As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
But what if I want to be able to enjoy a walk in the city park, or down the street, or dinner in my favorite restaurant, without having to inhale that disgusting filth? Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter public buildings, where the worthless cancer addicts stand outside puffing away at their poison sticks?
If you want to smoke in your own home, fine. I don't care. But don't expect ME to put up with YOUR filthy habit in public. The moment your smoke enters my lungs, you are infringing on my freedom.
That's because you're immature. You're evidently not intelligent enough to recognize that you're rights end when the rights of your neighbor begin.
This is a pot and kettle argument. Both of you are "immature" according to a lot of folks out there. So am I. Let's fix it and ban immaturity. . . . Oh wait, they already did with the two party system.
But what if I want to be able to enjoy a walk in the city park, or down the street, or dinner in my favorite restaurant, without having to inhale that disgusting filth? Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter public buildings, where the worthless cancer addicts stand outside puffing away at their poison sticks?
If you want to smoke in your own home, fine. I don't care. But don't expect ME to put up with YOUR filthy habit in public. The moment your smoke enters my lungs, you are infringing on my freedom.
Kirk
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
There's also a 2-cycle utility cart that parks outside my window in the morning sometimes. The fumes that come in have gotta be WAY more harmful than second hand smoke. Ban it!
people should have to smoke at least 100 feet from buidling entrances. smoke permeates the immediate atmosphere, it's so penetrating, i can't think of a better word right now. hell, sometimes i drive down the road and smell smoke, it sucks.
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
Well, that's a valid point-- but ultimately offtopic. There are many of us here who would like to increasingly regulate fast food companies, but that's not the thread subject. Let's stick to talking about smoking-- so we don't get infinitely sidetracked by a bunch of dissembling points-on-the-side. (BTW, I genuinely laughed at your comment before this. I too think Bunge's comments were unneccesary).
If you want to ban guys holding hands in the park, I have no problem, since I'll be right next to you banning men and women doing the same thing. Tit for tat.
But you see, that's a totally different situation than the smokers polluting the air. Because there are two active parties there. But with cigarettes (and cigars, and pipes), it's only one group that are ruining it for everyone else. They are selfishly damaging the health of other people (real damage, not your bullshit "I hate gays" damage) just because they're weak, pathetic individuals who went and got themselves addicted to poison sticks.
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
There's also a 2-cycle utility cart that parks outside my window in the morning sometimes. The fumes that come in have gotta be WAY more harmful than second hand smoke. Ban it!
Inane points. Claiming exposure to mundane aspects of homosexuality damages your health is unbelievable at best-- and completely untrue by any accepted medical understanding. And, yes, we probably should increasingly regulate vehicle and industrial plant emissions. Was that supposed to be a shockingly incredulous point?
No. not incredulous at all. Just pointing out that there's always going to be someone upset about something. Abe Lincoln said it best. Going on a crusade for banning things that annoy, really, rather small portions of the public is a waste of time, and it sets a precedent that will come back to haunt you.
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
In response to Kirkland, I'm sure you can see how easy it would be to reverse your logic, so I won't bother to even do it.
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
To tell you the truth, I think that's the weakest part of my position-- the whole "Black Market" consequence of banning something highly enjoyable to many people. I *want* to ban smoking outright because I know it damages my health and the health of tens of millions of other people in this country. I know second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of non smokers- every year. Everyone knows this-- and for the life of me I can't think of a satisfactory solution.
Banning smoking outright creates a lucrative, crime-ridden, and dangerous black market. Banning smoking in all public places- indoors and out- necessarily forces smokers indoors and destroys the lungs of children and spouses. (I assume the uncontrollable drift of smoke would forbid smoking outdoors even on private property- because it often will have very public consequences). Well, what do we do? Uphold the status quo? Keep smoking legal? Enforce California and New York City style restrictions nationwide? It's a public health problem that's definitely going nowhere soon.
There are enough products on the market such as nicotine patches, gums and presciption medications relating to smoking that would prevent the rise of any substantial black market because thesu substitutes would likely be far cheaper and easier to obtain than any blackmarket cancer stick. Yes, people will get addicted to these products and harm themselves (since Nicotine is a carcinogen), but there's no secondhand smoke problem. You can have faith in these drug companies--they'll make sure they get the smokers addicted onto their products for the almighty dollar, preaching the evils of smoking in the process.
No. not incredulous at all. Just pointing out that there's always going to be someone upset about something. Abe Lincoln said it best. Going on a crusade for banning things that annoy, really, rather small portions of the public is a waste of time, and it sets a precedent that will come back to haunt you.
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
In response to Kirkland, I'm sure you can see how easy it would be to reverse your logic, so I won't bother to even do it.
Which would be fine if cigarette smoke were an "annoyance", but the point is is that it's a toxic carcinogen. What percentage of the public are annoyed is irrelevant, since the issue is health.
Would you say that controlling mercury levels in our drinking water is a matter of who gets "upset" and should be considered as analogous to people fretting over the racy content in movies? How about lead poisoning?
Darn those kids with their hair falling out, it's always something, isn't it?
There are enough products on the market such as nicotine patches, gums and presciption medications . . .
That stuff is all pretty expensive. In the end, you'll just see a big rise in Marijuana smoking, which is illegal these days anyway.
But since I know that you're whole pro-ban position is entirely based on the fact that you don't like smelling smoke personally, and not that you are actually trying to "save" anyone's life except your own, I'm not really drawn into your argument.
Incidentally, you could also tell people to move to Europe if you cared about "saving lives." The average life span is higher there, which is interesting because there's a lot more second hand smoke, too. If you really care about people's life-spans, you're not barking up the big tree. Same for you, addabox.
Quote:
Which would be fine if cigarette smoke were an "annoyance", but the point is is that it's a toxic carcinogen. What percentage of the public are annoyed is irrelevant, since the issue is health.
A lot of things are toxic carcinogens. Really. even so people live longer today than they ever have before. (read, before there was industry) I find the whole "health" issue to be a front for people like you guys who are really just upset, for some personal reason, about cigarettes. It's the typical control-freak way to try to legitimize an argument that is, actually, just about an annoyance.
If health is your main concern, you should be finding ways to reduce fossil fuel emissions in annex-one nations. That will help overall health and well being a lot more than wasting your time on a difficult crusade. Then here are about a thousand other productive things you can do to mitigate air pollution problems before you even get to the whole smoking thing.
That stuff is all pretty expensive. In the end, you'll just see a big rise in Marijuana smoking, which is illegal these days anyway.
Which according to your libertarian worldview is prohibitively expensive-- but to our arguably socialist perspective (or modern liberal view), it doesn't matter much because the government could subsidize the cost of a patch-gum nicotine withdrawal plan. I think it's arguably a worthwhile social investment-- and it might mitigate a black market- at least partially. All with the goal of improving public health. Admirable for sure- but there are plenty of roadblocks for smokers and libertarians alike.
About Europe... Give me that wine-drinking meat eating European diet any day (minus the smokes).
Admirable for sure- but there are plenty of roadblocks for smokers and libertarians alike.
Interesting choice of words. Fortunately, there are bigger problems for socialists like yourself. . . namely getting a socialist nation to sustain itself for a meaningful amount of time, without having economic problems, so that you have a model to work with.
A lot of things are toxic carcinogens. Really. even so people live longer today than they ever have before. (read, before there was industry) I find the whole "health" issue to be a front for people like you guys who are really just upset, for some personal reason, about cigarettes. It's the typical control-freak way to try to legitimize an argument that is, actually, just about an annoyance.
If health is your main concern, you should be finding ways to reduce fossil fuel emissions in annex-one nations. That will help overall health and well being a lot more than wasting your time on a difficult crusade. Then here are about a thousand other productive things you can do to mitigate air pollution problems before you even get to the whole smoking thing.
It's all difficult. The tobacco industry and lobby is a powerful multibillion dollar conglomerate (loosely using that word). The automobile industry and lobby, and even the auto unions unify against increased fuel efficiency standards. And the government (democrats and republicans alike) generally support these titans of industry. It's all a seemingly hopeless cycle of unchanging misery.
But about health, my views are probably the least informed on the actual scientific evidence that second-hand smoking kills people or harms the health of non-smokers. All of my posts admittedly assume the worst of second-hand smoke. So that's two fronts where I think my position is open to criticism-- both fairly significant.
Interesting choice of words. Fortunately, there are bigger problems for socialists like yourself. . . namely getting a socialist nation to sustain itself for a meaningful amount of time, without having economic problems, so that you have a model to work with.
While industries in the developed world are entrenched. . . in America with lawyers and in Europe with red tape, you could try to adopt a platform that pushed for a UN resolution where developed nations were encouraged to work with developing ones to improve pollution controls, since almost all of the human contributed air pollution comes from these nations.
Of course, Mount Pinatubo belched out more toxic smog in one day than humans have in a thousand years, and that was only one volcano, but I suppose you can still do something.
While industries in the developed world are entrenched. . . in America with lawyers and in Europe with red tape, you could try to adopt a platform that pushed for a UN resolution where developed nations were encouraged to work with developing ones to improve pollution controls, since almost all of the human contributed air pollution comes from these nations.
Of course, Mount Pinatubo belched out more toxic smog in one day than humans have in a thousand years, and that was only one volcano, but I suppose you can still do something.
...The main criticism against Kyoto from many developed nations... (but just for the sake of accuracy, I think the percentage of emissions from developing countries was large and growing- but hardly the majority. In fact the US held the largest stake.) But yeah I would favor adopting a similar UN Resolution. Still, second hand smoke is a public health problem independent of other air pollution-- and it should be addressed-- regardless of its known difficulties and uneasy solutions.
The problem is you are infringing upon the rights of those who don't mind working in restaurants that allow smoking. Frankly, all that matters is the company being up front about it. If they give fair warning that should be enough.
You know this is incorrect. His example of the textile mill is perfect. A company has to make the work environment safe or it's not a legal work environment.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
But what if I want to be able to enjoy a walk in the city park, or down the street, or dinner in my favorite restaurant, without having to inhale that disgusting filth? Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter public buildings, where the worthless cancer addicts stand outside puffing away at their poison sticks?
If you want to smoke in your own home, fine. I don't care. But don't expect ME to put up with YOUR filthy habit in public. The moment your smoke enters my lungs, you are infringing on my freedom.
Kirk
Originally posted by bunge
That's because you're immature. You're evidently not intelligent enough to recognize that you're rights end when the rights of your neighbor begin.
This is a pot and kettle argument. Both of you are "immature" according to a lot of folks out there. So am I. Let's fix it and ban immaturity. . . . Oh wait, they already did with the two party system.
Originally posted by Kirkland
But what if I want to be able to enjoy a walk in the city park, or down the street, or dinner in my favorite restaurant, without having to inhale that disgusting filth? Why should I have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter public buildings, where the worthless cancer addicts stand outside puffing away at their poison sticks?
If you want to smoke in your own home, fine. I don't care. But don't expect ME to put up with YOUR filthy habit in public. The moment your smoke enters my lungs, you are infringing on my freedom.
Kirk
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
There's also a 2-cycle utility cart that parks outside my window in the morning sometimes. The fumes that come in have gotta be WAY more harmful than second hand smoke. Ban it!
Originally posted by Splinemodel
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
Well, that's a valid point-- but ultimately offtopic. There are many of us here who would like to increasingly regulate fast food companies, but that's not the thread subject. Let's stick to talking about smoking-- so we don't get infinitely sidetracked by a bunch of dissembling points-on-the-side.
But you see, that's a totally different situation than the smokers polluting the air. Because there are two active parties there. But with cigarettes (and cigars, and pipes), it's only one group that are ruining it for everyone else. They are selfishly damaging the health of other people (real damage, not your bullshit "I hate gays" damage) just because they're weak, pathetic individuals who went and got themselves addicted to poison sticks.
Smokers are terrible people.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
What if I get repulsed by seeing two guys hold hands while I'm smoking in the park? It scarred my brain forever and I'll never be the same. And that damn cologne. I nearly convulsed.
Before you get out your anti-anti-gay bullhorn, realize the hypothetical nature of the above.
More interestingly, I'd like to see how many of these cases involved people who were nearly morbidly obese, since we know from other studies that obesity is a bigger killer than smoking. Ban obesity!
There's also a 2-cycle utility cart that parks outside my window in the morning sometimes. The fumes that come in have gotta be WAY more harmful than second hand smoke. Ban it!
Inane points. Claiming exposure to mundane aspects of homosexuality damages your health is unbelievable at best-- and completely untrue by any accepted medical understanding. And, yes, we probably should increasingly regulate vehicle and industrial plant emissions. Was that supposed to be a shockingly incredulous point?
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
In response to Kirkland, I'm sure you can see how easy it would be to reverse your logic, so I won't bother to even do it.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
To tell you the truth, I think that's the weakest part of my position-- the whole "Black Market" consequence of banning something highly enjoyable to many people. I *want* to ban smoking outright because I know it damages my health and the health of tens of millions of other people in this country. I know second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of non smokers- every year. Everyone knows this-- and for the life of me I can't think of a satisfactory solution.
Banning smoking outright creates a lucrative, crime-ridden, and dangerous black market. Banning smoking in all public places- indoors and out- necessarily forces smokers indoors and destroys the lungs of children and spouses. (I assume the uncontrollable drift of smoke would forbid smoking outdoors even on private property- because it often will have very public consequences). Well, what do we do? Uphold the status quo? Keep smoking legal? Enforce California and New York City style restrictions nationwide? It's a public health problem that's definitely going nowhere soon.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
No. not incredulous at all. Just pointing out that there's always going to be someone upset about something. Abe Lincoln said it best. Going on a crusade for banning things that annoy, really, rather small portions of the public is a waste of time, and it sets a precedent that will come back to haunt you.
Lastly, it takes a lot of effort to ban or police anything, or for that matter to control anything. I just don't care enough to drop more and more of my income for taxes on things that really don't matter to me or most Americans.
In response to Kirkland, I'm sure you can see how easy it would be to reverse your logic, so I won't bother to even do it.
Which would be fine if cigarette smoke were an "annoyance", but the point is is that it's a toxic carcinogen. What percentage of the public are annoyed is irrelevant, since the issue is health.
Would you say that controlling mercury levels in our drinking water is a matter of who gets "upset" and should be considered as analogous to people fretting over the racy content in movies? How about lead poisoning?
Darn those kids with their hair falling out, it's always something, isn't it?
Originally posted by Existence
There are enough products on the market such as nicotine patches, gums and presciption medications . . .
That stuff is all pretty expensive. In the end, you'll just see a big rise in Marijuana smoking, which is illegal these days anyway.
But since I know that you're whole pro-ban position is entirely based on the fact that you don't like smelling smoke personally, and not that you are actually trying to "save" anyone's life except your own, I'm not really drawn into your argument.
Incidentally, you could also tell people to move to Europe if you cared about "saving lives." The average life span is higher there, which is interesting because there's a lot more second hand smoke, too. If you really care about people's life-spans, you're not barking up the big tree. Same for you, addabox.
Which would be fine if cigarette smoke were an "annoyance", but the point is is that it's a toxic carcinogen. What percentage of the public are annoyed is irrelevant, since the issue is health.
A lot of things are toxic carcinogens. Really. even so people live longer today than they ever have before. (read, before there was industry) I find the whole "health" issue to be a front for people like you guys who are really just upset, for some personal reason, about cigarettes. It's the typical control-freak way to try to legitimize an argument that is, actually, just about an annoyance.
If health is your main concern, you should be finding ways to reduce fossil fuel emissions in annex-one nations. That will help overall health and well being a lot more than wasting your time on a difficult crusade. Then here are about a thousand other productive things you can do to mitigate air pollution problems before you even get to the whole smoking thing.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That stuff is all pretty expensive. In the end, you'll just see a big rise in Marijuana smoking, which is illegal these days anyway.
Which according to your libertarian worldview is prohibitively expensive-- but to our arguably socialist perspective (or modern liberal view), it doesn't matter much because the government could subsidize the cost of a patch-gum nicotine withdrawal plan. I think it's arguably a worthwhile social investment-- and it might mitigate a black market- at least partially. All with the goal of improving public health. Admirable for sure- but there are plenty of roadblocks for smokers and libertarians alike.
About Europe... Give me that wine-drinking meat eating European diet any day (minus the smokes).
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Admirable for sure- but there are plenty of roadblocks for smokers and libertarians alike.
Interesting choice of words. Fortunately, there are bigger problems for socialists like yourself. . . namely getting a socialist nation to sustain itself for a meaningful amount of time, without having economic problems, so that you have a model to work with.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
A lot of things are toxic carcinogens. Really. even so people live longer today than they ever have before. (read, before there was industry) I find the whole "health" issue to be a front for people like you guys who are really just upset, for some personal reason, about cigarettes. It's the typical control-freak way to try to legitimize an argument that is, actually, just about an annoyance.
If health is your main concern, you should be finding ways to reduce fossil fuel emissions in annex-one nations. That will help overall health and well being a lot more than wasting your time on a difficult crusade. Then here are about a thousand other productive things you can do to mitigate air pollution problems before you even get to the whole smoking thing.
It's all difficult. The tobacco industry and lobby is a powerful multibillion dollar conglomerate (loosely using that word). The automobile industry and lobby, and even the auto unions unify against increased fuel efficiency standards. And the government (democrats and republicans alike) generally support these titans of industry. It's all a seemingly hopeless cycle of unchanging misery.
But about health, my views are probably the least informed on the actual scientific evidence that second-hand smoking kills people or harms the health of non-smokers. All of my posts admittedly assume the worst of second-hand smoke. So that's two fronts where I think my position is open to criticism-- both fairly significant.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Interesting choice of words. Fortunately, there are bigger problems for socialists like yourself. . . namely getting a socialist nation to sustain itself for a meaningful amount of time, without having economic problems, so that you have a model to work with.
Of course, Mount Pinatubo belched out more toxic smog in one day than humans have in a thousand years, and that was only one volcano, but I suppose you can still do something.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
While industries in the developed world are entrenched. . . in America with lawyers and in Europe with red tape, you could try to adopt a platform that pushed for a UN resolution where developed nations were encouraged to work with developing ones to improve pollution controls, since almost all of the human contributed air pollution comes from these nations.
Of course, Mount Pinatubo belched out more toxic smog in one day than humans have in a thousand years, and that was only one volcano, but I suppose you can still do something.
...The main criticism against Kyoto from many developed nations... (but just for the sake of accuracy, I think the percentage of emissions from developing countries was large and growing- but hardly the majority. In fact the US held the largest stake.) But yeah I would favor adopting a similar UN Resolution. Still, second hand smoke is a public health problem independent of other air pollution-- and it should be addressed-- regardless of its known difficulties and uneasy solutions.
Originally posted by BR
Ridiculous of you of all people to lecture me of all people about this mister tax and spend.
Ridiculous or not, my point still stands.
Originally posted by BR
The problem is you are infringing upon the rights of those who don't mind working in restaurants that allow smoking. Frankly, all that matters is the company being up front about it. If they give fair warning that should be enough.
You know this is incorrect. His example of the textile mill is perfect. A company has to make the work environment safe or it's not a legal work environment.