marv0723 0 #151 May 12, 2005 Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue just signed a smoking ban into state law for any building that is not designated as restricted to those under 18 years of age. The key words here are "state law" meaning a state-wide ban on smoking. Marvin Walden Move Shoot, Inc.-Tactical Training Consultants Visit http://www.moveshoot.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #152 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteNice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly. I'll try one last time. Using your situation, is this a health hazzard??----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #153 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuote A few people have already admitted that they're hypocrites when it comes to smoking bans. Personally, I feel hypocrisy is by far the worst trait anyone can have. I fucking hate hypocrites. You really, really, really must hate a lot of democrats. You're funny. I consider myself more democrat than republican. But you are right, I hate all politicians.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #154 May 12, 2005 QuoteA few people have already admitted that they're hypocrites when it comes to smoking bans. Personally, I feel hypocrisy is by far the worst trait anyone can have. I fucking hate hypocrites. Everyone has at least one position they aren't consistent on. So who's a worse 'hypocrite'; those that admit they have those positions or those that won't and just hate the trait in others? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveNFlorida 0 #155 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly. I'll try one last time. Using your situation, is this a health hazzard?? Ok, let me dumb down my answer a little bit... in my opinion, YES, it is. Breathing smoke in is unhealthy. End of story. -A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #156 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly. I'll try one last time. Using your situation, is this a health hazzard?? Ok, let me dumb down my answer a little bit... in my opinion, YES, it is. Breathing smoke in is unhealthy. End of story. -A Cute. Ok then, to move on, we must consider your non-answer to be that you have concluded that smoking in parks, on beaches, etc is a hazzard to your health (Save the Children!). Absent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? Would you ban hair salons from filling the air with bad smelling chemicals, coloring the hair of people with low self-esteem ...or perhaps we could do it just to save them from themselves? Smoking and vanities to the side, the main point here (although god knows which one you will pick up and run with) your view of the role of govt is frightening in it's implications. Seriously, do you think these things through at all? I have no problem with your personal likes and dislikes but validating the role of our govt to ban annoying things is more than a bit over the line, don't you think? jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveNFlorida 0 #157 May 12, 2005 Absent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? *** Wow, you ARE an extremist, aren't you? Look, I am not lacking scientific evidence that second hand smoke is bad. It is a hazzard to ones health to breathe that shit in, just like we all know that the fumes that are emitted from cars are unhealthy for us and the environment, and that power plant emissions need to be controlled. I am not proposing that we ban smoking, just like I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide. Personal choice. But, I don't feel that I should have to stay home to avoid being stuck with some littering/ air polluting suicidal jerk who doesn't have the common courtesy to leave crowded spaces to kill himself. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Kill yourself, not me. And, fwiw, I think that there should be a fuel limit set on what people can buy per week for their cars.. public transport should be beefed up enough that we don't all need to drive our own cars! I can't wait to move to SF and sell my car! And, I think that the fact that they have done away with emissions standards in Florida because of those who rig vehicles to pass is a joke. There are a lot of things that I think should be regulated in this society, because unfortunately many/most people lack common sense! Bottom line: There are a lot of things I find annoying, people who wear too much perfume, people who drive vehicles just so they can look cool, religious fanatics... but I don't petition to ban these people. Second-hand smoke, otoh, is hazzardous and it has been proven that it causes a myriad of diseases. Just because my autopsy report won't attribute my death to every smoker i've ever had to sit next to, stand next to, walk near, etc... doesn't mean they aren't contributers. You say I have no scientific evidence that these encounters are harmful to my health, but there is more proof that way than the converse. I don't see anyone out there trying to prove that cigarette smoke, first and second hand, is not harmful to ones health. At this point I have nothing additional to add, as I think we have both repeated ourselves a number of times. Believe what you want to believe. -A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 03CLS 0 #158 May 13, 2005 Smoke in your house or quit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #159 May 13, 2005 QuoteAbsent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? Quote Wow, you ARE an extremist, aren't you? Look, I am not lacking scientific evidence that second hand smoke is bad. It is a hazzard to ones health to breathe that shit in, just like we all know that the fumes that are emitted from cars are unhealthy for us and the environment, and that power plant emissions need to be controlled. I am not proposing that we ban smoking, just like I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide. Personal choice. But, I don't feel that I should have to stay home to avoid being stuck with some littering/ air polluting suicidal jerk who doesn't have the common courtesy to leave crowded spaces to kill himself. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Kill yourself, not me. And, fwiw, I think that there should be a fuel limit set on what people can buy per week for their cars.. public transport should be beefed up enough that we don't all need to drive our own cars! I can't wait to move to SF and sell my car! And, I think that the fact that they have done away with emissions standards in Florida because of those who rig vehicles to pass is a joke. There are a lot of things that I think should be regulated in this society, because unfortunately many/most people lack common sense! Bottom line: There are a lot of things I find annoying, people who wear too much perfume, people who drive vehicles just so they can look cool, religious fanatics... but I don't petition to ban these people. Second-hand smoke, otoh, is hazzardous and it has been proven that it causes a myriad of diseases. Just because my autopsy report won't attribute my death to every smoker i've ever had to sit next to, stand next to, walk near, etc... doesn't mean they aren't contributers. You say I have no scientific evidence that these encounters are harmful to my health, but there is more proof that way than the converse. I don't see anyone out there trying to prove that cigarette smoke, first and second hand, is not harmful to ones health. At this point I have nothing additional to add, as I think we have both repeated ourselves a number of times. Believe what you want to believe. -A Hopefully, the next time you box yourself in a corner by making statements like ... ***In short, i'm FOR the ban. . . everywhere. Smoke at home or in designated areas. Me, my family, my friends, other people and their children do not deserve to be forced to breathe that crap in while walking in the park, down the street, etc, either. Not to mention cigarette butts that are thrown everywhere, I think people should be fined. ...I would suggest sticking with what you said or say you changed your mind, rather than play around the corners of it like you didn't say it to begin with. In closing, I suspect we agree that SHS is a health hazzard in some situations and a legitimate concern for our govt to address. Others, (perhaps you, perhaps not) either pursuing personal agenda or (more likely) just doing the tribal dance of acceptance for the elders to see, need to realize the potential damage their short-sighted actions. Skies, (oh, and Save the Children!) jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #160 May 13, 2005 fireflytx the Rose is not going out of business because if this. There will be a short drop in business but for crying out loud 75% of the population does not smoke. The more education and the more wealth they have the less likely they are to smoke. You might want a few more of those folks coming in, bigger tips. If a group of four is given a choice between a smoking and a non-smoking venue the whiny smoker will force everyone else to a smoking venue and so the non-smoking venue goes out of business but now the playing field is in fact leveled so those with the best service and best entertainment will survive. Yes some clubs will close but new ones will open and the staff will move from one to the other as they have always done. Shawn "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites unformed 0 #161 May 13, 2005 QuoteIf a group of four is given a choice between a smoking and a non-smoking venue the whiny smoker will force everyone else to a smoking venue. If a group of four, where three are nonsmokers, go to a smoking venue simply because the other (one) smoker is whining, they're a bunch of fucking pussies. They should either grow some balls and decide where to go since there's more of them, or not go with the other person.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #162 May 13, 2005 Your argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #163 May 13, 2005 QuoteYour argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #164 May 14, 2005 QuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #165 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Many lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. We know that of the 6 million auto accidents and 40,000 deaths annually in the US, 40% involve alcohol and 30% involve speeding. So here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. jen "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." -Homer Simpson----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #166 May 14, 2005 Quote Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Did ya miss the part about it being voted on?? it wasn't voted by congress this was voted on my the people of austin. It was the democratic process that resulted in this. the people of austin voted...and it fell on the side of not wanting second hand smoke. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #167 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuote Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Did ya miss the part about it being voted on?? it wasn't voted by congress this was voted on my the people of austin. It was the democratic process that resulted in this. the people of austin voted...and it fell on the side of not wanting second hand smoke. Pay attention, darling. My points were a followup to calls for banning smoking outdoors. Did you miss that part?? jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #168 May 16, 2005 I guess i missed any one else actualy calling for that my dear Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #169 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteYour argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Jen Alchohol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing cholesterol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing saturated fats - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing television - There are strict FCC regulations on this. Hell, can't even say, "shit, fuck or many other words for fear of offense prescription drugs - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing. Even with this, there are huge FDA restrictions on this. It costs almost a billion dollars and years to certify some drugs ciggs - Can't be done in the company of other without involuntarily sharing. A multi-hundred billion dollar agreement was reached and the results were that smoking is addictive and deadly, but the cigg companies could keep making a product claimed to be so by both parties so long as the states get a cut. Total Fascist decision betwen the gov and cig companies that goes against every cannon of product liability, so apparently the legislative reaction is to ban it in many places as opposed to outlawing it. Look at all the drugs that are banned due to dangerous eventual side effects, yet cigs are deemed deadly and allowed to be sold. I understand your emotion, but you have yet to cast an argument that justifies killing people due to your compulsion, especially killing kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #170 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Many lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. We know that of the 6 million auto accidents and 40,000 deaths annually in the US, 40% involve alcohol and 30% involve speeding. So here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. jen "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." -Homer Simpson I agree with you that this, "the gov is here to protect us from ourselves" bullshit arguement is crap. If so, they wouldn't allow the sale of 600 hp cars, 200hp bikes, cigs, lottlery tickets, booze, skydiving, Indian Casionos, etc... The gov will decide if there is a profit in it for them when deciding which to ban. With cigs tho, it cuts into their profit when people cost billions in unpaid medical bills acrued primarily or exclusively by cigs. Furthermore, the 115 auto deaths per day has a valid argument: we need to get around to go to school, to work, to deliver things necessary for life - cigs do absolutely zero but to fill hospitals and morgues. There is no benefit gained from cigs, other tham corp profits, so I find your argument void of any substance when compared to auto related deaths. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. I don't know how open air is open air. Furthermore, smokers do push the limit of what is open and what is not. Inconsiderate assfucks will have a cig hanging from their mouth at the roach-coach spreading that crap around my food. Is it giving me cancer? Probably not. Do I want to smack the silly-looking punks inthe fucking lips? Ok, ya I do. BTW, smokers look incredibly stupid with a cig hanging from their mouth like they're some kind of baby having never left the boob. But that isn't the issue here! If someone smelled incredibly offensive due to refusal to shower, would you find it offensive? Some guys grabbed a guy in basic training and involuntarily showered him due to him refusing to shower. People at work have been fired for stinking due to lack of shower, yet you want to defend something as stinky, irregardless of the dangers of cancer? So this open air thing is void too, as open air should mean at least 50 feet from anyone. I can smell cigs 50 feet or more if downwind, so fifty feet is very conservative. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. WHat? This isn't a sheeple thing where person A is following person B. This is about life and health. If I had kids and some jackass lit up around him/her I would let that person know by probably yanking the cig out and stomping it, at the very least, and even if the cops came out for some silly reason I would probably be legally justified thru special relationship contract to protect. That aregument you cast is nothing more than mitigation and distraction. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis... I can agree in part with the first part, but the part about no rational basis is absurd. ....has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. Don't compare things like slavery and Constitutional deprivation, especially 4th and 14th, to the loss of "smokiing rights." We're not talking about Woman Suffrage here; we're talking about taking a deadly, inconsiderate habit out of the public and into the private as many things have been done. You can't drink in public, why should you be able to smoke in public? I mean, they could allow drinking in public and still maintain "drunk in public" laws. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. And when you smoke near me you are making my decision. Can you see this or is your addiction too blinding? Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. XX, 000 deaths per year is not an illusion, but I don't want to abridge a perosn's right to kill themselves, just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #171 May 16, 2005 QuoteSo here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings The more kids see it the more likely they are to copy it. QuoteMany lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. The rational justification is the harder you make it for people to smoke the more likely they are to quit. The less kids get exposed to cigarettes the less likely they are to take it up. QuoteMy advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. This isn't about me. It's about protecting children from the tobacco companies. It's about helping the millions of nicotine addicts who want to quit but can't manage it. Quote People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. LOL, I would love to know the total number of smokers that have died from smoking related illnesses. I think the number would be large enough to be considered a 'major attrocity'. Do you have kids? Do you/have you ever smoked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vallerina 2 #172 May 16, 2005 QuoteDo you really think that "Smoking is bad for your health" is a lie? Are you really telling me that you think that it is all bad science, and that you don't feel that this shit is bad for our health? You have GOT to be kidding me, right? I really hope people don't think that secondhand smoke is okay. My grandpa recently died from what secondhand smoke did to his lungs.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites minobu 0 #173 May 16, 2005 Its a mistake for people to continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke but the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. It is outrageous that out of the 4$ you pay for a pack only about 1.50$ is actually for the cigarettes. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? We are setting the precedent by allowing things like this to happen (using taxes as a deterrent) because it is something that affects someone else(i.e. smokers) but what about when it does affect you? I understand that yes it does increase the amount of people that have to be treated for diseases and such but that is not the real reason for the constant increases in "SIN Taxes". Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. JMO Only skydivers know why the birds sing! Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #174 May 16, 2005 QuoteIts a shame that people continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke but the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. It is outrageous that out of the 4$ you pay for a pack only about 1.50$ is actually for the cigarettes. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? We are setting the precedent by allowing things like this to happen (using taxes as a deterrent) because it is something that affects someone else(i.e. smokers) but what about when it does affect you? I understand that yes it does increase the amount of people that have to be treated for diseases and such but that is not the real reason for the constant increases in "SIN Taxes". Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. JMO Its a shame that people continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Cancer is a slight pain in the ass. Are you friken serious? What if someone walked up and threw water in your kids face? WOuld they be dead? What if they threw something carcinogenic in their face? Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke .... Ya, sort of.... WTF? What's with the passive voice? No, it goes like this: Granted, smokers have a legal right not to be exposed to poisons while in public, and have a right to patronize private establishments with the same rights. the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. They're called sin taxes, many sins have these taxes applied. BTW, rental cars have a higher rate of taxes than I believe cigs do, at least in Maricopa County, so what's your point? BTW, I'm not an advocate of high sin taxes or outright prohibition, just that you must kill yourself by yourself. Sorry to all the smokers that can't understand that I want you compulsions to be your compulsions. As an added opinion I think mist contraband drugs should be legalized and sold cheap to reduce the crime rate amongst druggies, so I', not a prohibitionist or a tax freak. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. Don't act as if you think it's exclusively the people that want clean air that are the same that want high cig taxes. Remember, the cig co's agreed to pay billions to the states over the next number of years to have the right to keep making a dangerous product, so that act is largely past of the increase. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? If we started hurting/killing non-participants then that might be a problem. Let's keep DZO's wise and help them to keep being safe and we will be ok. The arg with cigs is not the poor, poor dead smokers, it's the 2nd hand smoke killijng non-participants. There is an argument with the costs associated with smokers, but I'm willing to bet if the smokers would do so in private that the concern would end. Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. Do you suggest I beat the shit out of a smoker every time I breath their smoke? How about a cursory spit in the face.... ya, I would compromise. I work as an acft mech, and there is no shortage of stupid people in the blue-collar arena, groups of uneducated people probably have a higher rate of smokers, so I get to deal with these people all the time. Something like 20% of all Americans smoke, right? I bet 1/2 the people at work, smoke. So if our gov doesn't make it happen with legislation, then how does it happen? I have yet to see a rally or hear of meetings where smokers get together to talk about preserving "smokers rights" so let's be considerate. Truth is that even with legislation smokers will still break laws, just as they do with speeding, so little will change except restaurants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites minobu 0 #175 May 16, 2005 excuse me but who pissed in your cheerios this morning? Read my post again man I actually agreed that you have the right NOT to inhale my smoke. What I said is that it is a slippery slope when you start asking the government to do things for you. My statement about the ban was actually in reference to the fact that they are trying to stop people from smoking in the first place. I may have went a little off topic but what I said shouldn't have been hard to follow. Man you really have some serious anger issues but that seems to be the modus operandi of some people just become violent and loud to get your point across, yeah that'll fix em. The idea of taking it in to your own hands was in regards to non-smokers not going to some establishments and requesting that owners ban smoking or lose the patronage of non-smokers. This would be taking it into your own hands not running around assaulting people. really man calm down its just a discussion not some personal vendetta. Only skydivers know why the birds sing! Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #154 May 12, 2005 QuoteA few people have already admitted that they're hypocrites when it comes to smoking bans. Personally, I feel hypocrisy is by far the worst trait anyone can have. I fucking hate hypocrites. Everyone has at least one position they aren't consistent on. So who's a worse 'hypocrite'; those that admit they have those positions or those that won't and just hate the trait in others? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #155 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly. I'll try one last time. Using your situation, is this a health hazzard?? Ok, let me dumb down my answer a little bit... in my opinion, YES, it is. Breathing smoke in is unhealthy. End of story. -A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #156 May 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNice spin. I'm asking what health hazzard exists in "walking in a park or down a street "? When i'm walking on the street and many around me are smoking, i'm breathing that shit in. And, here in South Florida, where the air is normally very heavy with humidity, it doesn't dissipate quickly. I'll try one last time. Using your situation, is this a health hazzard?? Ok, let me dumb down my answer a little bit... in my opinion, YES, it is. Breathing smoke in is unhealthy. End of story. -A Cute. Ok then, to move on, we must consider your non-answer to be that you have concluded that smoking in parks, on beaches, etc is a hazzard to your health (Save the Children!). Absent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? Would you ban hair salons from filling the air with bad smelling chemicals, coloring the hair of people with low self-esteem ...or perhaps we could do it just to save them from themselves? Smoking and vanities to the side, the main point here (although god knows which one you will pick up and run with) your view of the role of govt is frightening in it's implications. Seriously, do you think these things through at all? I have no problem with your personal likes and dislikes but validating the role of our govt to ban annoying things is more than a bit over the line, don't you think? jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #157 May 12, 2005 Absent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? *** Wow, you ARE an extremist, aren't you? Look, I am not lacking scientific evidence that second hand smoke is bad. It is a hazzard to ones health to breathe that shit in, just like we all know that the fumes that are emitted from cars are unhealthy for us and the environment, and that power plant emissions need to be controlled. I am not proposing that we ban smoking, just like I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide. Personal choice. But, I don't feel that I should have to stay home to avoid being stuck with some littering/ air polluting suicidal jerk who doesn't have the common courtesy to leave crowded spaces to kill himself. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Kill yourself, not me. And, fwiw, I think that there should be a fuel limit set on what people can buy per week for their cars.. public transport should be beefed up enough that we don't all need to drive our own cars! I can't wait to move to SF and sell my car! And, I think that the fact that they have done away with emissions standards in Florida because of those who rig vehicles to pass is a joke. There are a lot of things that I think should be regulated in this society, because unfortunately many/most people lack common sense! Bottom line: There are a lot of things I find annoying, people who wear too much perfume, people who drive vehicles just so they can look cool, religious fanatics... but I don't petition to ban these people. Second-hand smoke, otoh, is hazzardous and it has been proven that it causes a myriad of diseases. Just because my autopsy report won't attribute my death to every smoker i've ever had to sit next to, stand next to, walk near, etc... doesn't mean they aren't contributers. You say I have no scientific evidence that these encounters are harmful to my health, but there is more proof that way than the converse. I don't see anyone out there trying to prove that cigarette smoke, first and second hand, is not harmful to ones health. At this point I have nothing additional to add, as I think we have both repeated ourselves a number of times. Believe what you want to believe. -A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
03CLS 0 #158 May 13, 2005 Smoke in your house or quit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #159 May 13, 2005 QuoteAbsent any scientific support of your position, what other 'annoying' activities would you like our government to ban? Would you ban/burn books because you heard they contain thoughts you disagree with.? I mean, how annoying, right!? Quote Wow, you ARE an extremist, aren't you? Look, I am not lacking scientific evidence that second hand smoke is bad. It is a hazzard to ones health to breathe that shit in, just like we all know that the fumes that are emitted from cars are unhealthy for us and the environment, and that power plant emissions need to be controlled. I am not proposing that we ban smoking, just like I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide. Personal choice. But, I don't feel that I should have to stay home to avoid being stuck with some littering/ air polluting suicidal jerk who doesn't have the common courtesy to leave crowded spaces to kill himself. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Kill yourself, not me. And, fwiw, I think that there should be a fuel limit set on what people can buy per week for their cars.. public transport should be beefed up enough that we don't all need to drive our own cars! I can't wait to move to SF and sell my car! And, I think that the fact that they have done away with emissions standards in Florida because of those who rig vehicles to pass is a joke. There are a lot of things that I think should be regulated in this society, because unfortunately many/most people lack common sense! Bottom line: There are a lot of things I find annoying, people who wear too much perfume, people who drive vehicles just so they can look cool, religious fanatics... but I don't petition to ban these people. Second-hand smoke, otoh, is hazzardous and it has been proven that it causes a myriad of diseases. Just because my autopsy report won't attribute my death to every smoker i've ever had to sit next to, stand next to, walk near, etc... doesn't mean they aren't contributers. You say I have no scientific evidence that these encounters are harmful to my health, but there is more proof that way than the converse. I don't see anyone out there trying to prove that cigarette smoke, first and second hand, is not harmful to ones health. At this point I have nothing additional to add, as I think we have both repeated ourselves a number of times. Believe what you want to believe. -A Hopefully, the next time you box yourself in a corner by making statements like ... ***In short, i'm FOR the ban. . . everywhere. Smoke at home or in designated areas. Me, my family, my friends, other people and their children do not deserve to be forced to breathe that crap in while walking in the park, down the street, etc, either. Not to mention cigarette butts that are thrown everywhere, I think people should be fined. ...I would suggest sticking with what you said or say you changed your mind, rather than play around the corners of it like you didn't say it to begin with. In closing, I suspect we agree that SHS is a health hazzard in some situations and a legitimate concern for our govt to address. Others, (perhaps you, perhaps not) either pursuing personal agenda or (more likely) just doing the tribal dance of acceptance for the elders to see, need to realize the potential damage their short-sighted actions. Skies, (oh, and Save the Children!) jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #160 May 13, 2005 fireflytx the Rose is not going out of business because if this. There will be a short drop in business but for crying out loud 75% of the population does not smoke. The more education and the more wealth they have the less likely they are to smoke. You might want a few more of those folks coming in, bigger tips. If a group of four is given a choice between a smoking and a non-smoking venue the whiny smoker will force everyone else to a smoking venue and so the non-smoking venue goes out of business but now the playing field is in fact leveled so those with the best service and best entertainment will survive. Yes some clubs will close but new ones will open and the staff will move from one to the other as they have always done. Shawn "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #161 May 13, 2005 QuoteIf a group of four is given a choice between a smoking and a non-smoking venue the whiny smoker will force everyone else to a smoking venue. If a group of four, where three are nonsmokers, go to a smoking venue simply because the other (one) smoker is whining, they're a bunch of fucking pussies. They should either grow some balls and decide where to go since there's more of them, or not go with the other person.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #162 May 13, 2005 Your argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #163 May 13, 2005 QuoteYour argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #164 May 14, 2005 QuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #165 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Many lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. We know that of the 6 million auto accidents and 40,000 deaths annually in the US, 40% involve alcohol and 30% involve speeding. So here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. jen "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." -Homer Simpson----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #166 May 14, 2005 Quote Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Did ya miss the part about it being voted on?? it wasn't voted by congress this was voted on my the people of austin. It was the democratic process that resulted in this. the people of austin voted...and it fell on the side of not wanting second hand smoke. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #167 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuote Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Did ya miss the part about it being voted on?? it wasn't voted by congress this was voted on my the people of austin. It was the democratic process that resulted in this. the people of austin voted...and it fell on the side of not wanting second hand smoke. Pay attention, darling. My points were a followup to calls for banning smoking outdoors. Did you miss that part?? jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #168 May 16, 2005 I guess i missed any one else actualy calling for that my dear Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #169 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteYour argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction. Well, that's the point I ardently disagree with. Where do you draw the line? Alchohol, cholesterol, saturated fats, television, prescription drugs? Doesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Jen Alchohol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing cholesterol - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing saturated fats - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing television - There are strict FCC regulations on this. Hell, can't even say, "shit, fuck or many other words for fear of offense prescription drugs - can be done in the company of others without involuntarily sharing. Even with this, there are huge FDA restrictions on this. It costs almost a billion dollars and years to certify some drugs ciggs - Can't be done in the company of other without involuntarily sharing. A multi-hundred billion dollar agreement was reached and the results were that smoking is addictive and deadly, but the cigg companies could keep making a product claimed to be so by both parties so long as the states get a cut. Total Fascist decision betwen the gov and cig companies that goes against every cannon of product liability, so apparently the legislative reaction is to ban it in many places as opposed to outlawing it. Look at all the drugs that are banned due to dangerous eventual side effects, yet cigs are deemed deadly and allowed to be sold. I understand your emotion, but you have yet to cast an argument that justifies killing people due to your compulsion, especially killing kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #170 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoesn't the govt deciding what is good or healthy for us in this manner concern you? Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? QuoteWhere do you draw the line? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it. Many lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. We know that of the 6 million auto accidents and 40,000 deaths annually in the US, 40% involve alcohol and 30% involve speeding. So here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. jen "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." -Homer Simpson I agree with you that this, "the gov is here to protect us from ourselves" bullshit arguement is crap. If so, they wouldn't allow the sale of 600 hp cars, 200hp bikes, cigs, lottlery tickets, booze, skydiving, Indian Casionos, etc... The gov will decide if there is a profit in it for them when deciding which to ban. With cigs tho, it cuts into their profit when people cost billions in unpaid medical bills acrued primarily or exclusively by cigs. Furthermore, the 115 auto deaths per day has a valid argument: we need to get around to go to school, to work, to deliver things necessary for life - cigs do absolutely zero but to fill hospitals and morgues. There is no benefit gained from cigs, other tham corp profits, so I find your argument void of any substance when compared to auto related deaths. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings, yet you and the other dancing natives want laws to prevent it. I don't know how open air is open air. Furthermore, smokers do push the limit of what is open and what is not. Inconsiderate assfucks will have a cig hanging from their mouth at the roach-coach spreading that crap around my food. Is it giving me cancer? Probably not. Do I want to smack the silly-looking punks inthe fucking lips? Ok, ya I do. BTW, smokers look incredibly stupid with a cig hanging from their mouth like they're some kind of baby having never left the boob. But that isn't the issue here! If someone smelled incredibly offensive due to refusal to shower, would you find it offensive? Some guys grabbed a guy in basic training and involuntarily showered him due to him refusing to shower. People at work have been fired for stinking due to lack of shower, yet you want to defend something as stinky, irregardless of the dangers of cancer? So this open air thing is void too, as open air should mean at least 50 feet from anyone. I can smell cigs 50 feet or more if downwind, so fifty feet is very conservative. Now if you are pursusing personal or social agendas, just dancing the tribal dance or responding to vocal instructions from your neighbors dog, then be honest about it and do what you must. WHat? This isn't a sheeple thing where person A is following person B. This is about life and health. If I had kids and some jackass lit up around him/her I would let that person know by probably yanking the cig out and stomping it, at the very least, and even if the cops came out for some silly reason I would probably be legally justified thru special relationship contract to protect. That aregument you cast is nothing more than mitigation and distraction. People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis... I can agree in part with the first part, but the part about no rational basis is absurd. ....has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. Don't compare things like slavery and Constitutional deprivation, especially 4th and 14th, to the loss of "smokiing rights." We're not talking about Woman Suffrage here; we're talking about taking a deadly, inconsiderate habit out of the public and into the private as many things have been done. You can't drink in public, why should you be able to smoke in public? I mean, they could allow drinking in public and still maintain "drunk in public" laws. My advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. And when you smoke near me you are making my decision. Can you see this or is your addiction too blinding? Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. XX, 000 deaths per year is not an illusion, but I don't want to abridge a perosn's right to kill themselves, just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #171 May 16, 2005 QuoteSo here we have a definite problem and laws that attempt to address the problem. Despite heavy manipulation of SHS studies, no data supports a health hazzard from smoking in open air settings The more kids see it the more likely they are to copy it. QuoteMany lines are drawn and more being drawn every day as people without rational justification call for more laws and regulations to make us safe. The rational justification is the harder you make it for people to smoke the more likely they are to quit. The less kids get exposed to cigarettes the less likely they are to take it up. QuoteMy advice is stand on your own two feet, face the world, make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Failing that, I guess you could just call for more laws and shelter in the illusion of safety. This isn't about me. It's about protecting children from the tobacco companies. It's about helping the millions of nicotine addicts who want to quit but can't manage it. Quote People plopping their asses down on the slippery slope of govt intervention without rational basis has resulted major atrocities throughout our history and some of us want to keep some of you in check. LOL, I would love to know the total number of smokers that have died from smoking related illnesses. I think the number would be large enough to be considered a 'major attrocity'. Do you have kids? Do you/have you ever smoked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #172 May 16, 2005 QuoteDo you really think that "Smoking is bad for your health" is a lie? Are you really telling me that you think that it is all bad science, and that you don't feel that this shit is bad for our health? You have GOT to be kidding me, right? I really hope people don't think that secondhand smoke is okay. My grandpa recently died from what secondhand smoke did to his lungs.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
minobu 0 #173 May 16, 2005 Its a mistake for people to continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke but the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. It is outrageous that out of the 4$ you pay for a pack only about 1.50$ is actually for the cigarettes. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? We are setting the precedent by allowing things like this to happen (using taxes as a deterrent) because it is something that affects someone else(i.e. smokers) but what about when it does affect you? I understand that yes it does increase the amount of people that have to be treated for diseases and such but that is not the real reason for the constant increases in "SIN Taxes". Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. JMO Only skydivers know why the birds sing! Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #174 May 16, 2005 QuoteIts a shame that people continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke but the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. It is outrageous that out of the 4$ you pay for a pack only about 1.50$ is actually for the cigarettes. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? We are setting the precedent by allowing things like this to happen (using taxes as a deterrent) because it is something that affects someone else(i.e. smokers) but what about when it does affect you? I understand that yes it does increase the amount of people that have to be treated for diseases and such but that is not the real reason for the constant increases in "SIN Taxes". Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. JMO Its a shame that people continously ask for the government to step and make new laws for everything that inconviences them in the slightest. Cancer is a slight pain in the ass. Are you friken serious? What if someone walked up and threw water in your kids face? WOuld they be dead? What if they threw something carcinogenic in their face? Granted as a non-smoker people should have the right to not breathe secondhand smoke .... Ya, sort of.... WTF? What's with the passive voice? No, it goes like this: Granted, smokers have a legal right not to be exposed to poisons while in public, and have a right to patronize private establishments with the same rights. the problem with this is that it doesn't stop there because instead of just saying lets not allow smokers to smoke in public there is also a movement to FORCE everyone to quit smoking by increasing taxes to outrageous levels. They're called sin taxes, many sins have these taxes applied. BTW, rental cars have a higher rate of taxes than I believe cigs do, at least in Maricopa County, so what's your point? BTW, I'm not an advocate of high sin taxes or outright prohibition, just that you must kill yourself by yourself. Sorry to all the smokers that can't understand that I want you compulsions to be your compulsions. As an added opinion I think mist contraband drugs should be legalized and sold cheap to reduce the crime rate amongst druggies, so I', not a prohibitionist or a tax freak. Basically this is a prohibition on cigarettes just an economic one rather than a ban in its purest form. Don't act as if you think it's exclusively the people that want clean air that are the same that want high cig taxes. Remember, the cig co's agreed to pay billions to the states over the next number of years to have the right to keep making a dangerous product, so that act is largely past of the increase. What happens when people decide that skydiving or riding motorcycles or eating steak is bad for your health? If we started hurting/killing non-participants then that might be a problem. Let's keep DZO's wise and help them to keep being safe and we will be ok. The arg with cigs is not the poor, poor dead smokers, it's the 2nd hand smoke killijng non-participants. There is an argument with the costs associated with smokers, but I'm willing to bet if the smokers would do so in private that the concern would end. Once again I agree a non-smoker should not have to breathe my secondhand smoke but its a really big mistake to encourage our government to make it happen rather than forcing it to happen on our own. Do you suggest I beat the shit out of a smoker every time I breath their smoke? How about a cursory spit in the face.... ya, I would compromise. I work as an acft mech, and there is no shortage of stupid people in the blue-collar arena, groups of uneducated people probably have a higher rate of smokers, so I get to deal with these people all the time. Something like 20% of all Americans smoke, right? I bet 1/2 the people at work, smoke. So if our gov doesn't make it happen with legislation, then how does it happen? I have yet to see a rally or hear of meetings where smokers get together to talk about preserving "smokers rights" so let's be considerate. Truth is that even with legislation smokers will still break laws, just as they do with speeding, so little will change except restaurants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
minobu 0 #175 May 16, 2005 excuse me but who pissed in your cheerios this morning? Read my post again man I actually agreed that you have the right NOT to inhale my smoke. What I said is that it is a slippery slope when you start asking the government to do things for you. My statement about the ban was actually in reference to the fact that they are trying to stop people from smoking in the first place. I may have went a little off topic but what I said shouldn't have been hard to follow. Man you really have some serious anger issues but that seems to be the modus operandi of some people just become violent and loud to get your point across, yeah that'll fix em. The idea of taking it in to your own hands was in regards to non-smokers not going to some establishments and requesting that owners ban smoking or lose the patronage of non-smokers. This would be taking it into your own hands not running around assaulting people. really man calm down its just a discussion not some personal vendetta. Only skydivers know why the birds sing! Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
