our environment

OK with me. would that be your basement?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

Or better yet, bannish smokers to the cold, damp recesses of our environment

They do that for themselves.

Problem is, they want to take others with them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No one has said that smokers should be allowed to light up wherever they choose.

Seems that way.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

When a smoker lights up in a room with other people, he/she IS deciding for everybody else.
Don't you get that??

Now, come on, Pogo. There is nothing I like better after a nice meal than to walk up to all the other patrons and slap them across the face. I like it. It helps me relax.

Now, who the heck are you to tell me that their right to not be slapped trumps my right to slap them? That's just down right insane!. I've been slapping people ever since 1964 when the older kids taught me it was the cool thing to do, and I'm not about to stop now!.

You do gooders and your newfangled ways, anyway!

 

[Pogo]

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, while the perp gets off scot free.

-- Which party is the actor here and which the reactor?
Think about it.
Take your time...


Here's a clue-hint: the act of smoking where others are present is not an individual act. It's a collective.

Aye, there's the rub.

"victim" "perp" so you want smoking to be a crime?

You didn't address the question. At all.
Why is that? Inconvenient?

Matter of fact you cut the rest of the post out to try to deflect to semantics.
Why is that? Even more inconvenient?
Not to worry -- I put it back. See if you can face it.

 

[paulitician]

Police/Nanny State. Isn't it great?

 

[AquaAthena]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yeah, so what? Those regulations make billions for the evil corporations that make sprinkler systems, sanitizers, safety harnesses, fire extinguishers, etc. Those regulations increase the prices of everything we buy, and yet, people still die from restaurant fires, oil rig fires, car wrecks, food poisoning, and infections of all kinds.

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Where they can do so reasonably? Yes

And I am sorry that you have to pay more because businesses have to conform to building and fire codes and provide the public with safe food

Sucks being a conservative doesn't it?

Be grateful for conservatives and their entrepreneurial spirit, that no one who has been paid by the government all their lives, would know anything about. Conservatives are probably the only reason anyone is receiving government benefits in one form or another.

 

[paulitician]

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yeah, so what? Those regulations make billions for the evil corporations that make sprinkler systems, sanitizers, safety harnesses, fire extinguishers, etc. Those regulations increase the prices of everything we buy, and yet, people still die from restaurant fires, oil rig fires, car wrecks, food poisoning, and infections of all kinds.

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?

Where they can do so reasonably? Yes

And I am sorry that you have to pay more because businesses have to conform to building and fire codes and provide the public with safe food

Sucks being a conservative doesn't it?

Be grateful for conservatives and their entrepreneurial spirit, that no one who has been paid by the government all their lives, would know anything about. Conservatives are probably the only reason anyone is receiving government benefits in one form or another.

Perfectly stated. Thanks.