Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[tigerbob]

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

and the right to smoke

I don't really believe that Anquille believes anyone has the right to smoke regardless of her claim a post or two ago that they can smoke in their own homes. She will be supporting the ban on smoking in the home and in cars as they come about as well.

California has already begun such actions.

California Town Approves Ban Making Smoking Illegal in Condos, Apartments - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

No More Smoking In Your Home? - RapidNewsWire.com

Smoking ban with kids in car now a go - Healthzone.ca

Immie

She already supports that Condos thing I believe. I seem to remember her saying so a few months ago. Can't find the thread unfortunately.

 

[Anguille]

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

If I agreed with your opinion that fetuses have a right to live, you would be right but I do not. I would also have to agree that you have right of attorney for any fetus which I do not.
Only the woman carrying the fetus has the right to decide if the pregnancy will come to term or not.
If you are concerned about people's right to live, why do you not care about the right to live of people who are subjected to secondhand smoke?

So again, you are saying that you are the one that decides what rights the rest of us have.... wait you ignored comment the last time. I suspect you will do so again.

Immie

You're not making sense to me. It is not me against all of you. It is the majority of people who favor the bans against the minority who don't.

As someone so concerned about property rights, why do you do a turnabout when it comes to a woman's right to own her own body?

 

[tigerbob]

People have known that secondhand smoke makes them sick even before the EPA studied it. I think you know it makes other people sick too. It's in the nature of the addict to try and wiggle out of any responsibility for harm that his habit causes others.

So, as usual, you choose not to answer because you don't know your subject well enough.

And I'm a non smoker.

You were during our last discussion on the subject. Congratulations!

12 months and 13 days.

But I note you still haven't answered my question. You never will, will you?

 

[Anguille]

So, as usual, you choose not to answer because you don't know your subject well enough.

And I'm a non smoker.

You were during our last discussion on the subject. Congratulations!

12 months and 13 days.

Has the going been easy? If not, hang in there!

 

[tigerbob]

You were during our last discussion on the subject. Congratulations!

12 months and 13 days.

Has the going been easy? If not, hang in there!

Surprisingly not too bad. A few close calls along the way, usually in a bar, but they're introducing a smoking ban here in Michigan in summer so the temptation should be reduced.

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Immanuel]

If I agreed with your opinion that fetuses have a right to live, you would be right but I do not. I would also have to agree that you have right of attorney for any fetus which I do not.
Only the woman carrying the fetus has the right to decide if the pregnancy will come to term or not.
If you are concerned about people's right to live, why do you not care about the right to live of people who are subjected to secondhand smoke?

So again, you are saying that you are the one that decides what rights the rest of us have.... wait you ignored comment the last time. I suspect you will do so again.

Immie

You're not making sense to me. It is not me against all of you. It is the majority of people who favor the bans against the minority who don't.

As someone so concerned about property rights, why do you do a turnabout when it comes to a woman's right to own her own body?

Because I believe that the right to life, trumps all other rights including property rights.

Now, you call me a hypocrit, but you refuse to admit your own hypocrisy?

And it is you (collectively) that is attempting to force your will on other people. I try not to do that at all. So much so, that I have to struggle when I discuss abortion. I believe that all human beings have the right to live, but I flinch when I have to justify that in the case of abortion, it does mean that a woman has to give up some of her rights.

There are times when Person A's right prevents Person C from exercising his rights. We don't live in a completely free society... thank God. My right to walk down the street completely naked is superceded by your right to be able to hold your lunch down.

Don't worry... this fat, lazy white man is not walking down the street completely naked.

Just because I have a right does not mean that it is appropriate for me to exercise that right.

Immie

PS I realize that I don't have the legal right to walk down the street completely naked, but it was an example that I felt would fit and was the quickest that I could come up with that was supposed to be funny.

 

[Anguille]

But I note you still haven't answered my question. You never will, will you?

You'll have to repeat it because I don't know what question you are referring to. You may have to wait till tomorrow too because I've already stayed online too long.
Don't get miffed because I missed some question of yours, You're not the only other person posting in this thread.

 

[Immanuel]

Congrats tigerbob!

I never realized how bad smoking smelled until I moved out of the house. After I moved out, when I would go visit my parents, then leaving their house, I would get a whiff of my clothing. My Lord, did it stink!

Immie

 

[Anguille]

So again, you are saying that you are the one that decides what rights the rest of us have.... wait you ignored comment the last time. I suspect you will do so again.

Immie

You're not making sense to me. It is not me against all of you. It is the majority of people who favor the bans against the minority who don't.

As someone so concerned about property rights, why do you do a turnabout when it comes to a woman's right to own her own body?

Because I believe that the right to life, trumps all other rights including property rights.

Now, you call me a hypocrit, but you refuse to admit your own hypocrisy?

And it is you (collectively) that is attempting to force your will on other people. I try not to do that at all. So much so, that I have to struggle when I discuss abortion. I believe that all human beings have the right to live, but I flinch when I have to justify that in the case of abortion, it does mean that a woman has to give up some of her rights.

There are times when Person A's right prevents Person C from exercising his rights. We don't live in a completely free society... thank God. My right to walk down the street completely naked is superceded by your right to be able to hold your lunch down.

Don't worry... this fat, lazy white man is not walking down the street completely naked.

Just because I have a right does not mean that it is appropriate for me to exercise that right.

Immie

PS I realize that I don't have the legal right to walk down the street completely naked, but it was an example that I felt would fit and was the quickest that I could come up with that was supposed to be funny.

Your nudity would not offend me. I think the human body is beautiful. Some more than others of course.

As far people preventing other people from exercising their rights you just go right ahead and let smokers walk all over you. I won't interfere with your right to do that. But I will stand up for mine and everyone's (even yours! ) right not to be poisoned and drugged by an addict who can easily use one of the alternate methods for taking their drug. That's one right you clearly will not defend even though you claim that human beings have the right to live and that that right trumps any property rights.

Certainly people's right to live does not trump what you claim is a property owner's right to allow smoking in a public place of business.

 

[tigerbob]

But I note you still haven't answered my question. You never will, will you?

You'll have to repeat it because I don't know what question you are referring to. You may have to wait till tomorrow too because I've already stayed online too long.
Don't get miffed because I missed some question of yours, You're not the only other person posting in this thread.

It's the question I asked right after I answered your question and then said "And here's a question for you". Post 389 as I recall. Yep - here's a link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/100562-would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-repeal-of-smoking-bans-26.html#post1904367

One other thing - the last time I asked you a specific question (thread a few months ago) you said something about going to bed. Do I bring out the melatonin in you?

Either way, I'll live in hope of an answer, but not too much. Bonsoir.

 

[Immanuel]

Your nudity would not offend me. I think the human body is beautiful.

Trust me, my nudity would most likely cause you to lose your lunch.

Certainly people's right to live does not trump what you claim is a property owner's right to allow smoking in a public place of business.

Sure it does.

I'm just not one who subscribes to the fear-mongering that you have fallen for.

I don't believe that second hand smoke kills everyone it comes into contact with instantly. I have not allowed a few so-called scientists, with their own agendas, to make me into a person that hates smokers.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

 

[Immanuel]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

I grew up with second hand smoke. I left home at 19, but then came back home for a bit before getting married and have been married to a woman who has never smoked either.

I do not believe I got sick anymore often while living at home than I did after I moved out. Fatter yes, more out of shape... oh heck yes, but no more sick before or after.

My dad died of lung cancer last year... if anyone has the right to be anti-smoking, I would say that I fit well in that category. But, I still do not believe that I have the right to dictate to business owners what policies they will have in their place of business nor do I believe that I have the right to dictate to smokers when and where they light up.

edit: Oh and one more thing, I can always ask a smoker not to light up around me if I feel the need to and when asked nicely, I have never known a smoker to object, although I am sure there must be some that do. The key is to asking nicely.

Immie

 

[dilloduck]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

Go ahead, eel lady. Grab a Marlboro light----you know you want one.

 

[Anguille]

Your nudity would not offend me. I think the human body is beautiful.

Trust me, my nudity would most likely cause you to lose your lunch.

Certainly people's right to live does not trump what you claim is a property owner's right to allow smoking in a public place of business.

Sure it does.

I'm just not one who subscribes to the fear-mongering that you have fallen for.

I don't believe that second hand smoke kills everyone it comes into contact with instantly. I have not allowed a few so-called scientists, with their own agendas, to make me into a person that hates smokers.

Immie

Well then you are just another kook like Tiger Bob.

Exposure to second hand smoke can kill nearly instantly. If you've ever accompanied anyone with asthma to an emergency room you know that too. But most often it kills you slowly. Or at the least reduces your quality of life. Some are lucky to be impervious to it both healthwise and comfort wise.

What exactly is the agenda of these scientists? Are you saying that the entire medical community shares this agenda? Because as you know, the overwhelming majority od doctors and scientists agree that exposure to secondhand smoke is a sersious health hazard.

Also what this talk about hating smokers? You are the only one to use the hate word. I don 't hate them, at least not more than a few moments if I do feel hate coming over me. I find the arrogant pushy ones to be very annoying but mostly I pity them.

 

[Immanuel]

Your nudity would not offend me. I think the human body is beautiful.

Trust me, my nudity would most likely cause you to lose your lunch.

Certainly people's right to live does not trump what you claim is a property owner's right to allow smoking in a public place of business.

Sure it does.

I'm just not one who subscribes to the fear-mongering that you have fallen for.

I don't believe that second hand smoke kills everyone it comes into contact with instantly. I have not allowed a few so-called scientists, with their own agendas, to make me into a person that hates smokers.

Immie

Well then you are just another kook like Tiger Bob.

Exposure to second hand smoke can kill nearly instantly. If you've ever accompanied anyone with asthma to an emergency room you know that too. But most often it kills you slowly. Or at the least reduces your quality of life. Some are lucky to be impervious to it both healthwise and comfort wise.

What exactly is the agenda of these scientists? Are you saying that the entire medical community shares this agenda? Because as you know, the overwhelming majority od doctors and scientists agree that exposure to secondhand smoke is a sersious health hazard.

Also what this talk about hating smokers? You are the only one to use the hate word. I don 't hate them, at least not more than a few moments if I do feel hate coming over me. I find the arrogant pushy ones to be very annoying but mostly I pity them.

Yeah, right, all doctors and scientists agree on this. Just as they all agree that we are causing the world to over heat and we will all perish in a matter of weeks.

And yes, second hand smoke can cause people with asthma problems, but those people who it does cause problems know it and they avoid places that have second hand smoke. Just as I, who am deathly allergic to seafood know not to eat anything with seafood in it. I have to avoid restaurants that serve seafood because the smell causes an allergic reaction. Should we ban seafood joints, too? I'm not the only one in the world who is allergic to seafood. Believe me there are a lot more of them than you know.

How about peanuts? Lots of people are deathly allergic to peanuts should we ban peanut butter too?

Immie

 

[Anguille]

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

I grew up with second hand smoke. I left home at 19, but then came back home for a bit before getting married and have been married to a woman who has never smoked either.

I do not believe I got sick anymore often while living at home than I did after I moved out. Fatter yes, more out of shape... oh heck yes, but no more sick before or after.

My dad died of lung cancer last year... if anyone has the right to be anti-smoking, I would say that I fit well in that category. But, I still do not believe that I have the right to dictate to business owners what policies they will have in their place of business nor do I believe that I have the right to dictate to smokers when and where they light up.

edit: Oh and one more thing, I can always ask a smoker not to light up around me if I feel the need to and when asked nicely, I have never known a smoker to object, although I am sure there must be some that do. The key is to asking nicely.

Immie

Sorry to hear of your father's death. My condolences. Mine also died of smoking related heart disease some years ago.

I still don't see where you can claim that right to life trumps property rights were here you go again claiming business owners have the right to allow smokers to endanger the lives of those around them.

Your comment about asking nicely is a little snide and a bit naive. I've been asking people for years to please not smoke near me and I learned a long long time ago that I achieve the best results when I do so in a casual non confrontational manner. Smokers are very volatile and must be handled with kid gloves. Most often people respect my request and move away. Not all do though and I'm glad I am no longer put in the position of having to even say anything to smokers any more in bars and restaurants because the laws take care of that now.

 

[Anguille]

Good night all. Don't smoke in bed whatever you do.

 

[Immanuel]

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

I grew up with second hand smoke. I left home at 19, but then came back home for a bit before getting married and have been married to a woman who has never smoked either.

I do not believe I got sick anymore often while living at home than I did after I moved out. Fatter yes, more out of shape... oh heck yes, but no more sick before or after.

My dad died of lung cancer last year... if anyone has the right to be anti-smoking, I would say that I fit well in that category. But, I still do not believe that I have the right to dictate to business owners what policies they will have in their place of business nor do I believe that I have the right to dictate to smokers when and where they light up.

edit: Oh and one more thing, I can always ask a smoker not to light up around me if I feel the need to and when asked nicely, I have never known a smoker to object, although I am sure there must be some that do. The key is to asking nicely.

Immie

Sorry to hear of your father's death. My condolences. Mine also died of smoking related heart disease some years ago.

I still don't see where you can claim that right to life trumps property rights were here you go again claiming business owners have the right to allow smokers to endanger the lives of those around them.

Your comment about asking nicely is a little snide and a bit naive. I've been asking people for years to please not smoke near me and I learned a long long time ago that I achieve the best results when I do so in a casual non confrontational manner. Smokers are very volatile and must be handled with kid gloves. Most often people respect my request and move away. Not all do though and I'm glad I am no longer put in the position of having to even say anything to smokers any more in bars and restaurants because the laws take care of that now.

You just don't get it.

Business owners are not forcing anyone to come into their place of business. If they allow smokers in their place of business and you are so afraid of second hand smoke, you don't have to patronize them. Reasonable people who are not afraid that they are going to croak simply because they breathe second hand smoke can patronize them. By the way, I doubt second hand smoke is as bad as some of the other fumes we put into our air either.

If a business owner could force you to eat at their restaurant then you might have a case. Until that time, you have no right to make them do a darned thing.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Good night all. Don't smoke in bed whatever you do.

Night Anguille!

Don't worry, I don't plan on taking up smoking anyway.

Pleasant dreams.

Immie