or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Spain Smoking Ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spain Smoking Ban - Page 2

post #41 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I was being sarcastic. Just in case you didn't catch that.




Who is "we?" What do you mean by "owned by?" Are you "owned by" anyone*? What is the "threat?" How major is it? These are serious questions. You are offering claims and assumptions without supporting facts, evidence and reasoning.


*Frankly if there's any entity I currently feel actually "owned" by it is the US government. Its behavior certainly suggests a relationship of ownership of me (and just about everyone else.)

Yeah, I got it. I was actually agreeing with you in part.

The gov has power but corps now rule. Ownership is all but complete.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #42 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The gov has power but corps now rule. Ownership is all but complete.

You seem to think these are different entities. While I try not to paint with a broad broad to say that all corporations are de facto evil and in bed with or controlling the government, certainly we have a high degree of corporatism/fascism going on these days...and it has been for decades. Sometimes it is more obvious and blatant, other times more subtle.

But I see the root cause here being the government having been given (taken) "legitimate" power of coercion and that power being to vast, broad, strong, centralized and invasive...and available for use by anyone. The corporations (and other special interests) are able to "rule" because of the power the government has...much of which is advocated for by people like yourself. Whenever you chose to give a government the power to do anything, assume it can and will be co-opted and ultimately used and abused for some other purpose than you imagined in your Utopian dreams.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You seem to think these are different entities. While I try not to paint with a broad broad to say that all corporations are de facto evil and in bed with or controlling the government, certainly we have a high degree of corporatism/fascism going on these days...and it has been for decades. Sometimes it is more obvious and blatant, other times more subtle.

But I see the root cause here being the government having been given (taken) "legitimate" power of coercion and that power being to vast, broad, strong, centralized and invasive...and available for use by anyone. The corporations (and other special interests) are able to "rule" because of the power the government has...much of which is advocated for by people like yourself. Whenever you chose to give a government the power to do anything, assume it can and will be co-opted and ultimately used and abused for some other purpose than you imagined in your Utopian dreams.

We're largely in agreement here though your wrong that I am supporting the policies that bring such strong ties about. That though would mean numerous arguments so I'll skip my explanations.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #44 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

We're largely in agreement here though your wrong that I am supporting the policies that bring such strong ties about.

You may be without realizing it.

My point is that those who argue for, lobby for, support and promote giving additional power are at least indirectly supporting what's happening. When you give more power to the government it will be co-opted, it will get mis-used, abused and used for things you didn't intend, want or hope for.

The solution is less power for government, more liberty for more people*.


*A wonderful side-effect will be more prosperity and well-being for more people also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You may be without realizing it.

My point is that those who argue for, lobby for, support and promote giving additional power are at least indirectly supporting what's happening. When you give more power to the government it will be co-opted, it will get mis-used, abused and used for things you didn't intend, want or hope for.

The solution is less power for government, more liberty for more people*.


*A wonderful side-effect will be more prosperity and well-being for more people also.

Again I agree with you in many ways. The government has both good and bad consequences, I favour the good ones. I actually believe that the gov can get it right which in my view stimulates business not the reverse and doing that whilst lowering taxes. The repubs and the libertarians here see gov as stifling all too often, it's inherently both stifling and productive and my/our role should be to see that it is foremost the latter. Too often good gov policies are dismissed as wasteful etc when in actuality they are fundamental to a better society.

Like I said earlier too, I agree that governments are pushing way too much a corporate agenda that yes in many ways exerts their will rather than the corporations and this will and has reduced sovereignty more than anything else can and will do.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #46 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

They already do, they lobby to fuck it up for a buck. Who cares that in sunny California trumpets and Sammie joes car kill people through their stinking exhaust pipes, so long as smokers can't have a fag in a bar, who the hell cares...

I think its just evolution, it appears that at this stage of our development, the gene for sociopathy is an evolutionary advantage. Its always been there, but throughout most of humanhistory, such blatant displays of anti-social conduct and behaviour would have got you kiled by your tribe. Now of course, where we can sustain ourselves in a society where you can be solo, there is no need to repress the gene, and you can be as much of an asshole as you want.

Its pretty obvious that most of the right, and some of the left who have difficulties accepting who they really are, so lurch too far the other way to compensate for their realisation that they're ... yet give it all away, by essentially using the same MO, tactics, deceit and underhanded BS as the right they supposedly oppose - essentially people fighting the monster that they've fallen in love with.

Of course, anyone else.. people who just want to have a happy simple life, who are honest, decent, trusted and respectful, people who value life, art, music, their soul, (math & cosmology ) who dont care much for money or possessions or political meanderings or clever talk and weasel words, are going to be screwed over and fucked around by these assholes from the minute theyre born.

Now, its not pretty hard to see that humanitys current mode of existance is on its last legs, and it will collapse, not because of a revolution, but because its an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics - which can only be bent for so long.

Then these right-scumbags and these left-scumbags will realise that their evolutionary niche has come to a big fucking screeching halt, and it will be those that can work together, that can look after eachother, and do care about each other that build a new world.

Humanity v2 wont substitute a big number on the ATM for the lack of genuine human emotion caused by the sociopathic gene, because those emotional sucking parasites will be the ones fossilized in a tide of humanity.
post #47 of 168
That old differentiation of 'government control' and 'private interest' comers up yet again. In reality, this is an artificial, distracting, red herring of a distinction. "Government', (especially here in the US, and the further up each hierarchical level of government), is merely an extension of privately owned big business... which is not necessarily US owned.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #48 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK View Post

I think its just evolution, it appears that at this stage of our development, the gene for sociopathy is an evolutionary advantage. Its always been there, but throughout most of humanhistory, such blatant displays of anti-social conduct and behaviour would have got you kiled by your tribe. Now of course, where we can sustain ourselves in a society where you can be solo, there is no need to repress the gene, and you can be as much of an asshole as you want.

Its pretty obvious that most of the right, and some of the left who have difficulties accepting who they really are, so lurch too far the other way to compensate for their realisation that they're ... yet give it all away, by essentially using the same MO, tactics, deceit and underhanded BS as the right they supposedly oppose - essentially people fighting the monster that they've fallen in love with.

Of course, anyone else.. people who just want to have a happy simple life, who are honest, decent, trusted and respectful, people who value life, art, music, their soul, (math & cosmology ) who dont care much for money or possessions or political meanderings or clever talk and weasel words, are going to be screwed over and fucked around by these assholes from the minute theyre born.

Now, its not pretty hard to see that humanitys current mode of existance is on its last legs, and it will collapse, not because of a revolution, but because its an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics - which can only be bent for so long.

Then these right-scumbags and these left-scumbags will realise that their evolutionary niche has come to a big fucking screeching halt, and it will be those that can work together, that can look after eachother, and do care about each other that build a new world.

Humanity v2 wont substitute a big number on the ATM for the lack of genuine human emotion caused by the sociopathic gene, because those emotional sucking parasites will be the ones fossilized in a tide of humanity.

Really well said.

I guess I find it hard imagining things that different...it's a shift that I don't see happening any time soon. Boxed in by debt, boxed in by laws that would have made the aristocrats look lazy...so much to be reliant upon. I hate not being realistic...maybe that's my problem...I see a future where we're all too ready to comply.

I think I'll go kill myself.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #49 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


I think I'll go kill myself.

stick around, its going to get exciting!
post #50 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK View Post

stick around, its going to get exciting!

Just spotted your sig. Hilarious!


I was brought up by a single mother mostly on welfare, who'd abandoned her families Tory ways because she knew that a healthy family was more important than giving some Tory wanker an extra 5k a year to come over.

I was also brought up by my Grandad, who whilst leaning Tory, was anything but regarding financial matters. He would often talk about the system collapsing and as someone who was influential globally in the highest levels of banking, I have feared that this would come about from an early age. He died whilst I was in the US and now I wonder what he'd be saying about things since. I really could never understand how he could be so sure of so much of that stuff. He for example got money moved out of stocks just one month before black Monday. That was no big deal deal to him, he was thinking in ways that made sense to people who knew there stuff inside out. He believed that things would go one of two ways after the inevitable big crash. One was his way...lol! And the other was mayhem and (to put it in my own ignorant terms) more tyranny.

I'm hoping for somewhere in-between, somewhere where he is wrong. Much as I wish things could change, I don't believe they will. I'm going on a bit here, but the right way, the way that doesn't prop up, beyond all reasonable sensibilities the most corrupt has no chance of survival and my fear is we'll happily comply.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #51 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

As I said, I believe we're using different definitions of that term.

I think our definitions are the same. But I think our LIMITS are what differs.

I'm sure you're not saying liberty should be unlimited.
post #52 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I used to occasionally smoke.. for 3 years, and very occasionally. Quitting was very *difficult*, even for a smoker as "light " as I was. As an ex-smoker, I detest tobacco smoke (as do pretty much all others). The smell gets everywhere, it makes your clothes stink, it trashes your health and the health of others around you. I can understand older people who have lives into their 70s and 80s and have been smoking all their lives... (they are lucky to have survived that long)... but in the 2000s.. with all the medical facts out there and well known ... kids are still starting smoke, as if there's something "cool" about it. WTF??? Are they trying to compete for a Darwin Award? Duh????

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

Amen.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #53 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.
The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body. Indeed smoking (as it exists right now) has polluting side-effects that can essentially intrude onto other people's property (body) at the very least annoying them, but worse damaging them. So this would be a violation of that person's basic rights. However...the sphere of this threat is relatively small. A few feet in most cases.

Smoking involves health risks. Evidence has linked it to heart disease and respiratory problems. Second hand smoke increases the risk of innocent people. If you want to smoke, no one is going to stop you, but smokers who complain about their rights being trampled, have only themselves to blame. They cant' control their smoke and too many smokers flick their ashes into other peoples space. At red lights there is always one smoker who always uses the stop to flick his/her ashes or cig butt to the traffic. Cig butts litter the beaches...reason why SM banned smoking from the beaches.

What you do with your body is not totally your free will. If you send your children to public and many private schools, they have to be inoculated against certain diseases. Many smokers end up needing extensive health care...cancer, emphysema, heart conditions...etc. This burdens our health care system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We also have the property rights of the bar or restaurant owner. This is their physical property and they should have the right to determine what activities are allowed in and on it. If they chose to allow smokers (they should never be forced to accept smokers) and this is clearly known to anyone who voluntarily enters the establishment...then I see no violation of the rights of a person who dislikes smoke. They are not required to enter the premises and can leave at any time and never return. Conversely, another bar/restaurant owner could offer an environment where smoking is not permitted and anyone who attempts to smoke can be removed from the property for violating the rights of that property owner.

In SCal most restaurants rent their space, however even if they owned their property there are certain restrictions. To open and operate a restaurant there are fire, health and employment codes that they are required to follow. A restaurant deals with the public so their safety is involved.

Imagine if there were no restaurant health code and inspections.....would you eat at a "C" rated establishment?

Smoking is a health risk that non-smokers do not want forced upon them by inconsiderate smokers' second hand smoke.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #54 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Smoking involves health risks. Evidence has linked it to heart disease and respiratory problems. Second hand smoke increases the risk of innocent people.

Thanks Captain Obvious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

What you do with your body is not totally your free will.

How fun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

If you send your children to public and many private schools, they have to be inoculated against certain diseases.

Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Many smokers end up needing extensive health care...cancer, emphysema, heart conditions...etc. This burdens our health care system.

Oh dear. Won't it be fun when we realize all the ways we can control people because their actions have healthcare (or even climate change) consequences we dislike.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

In SCal most restaurants rent their space, however even if they owned their property there are certain restrictions. To open and operate a restaurant there are fire, health and employment codes that they are required to follow. A restaurant deals with the public so their safety is involved.




Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Imagine if there were no restaurant health code and inspections.....would you eat at a "C" rated establishment?

Probably not. Would you? How many people do you think would?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Smoking is a health risk that non-smokers do not want forced upon them by inconsiderate smokers' second hand smoke.




All those words you typed and not a single valuable thing added to the discussion. Pity.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 168
Thread Starter 
People have been brainwashed into being 'safe' all the time. Inoculations for measles, flu, whatever - everything we caught the whole time when we were kids.

This is a subtle and insidious way of control. As usual it is based on fear. And massive profits for the drug companies.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #56 of 168
But second-hand smoke isn't something that kids naturally inhale. They should feel free to play in the dirt to their hearts content--and their mothers shouldn't be on standby with alcohol-based hand sanitizer. But smoking just doesn't have any inherent benefits to those around the smoker--in fact, quite the opposite.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #57 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

People have been brainwashed into being 'safe' all the time. Inoculations for measles, flu, whatever - everything we caught the whole time when we were kids.

This is a subtle and insidious way of control. As usual it is based on fear. And massive profits for the drug companies.

Although there are risks in inoculations the result in not having them is more risk. Some universities have required inoculations against spinal meningitis...highly contagious and deadly. There was an outbreak of this on several university campuses requiring this as a precaution. I should have also mentioned when you join the all voluntary Army, you are given a battery of inoculations.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #58 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But second-hand smoke isn't something that kids naturally inhale. They should feel free to play in the dirt to their hearts content--and their mothers shouldn't be on standby with alcohol-based hand sanitizer. But smoking just doesn't have any inherent benefits to those around the smoker--in fact, quite the opposite.

What disgust me the most is to see young parents smoking while carrying their baby. People just got tired and became more militant because of the bad habits of many smokers.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #59 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

If you send your children to public and many private schools, they have to be inoculated against certain diseases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why?

Gee, I guess its the law in California, for public safety. I mention above in the US there was a spinal meningitis outbreak requiring the implementation of mandatory inoculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

To open and operate a restaurant there are fire, health and employment codes that they are required to follow. A restaurant deals with the public so their safety is involved.
Imagine if there were no restaurant health code and inspections.....would you eat at a "C" rated establishment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Probably not. Would you? How many people do you think would?

So you would rather have restaurants operate without any license or health code? Evidently you are not aware of how many restaurants are closed in LA due to health code violations? http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov...e/restall1.cfm

Bon appetite.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #60 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Gee, I guess its the law in California, for public safety. I mention above in the US there was a spinal meningitis outbreak requiring the implementation of mandatory inoculations.

You do realize that vaccines protect the person being vaccinated not those around him or her don't you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

So you would rather have restaurants operate without any license or health code?

If you're asking whether I'd be okay with privatized vetting of restaurants, yes. I would be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Evidently you are not aware of how many restaurants are closed in LA due to health code violations? http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov...e/restall1.cfm

Bon appetite.

So your argument in favor of government regulation is to provide an example of the failure of government regulation? Clever. How could anyone possibly penetrate this fortress of logic and reason you've erected?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So your argument in favor of government regulation is to provide an example of the failure of government regulation? Clever. How could anyone possibly penetrate this fortress of logic and reason you've erected?!

No wonder we so rarely see eye to eye. We obviously live in different universes. You see, in the universe in which I live, restaurants being closed due to health violations is a very clear example of the system working well. Without regulations and inspection, every single one of those restaurants would still be open.
post #62 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No wonder we so rarely see eye to eye. We obviously live in different universes. You see, in the universe in which I live, restaurants being closed due to health violations is a very clear example of the system working well. Without regulations and inspection, every single one of those restaurants would still be open.

Indeed. It's funny how single-minded MJ is about government that he can't bear to admit a single good thing regulation of industry can do.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #63 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.

The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

What you do with your body is not totally your free will. If you send your children to public and many private schools, they have to be inoculated against certain diseases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

If you send your children to public and many private schools, they have to be inoculated against certain diseases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Gee, I guess its the law in California, for public safety. I mention above in the US there was a spinal meningitis outbreak requiring the implementation of mandatory inoculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You do realize that vaccines protect the person being vaccinated not those around him or her don't you?

Yes I do realize that vacines protect the person receiving it, however it also protects the public since the inoculated person will not get the disease and infect the general population.

This was only given as an example to your opinion that we should be free to do what ever we want to our bodies. Sometimes there are limitations to what you can do if it endangers the public.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

To open and operate a restaurant there are fire, health and employment codes that they are required to follow. A restaurant deals with the public so their safety is involved.
Imagine if there were no restaurant health code and inspections.....would you eat at a "C" rated establishment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Probably not. Would you? How many people do you think would?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

So you would rather have restaurants operate without any license or health code? Evidently you are not aware of how many restaurants are closed in LA due to health code violations? http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov...e/restall1.cfm

Bon appetite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So your argument in favor of government regulation is to provide an example of the failure of government regulation? Clever. How could anyone possibly penetrate this fortress of logic and reason you've erected?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No wonder we so rarely see eye to eye. We obviously live in different universes. You see, in the universe in which I live, restaurants being closed due to health violations is a very clear example of the system working well. Without regulations and inspection, every single one of those restaurants would still be open.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Indeed. It's funny how single-minded MJ is about government that he can't bear to admit a single good thing regulation of industry can do.

Nothing more to add to these comments.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #64 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You do realize that vaccines protect the person being vaccinated not those around him or her don't you?



This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board. You exceed yourself, MJ.
post #65 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post



This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board. You exceed yourself, MJ.

Are you disputing the truth of the statement?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post



This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board. You exceed yourself, MJ.

Agreed...MJ# also overlooks the elimination of Smallpox.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/smallpox/article_em.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #67 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Agreed...MJ# also overlooks the elimination of Smallpox.

I do!?!? Where? How? When?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #68 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Are you disputing the truth of the statement?

Of course! By getting inoculated, the person receiving the vaccine protects all others from being infected by him. So in the end, those in contact with the inoculated person are protected.

Sure, the person not getting the vaccine could still be infected by others who haven't been inoculated. They are protected from the person who was vaccinated, but they are not 100% protected. But they are still protected to a degree, which contradicts what you said (that they are not protected at all). However, the more people receiving the vaccine, the smaller the chance of contagions spreading.

That's how it works. Reduce the pool susceptible to contagion, and the contagion spreads more slowly, protecting everybody. Eventually, there's a chance that the contagion spreads so slowly that it becomes effectively eradicated. People all around the world are protected now from smallpox, for instance, because of the vaccine, even though they themselves may never have been vaccinated. These people, who are protected, are "the people around him or her" of whom you are speaking. Your statement is moronic. There is no "truth" to it, whatsoever.
post #69 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course! By getting inoculated, the person receiving the vaccine protects all others from being infected by him. So in the end, those in contact with the inoculated person are protected.

Which is why vaccination programmes aim for a specific take-up target - 80% or whatever it happens to be as opposed to a blanket 100%.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #70 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course! By getting inoculated, the person receiving the vaccine protects all others from being infected by him. So in the end, those in contact with the inoculated person are protected.



You have it backwards. The vaccine protects the vaccinate-ee. Protection of those around him or her is incidental. The point I'm making is that the argument for forcing people to be vaccinated is that this is a public health issue when, in reality, it is a personal health issue and that anyone wishing to be protected from a disease is free to be vaccinated from it do so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Sure, the person not getting the vaccine could still be infected by others who haven't been inoculated. They are protected from the person who was vaccinated, but they are not 100% protected. But they are still protected to a degree, which contradicts what you said (that they are not protected at all).

Well that's actually not what I said. But okay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

However, the more people receiving the vaccine, the smaller the chance of contagions spreading.

Yep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's how it works. Reduce the pool susceptible to contagion, and the contagion spreads more slowly, protecting everybody. Eventually, there's a chance that the contagion spreads so slowly that it becomes effectively eradicated. People all around the world are protected now from smallpox, for instance, because of the vaccine, even though they themselves may never have been vaccinated. These people, who are protected, are "the people around him or her" of whom you are speaking.

I understand exactly how it works. But my statement, though it could have been worded a bit more precisely still stands. The protection to "those around" is incidental not direct. The direct protection come from being vaccinated yourself.

My point is with the logic behind forcible vaccinations which is based on the idea that if you aren'tt vaccinated that puts me at risk. Not so if I get myself vaccinated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your statement is moronic.

Thanks for your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is no "truth" to it, whatsoever.

Wrong.

P.S. Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I am opposed to vaccines and getting vaccinated, let me put that notion to rest. I'm not...necessarily. I'm simply pointing out the flawed logic that supports mandatory/forced vaccinations as matter of a public health issue.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 168
Thread Starter 
Back vaguely OT, it seems the ban is causing a few ructions:

Quote:
Spain's new year anti-smoking law has been encountering resistance, with hundreds of complaints by the public that it is being flouted.

The owner of a bowling alley in the western town of Montehermoso had 16 stitches in his forehead after a fight broke out on Sunday evening.

Three customers were also hurt in the fracas, which began when the owner asked a customer to stub out.

Link
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #72 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

P.S. Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I am opposed to vaccines and getting vaccinated, let me put that notion to rest. I'm not...necessarily. I'm simply pointing out the flawed logic that supports mandatory/forced vaccinations as matter of a public health issue.

I am opposed to some of them....certain ones anyway.

I'm even prepared to believe there is more in some vaccines than we might realize and intended for other purposes than the obvious.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #73 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I am opposed to some of them....certain ones anyway.

I'm even prepared to believe there is more in some vaccines than we might realize and intended for other purposes than the obvious.

There are certainly dangers and risks to them. The smallpox vaccine, mentioned earlier, has some serious risks. I personally get a bit nervous when the government (at the behest of pharmaceutical special interests) wants to stick a needle in my arm...especially when they want to force me to do it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...

You are wrong about that first point. In Delaware, smoking is banned in all bars and restaurants. But in Pennsylvania, it's only establishments that do 25% or more of their business from food, meaning certain bars allow smoking. What's happened is that bars in northern DE took a hit, because people could just go to a bar that allows smoking a few miles away.

I have a serious problem with the government banning a legal product in a private establishment. In Boston, they had a legal war over whether or not cigar bars could be exempt from the smoking ban. They finally were, but it was a fight. I think it's crazy that this this has been allowed to happen. Restaurants and bars are NOT public spaces. As such, the government should not be able to ban the use of a legal product in the establishment.

Now, I have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings. I have somewhat of a problem with the government going as far as New York City's has, however: They are proposing a ban on smoking on all public beaches, parks and I think--sidewalks!

Two last points: First, the hypocrisy governments show on this issue is astounding. They rely on tax revenue from tobacco, then turn around and ban it in the name of public health. Secondly, the above notwithstanding, I do like being able to go to a bar or restaurant and not come home smelling like smoke after inhaling a bunch of second-hand smoke. And that says a lot, because I'm a cigar guy that has a pro-smoking man cave!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now, I have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings. I have somewhat of a problem with the government going as far as New York City's has, however: They are proposing a ban on smoking on all public beaches, parks and I think--sidewalks!

Why do have no problem with government banning smoking from public buildings but oppose government banning smoking from public beaches, parks and sidewalks?

Most people who oppose smoking would have no problem with smokers smoking in public or in restaurants if they could confine their smoke and ash to their immediate area and not litter the environment with their cig butts and smoke. Smokers brought this issue on themselves.

I disagree with you about not banning smoking in restaurants. They cater to the public and smoking and second hand smoke from cigarettes have been proven as a health risk. If you want to smoke your lungs out I have no problems with that except when it violates my air space. If restaurants cater to the public, they are subject to laws that are designed to protect them....we went through this already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Two last points: First, the hypocrisy governments show on this issue is astounding. They rely on tax revenue from tobacco, then turn around and ban it in the name of public health. Secondly, the above notwithstanding, I do like being able to go to a bar or restaurant and not come home smelling like smoke after inhaling a bunch of second-hand smoke. And that says a lot, because I'm a cigar guy that has a pro-smoking man cave!

What is more ironic is that the US Government has tobacco subsidies@
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?f...ogcode=tobacco
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #76 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I disagree with you about not banning smoking in restaurants. They cater to the public and smoking and second hand smoke from cigarettes have been proven as a health risk. If you want to smoke your lungs out I have no problems with that except when it violates my air space.

If you don't want to breath the smoke, don't go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking. Simple. No one is forcing you to go to those places.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #77 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you don't want to breath the smoke, don't go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking. Simple. No one is forcing you to go to those places.

The problem was solved in California..smoking banned...so no problem for me. But smokers violate the rights of those who do not want to breath their smoke. The problem is that people need to inhale, smokers can refrain from smoking when they go to restaurants. Maybe restaurants should have separate smoking areas for smokers when they want to smoke....but most restaurants in California were opposed to the cost of having separate designated smoking areas.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #78 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You have it backwards. The vaccine protects the vaccinate-ee. Protection of those around him or her is incidental.

This is where your argument falls apart. Incidental protection is still protection. Full stop. End of story. Incidental or not, it doesn't matter. You're wrong. It's not opinion. It's fact. Protection of those aroud him or her is fact.

You see, even if one person gets vaccinated, you receive some amount of protection. Incidental or not. and you very clearly said...

"You do realize that vaccines protect the person being vaccinated not those around him or her don't you?"

...which unless you either don't understand language, or you don't understand logic, makes the logical statement that vaccines don't protect those around those who aren't vaccinated [in any way at all].
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I'm even prepared to believe there is more in some vaccines than we might realize and intended for other purposes than the obvious.

Now this makes sense. You see, some people have a logical way of thinking, and are able to communicate their logic without drawing from inference, misdirection or lies, and some people... not so much.
post #79 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You are wrong about that first point. In Delaware, smoking is banned in all bars and restaurants. But in Pennsylvania, it's only establishments that do 25% or more of their business from food, meaning certain bars allow smoking. What's happened is that bars in northern DE took a hit, because people could just go to a bar that allows smoking a few miles away.

I have a serious problem with the government banning a legal product in a private establishment. In Boston, they had a legal war over whether or not cigar bars could be exempt from the smoking ban. They finally were, but it was a fight. I think it's crazy that this this has been allowed to happen. Restaurants and bars are NOT public spaces. As such, the government should not be able to ban the use of a legal product in the establishment.

Now, I have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings. I have somewhat of a problem with the government going as far as New York City's has, however: They are proposing a ban on smoking on all public beaches, parks and I think--sidewalks!

Two last points: First, the hypocrisy governments show on this issue is astounding. They rely on tax revenue from tobacco, then turn around and ban it in the name of public health. Secondly, the above notwithstanding, I do like being able to go to a bar or restaurant and not come home smelling like smoke after inhaling a bunch of second-hand smoke. And that says a lot, because I'm a cigar guy that has a pro-smoking man cave!

It has less to do with the patrons and more to do with the working environment. It's hazardous, plain and simple.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #80 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It has less to do with the patrons and more to do with the working environment. It's hazardous, plain and simple.

As I recall, the smoking ban in California came mostly from patrons who wanted a smoke free environment. Smoking was still permitted in bars. Later because of the evidence of second hand smoke became apparent an because of employee lawsuits, smoking in bars was also banned.

I don't believe that this would have been an issue if smokers were more considerate of others who find their smoke offensive and sickening.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Spain Smoking Ban