Smoking Bans

[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?

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.

But you just said its a "crime everywhere".

Which is it?

Can't any of the RWs just stick to facts?

 

[Pop23]

Hushhhhhhh, the nannies don't want you to link non smokers lung cancer to anything but second hand smoke. The EPA says that radon accounts for 7 times more such cancers than second hand smoke.

Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked. On January 13, 2005, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, the U.S. Surgeon General, issued a national health advisory on radon. Read a study by Dr. William Field on radon-related lung cancer in women atwww.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html

And the funny part was, radon gas is RADIOACTIVE

Okay, so what's your point?

Is your point that second hand smoke doesn't kill people? Doesn't seem to be.

You know people get hit by cars and killed. Does that mean we should allow people to smoke where they like because, well, not everyone dies from second hand smoke?

I really don't see an argument, just a presentation of facts in an attempt to side step the topic.

You seemed so very worried about the health effects of second hand smoke, but not at all about a substance that causes SEVEN times more cancers?

This really isn't about healthy environments then is it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So tell us Randbot---

Scenario: you get your own country. You get to set your own laws. So you don't have any, since you're so sure that human beings, left to their own devices, will always take personal responsibility and never ever think of anything like, oh, murder, assault, rape, grand theft, breaking and entering, or fraud. So you set up your country, free of all those pesky legal constraints.

Ten minutes later when the first murder or rape or bad check or a simple pickpocket at your celebration of FreeForAllistan happens ---- who you gonna call?


File under: department of thinking things through....

Well that's a bit extreme, don't ya think? No one is pushing for Anarchy.

Yeah, cuz then something might not get banned, right?

Just wait till the next Terrorist attack in this country. Your Message Board days could be over. Why risk allowing the free-flow of ideas and opinions? Banning them all-together would be the 'safest' route, no? So enjoy your Freedom, it might not last much longer.

IOW, you lied because you're a scared little, low info squirt.

The sky is falling. You're just too dumbed-down to realize it.

Yeah?

So what has been banned?

You're a tee potty nutter who wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hushhhhhhh, the nannies don't want you to link non smokers lung cancer to anything but second hand smoke. The EPA says that radon accounts for 7 times more such cancers than second hand smoke.

Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked. On January 13, 2005, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, the U.S. Surgeon General, issued a national health advisory on radon. Read a study by Dr. William Field on radon-related lung cancer in women atwww.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html

And the funny part was, radon gas is RADIOACTIVE

Okay, so what's your point?

Is your point that second hand smoke doesn't kill people? Doesn't seem to be.

You know people get hit by cars and killed. Does that mean we should allow people to smoke where they like because, well, not everyone dies from second hand smoke?

I really don't see an argument, just a presentation of facts in an attempt to side step the topic.

You seemed so very worried about the health effects of second hand smoke, but not at all about a substance that causes SEVEN times more cancers?

This really isn't about healthy environments then is it?

Instead of trying to derail the thread, why don't you start a thread?

 

[dblack]

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??

Didn't see this earlier - absolutely, I get that. I'm talking about when people voluntarily choose to work or socialize with smokers. No one should ever be forced to breathe second hand smoke, but if they want to work in an office that allows smoking, or go to a restaurant or bar that allows it, government shouldn't be allowed to overrule their decision. That is everybody else deciding for THEM - do you get that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fact is, smoking laws are an example of democracy in action. Smoking has not been "banned" or "outlawed like alcohol" as the liars have said. It is allowed in some places and not in others. Clean fresh air is allowed in some places and not in others.

I smoked for many years but I never believed I had the right to force others to breath my second hand smoke. When I owned a business, non-smokers were not expected to ever clean an ashtray. I made it clear to the smokers they were expected to be aware, cognitive and respectful of the EQUAL rights of the non-smokers.

Non-smokers put up with smokers for far too long. Smokers have no choice but to accept that THAT has changed.

 

[rightwinger]

Fact is, smoking laws are an example of democracy in action. Smoking has not been "banned" or "outlawed like alcohol" as the liars have said. It is allowed in some places and not in others. Clean fresh air is allowed in some places and not in others.

I smoked for many years but I never believed I had the right to force others to breath my second hand smoke. When I owned a business, non-smokers were not expected to ever clean an ashtray. I made it clear to the smokers they were expected to be aware, cognitive and respectful of the EQUAL rights of the non-smokers.

Non-smokers put up with smokers for far too long. Smokers have no choice but to accept that THAT has changed.

Poor smokers being forced to breathe clean air

 

[dblack]

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.

Yes, and when it comes to the commons - public parks, streets, government building, etc... that's perfectly fine. It's telling people what they can do in their own homes and businesses that steps over the line.

 

[dblack]

Fact is, smoking laws are an example of democracy in action. Smoking has not been "banned" or "outlawed like alcohol" as the liars have said. It is allowed in some places and not in others. Clean fresh air is allowed in some places and not in others.

I smoked for many years but I never believed I had the right to force others to breath my second hand smoke. When I owned a business, non-smokers were not expected to ever clean an ashtray. I made it clear to the smokers they were expected to be aware, cognitive and respectful of the EQUAL rights of the non-smokers.

Non-smokers put up with smokers for far too long. Smokers have no choice but to accept that THAT has changed.

It's just this kind of zeal for unlimited majority rule that gives 'democracy' a bad name. Democracy isn't an excuse to violate individual rights. That's the reason we have a Constitutionally limited republic and not a pure democracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You seemed so very worried about the health effects of second hand smoke, but not at all about a substance that causes SEVEN times more cancers?

This really isn't about healthy environments then is it?

I also seem to be not very worried about the health effects of many things, that would be, perhaps, because this is a threat about SMOKING, so what do I talk about, SMOKING, que sorpresa no?
You seem to think that me not talking about something indicates I don't give a damn. So, I don't seem to care about anything. Or maybe you're just trying to divert.

So getting back to the original point. What the HELL does Radon have to do with this threat exactly?

 

[Mustang]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, and when it comes to the commons - public parks, streets, government building, etc... that's perfectly fine. It's telling people what they can do in their own homes and businesses that steps over the line.

Though businesses are different to homes.

 

[dblack]

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.

Not whining. Just pointing out the lie at the core of your position. You're decidedly not in favor of the freedom to choose for ourselves. You think the majority should decide what is good for all of us, and then that standard should be mandated on everyone.

Well yeah ... I DO live in the United States, you know.

We vote here and yes, majority rules.

Choose whatever you want for yourself but you're not going to be allowed to choose for everyone else.

Quit whining and go outside for a cigarette.

I'll quit "whining" when you quit lying through your teeth. Choosing for everyone else is EXACTLY what you want government to do. If some people want to choose something else, you want so them brought in line by force. You're not even being honest with yourself until you admit that.

You're as bad as @paulitician. You come up with your own version of the facts and then twist and turn to make it fit. You do the same in the ObamaCare threads. IOW, you lie.

Choose whatever you want and I'll do the same. If you choose to defy a law, that's your decision.

If you don't like the law, vote to change it. If you're voted down (or as you called it, "force"), the majority has spoken.

That was a snappy dance step. So, you backing of the claim that you support people deciding for themselves, and instead want government forcing its decisions on everyone?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I said the same thing above - that 'your right to smoke ends where my breathing begins'.

The smokers haven't addressed that because really, they don't care about anyone's "rights" but their own.

Instead, all they can say is that something has been banned and now, @dblack says someone is controlling what people do in their own home (post #708, above).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, and when it comes to the commons - public parks, streets, government building, etc... that's perfectly fine. It's telling people what they can do in their own homes and businesses that steps over the line.

Though businesses are different to homes.

I'm sure @dblack will be along to post proof that government is "telling people what they can do in their own homes..."

 

[dblack]

Yes, and when it comes to the commons - public parks, streets, government building, etc... that's perfectly fine. It's telling people what they can do in their own homes and businesses that steps over the line.

Though businesses are different to homes.

Still private property. This is where the encroachment of the "public accommodations" wedge rears its ugly head. This is both why statists were so eager to establish the precedent, and why libertarians and privacy advocates were so opposed. Some of you want to make everything we own 'public' property, and everything we do subject to state scrutiny.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Not whining. Just pointing out the lie at the core of your position. You're decidedly not in favor of the freedom to choose for ourselves. You think the majority should decide what is good for all of us, and then that standard should be mandated on everyone.

Well yeah ... I DO live in the United States, you know.

We vote here and yes, majority rules.

Choose whatever you want for yourself but you're not going to be allowed to choose for everyone else.

Quit whining and go outside for a cigarette.

I'll quit "whining" when you quit lying through your teeth. Choosing for everyone else is EXACTLY what you want government to do. If some people want to choose something else, you want so them brought in line by force. You're not even being honest with yourself until you admit that.

You're as bad as @paulitician. You come up with your own version of the facts and then twist and turn to make it fit. You do the same in the ObamaCare threads. IOW, you lie.

Choose whatever you want and I'll do the same. If you choose to defy a law, that's your decision.

If you don't like the law, vote to change it. If you're voted down (or as you called it, "force"), the majority has spoken.

That was a snappy dance step. So, you backing of the claim that you support people deciding for themselves, and instead want government forcing its decisions on everyone?

As always happens when you get started on one of your circular rants, you have ceased to make sense.

If you want my opinion, read the many posts I've made in this thread, including the one you pretended to answer ^^.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting map of smokers -

Now, compare that map with the maps concerning such things as life expectancy, education, income and clean air:

Distractify Visualizing 25 Differences Across America Through Maps

 

[dblack]

Not whining. Just pointing out the lie at the core of your position. You're decidedly not in favor of the freedom to choose for ourselves. You think the majority should decide what is good for all of us, and then that standard should be mandated on everyone.

Well yeah ... I DO live in the United States, you know.

We vote here and yes, majority rules.

Choose whatever you want for yourself but you're not going to be allowed to choose for everyone else.

Quit whining and go outside for a cigarette.

I'll quit "whining" when you quit lying through your teeth. Choosing for everyone else is EXACTLY what you want government to do. If some people want to choose something else, you want so them brought in line by force. You're not even being honest with yourself until you admit that.

You're as bad as @paulitician. You come up with your own version of the facts and then twist and turn to make it fit. You do the same in the ObamaCare threads. IOW, you lie.

Choose whatever you want and I'll do the same. If you choose to defy a law, that's your decision.

If you don't like the law, vote to change it. If you're voted down (or as you called it, "force"), the majority has spoken.

That was a snappy dance step. So, you backing of the claim that you support people deciding for themselves, and instead want government forcing its decisions on everyone?

As always happens when you get started on one of your circular rants, you have ceased to make sense.

If you want my opinion, read the many posts I've made in this thread, including the one you pretended to answer ^^.

Exactly. It was your sleazy equivocation that most inspired me to even post here. You stated:

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

... and we've established that you really don't. That you meant exactly the opposite. I don't mind you cheering for authoritarian government. But at least own up to it and quit trying to pretend you have ANY respect for freedom of choice.

 

[dblack]

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.

Sure there is, and it's the same question being asked in a variety of contexts - is a business private property or not?