New Georgia Law will make smoking in your car a crime

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
come to think of it, i dont remember seeing any smoking sections in cali for a long time now..🙂

That's because if you want to smoke in Cali, all you gotta do is walk outside and breathe the smog.
I used to have to visit Orange county once a month every month for business. God, I hated it and that filthy hole they call LA. The black death you probably call air usually gave nosebleeds right off the plane. And yet it's full of anti-smoking nuts who think secondhand smoke will kill them but think nothing of a morning jog in air so polluted you can't see the freeway overpass 200 feet away.

 

[chess9]

Vic:

I don't know many non-smokers who go into a restaurant and sit in the smoking section, do you?

Unfortunately, there are many circumstances in which smokers assert rights superior to non-smokers. The most egregious is the parent who smokes in the car with the windows up while ferrying her kids to school. But I can give you many other examples. For instance, when I came out of the water after the swim leg of a triathlon in St. Pete, three people were standing right next to the timing mat smoking like chimneys. I smelled them, turned my head to see where it was coming from and two racers blurted out curses. When you need a lung full of air and it's contaminated by smoke, believe me it is very disturbing. I had the same thing happen at the Disney Marathon at the finish line. Should those people be allowed to smoke outside? I support that right. Should those people think about the impact their conduct is having on others and take their cigarette smoke away from others? Yes, or else the non-smokers who are much less tolerant than me will start pushing for more changes. I agree with you that if ganja is illegal cigarettes should be illegal. And don't assume they won't be if cigarette smokers keep taking absolutist positions.

Not polluting our indoor environment is no different than not putting PCBs in our rivers, lakes and streams. We don't live in frontier America any more Vic. We must live cooperatively.

You must have read "The Fountainhead" at a very early age. 🙂

-Robert

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

I don't know many non-smokers who go into a restaurant and sit in the smoking section, do you?

Unfortunately, there are many circumstances in which smokers assert rights superior to non-smokers. The most egregious is the parent who smokes in the car with the windows up while ferrying her kids to school. But I can give you many other examples. For instance, when I came out of the water after the swim leg of a triathlon in St. Pete, three people were standing right next to the timing mat smoking like chimneys. I smelled them, turned my head to see where it was coming from and two racers blurted out curses. When you need a lung full of air and it's contaminated by smoke, believe me it is very disturbing. I had the same thing happen at the Disney Marathon at the finish line. Should those people be allowed to smoke outside? I support that right. Should those people think about the impact their conduct is having on others and take their cigarette smoke away from others? Yes, or else the non-smokers who are much less tolerant than me will start pushing for more changes. I agree with you that if ganja is illegal cigarettes should be illegal. And don't assume they won't be if cigarette smokers keep taking absolutist positions.

Not polluting our indoor environment is no different than not putting PCBs in our rivers, lakes and streams. We don't live in frontier America any more Vic. We must live cooperatively.

You must have read "The Fountainhead" at a very early age. 🙂

-Robert

I did indeed. It doesn't change the inherent truth of my argument, or the pleading emotion in yours.

What you're asking for is to make bad manners illegal, while pretending to guise it as both a health and an environmental issue. It is not. And while to control such things would attract the eager interest of a tyrannical government (of which an uncontrolled democracy is always the worst form), it simply should not be a function of any free government, no matter how "cooperatively" you think we should you live. "Cooperation" should also mean having pity and compassion on your neighbor for his petty vices, lest he attack you for your own.
And by no means do I believe that if ganja is illegal then cigarettes should be illegal. I challenge to point out where I said that. I believe they both should be legal (though properly regulated to prevent abuse). End of story.

I suggest all of you anti-smoking people look to your own faults (which I am sure are many despite your denials) before you go so rabid of the minor vices of others.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 

[chess9]

"What you're asking for is to make bad manners illegal, while pretending to guise it as both a health and an environmental issue. It is not."

Speaking of emotional pleas do you have one scientific peer reviewed study that says smoking is not a health issue? (Issue is a fairly low bar, perhaps you meant threat?)

Check out Konichiwa's "liberal" science link. 🙂 Man, liberal science...go figure.

-Robert

 

[Vic]

I don't think the ALA is liberal. I just think that they have too much of a vested financial interest in order to be considered unbiased.

 

[LadyJessica]

There are two big issue here: 1) individual choice versus government intervention 2) individual choice versus greater good. A quote from a previous post exemplifies this:

None of your analogies are even close to real life.
This issue never has been about smoker's "rights" and never will be. It's about property rights and the rights of individuals.

If a property owner wants people to smoke on his property, then it is his decision, not yours, not the government's. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, and you don't like it, then leave. If you decide to stay of your own free will, then shut the fsck up.

Here's some advice: take some responsibility in your life. You don't like smokers and smoking? Great! Don't be around them. In the meantime, you should ponder on why you have an overwhelming urge to force people into living the way you want them to live. My guess would be is that you hate people, and your desire to make what other people do illegal is your way of using the government for your personal spite. Which is why I always oppose people like you.

This raises the question: when "individual choices" impinge on the "greater good", should there be regulations to control such choices and why? Thus we come to the gray area. We have multiple instances where this is exemplified. Why do we have mandatory seatbelt laws? Who is gets hurt but yourself if you get into an accident without your seatbelt? Same with helmet laws. Why do car companies put in crumple zones in their cars? The driver should just drive more safely if he doesn't want to get into an accident. Besides, what if I don't want to pay for a crumple zone, seat belt, and ABS? I can't get a barebones car anywhere for a decent price. Why do we have child labor laws? If the kid wants to work, it's his choice.

 

[chess9]

Vic:

I was hoping for evidence instead of opinion. 🙂

But, don't bother. We both know it doesn't exist.

-Robert

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LadyJessica
There are two big issue here: 1) individual choice versus government intervention 2) individual choice versus greater good.

This raises the question: when "individual choices" impinge on the "greater good", should there be regulations to control such choices and why? Thus we come to the gray area. We have multiple instances where this is exemplified. Why do we have mandatory seatbelt laws? Who is gets hurt but yourself if you get into an accident without your seatbelt? Same with helmet laws. Why do car companies put in crumple zones in their cars? The driver should just drive more safely if he doesn't want to get into an accident. Besides, what if I don't want to pay for a crumple zone, seat belt, and ABS? I can't get a barebones car anywhere for a decent price. Why do we have child labor laws? If the kid wants to work, it's his choice.

If you are being serious, I agree with all your statements except about child labor laws. Not being of the age of consent, I don't believe that they have "rights" with which to make such a choice..
When speaking of consenting adults though, I agree.
As for the "greater good", what is that and who decides? I would argue that the freedom to make those "individual choices" becomes collectively the "greatest good", and therefore there is no gray area or impinging. Some people, however, are unable to deal with the consequences and responsibilities of their individual choices, and choose instead to have others make their choices for them, calling that the "greater good".
As a domesticated dog never becomes much more than a overgrown puppy, dependent on his master for survival, so many people never become much more than overgrown children, dependent on their government for survival.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

I was hoping for evidence instead of opinion. 🙂

But, don't bother. We both know it doesn't exist.

-Robert

ad hominem?

Even though my grandfather smoked Pall Mall straights for 80 years and died in his sleep at the ripe old age of 94, I would never argue that cigarettes are healthy. Just that neither you nor the government (the collective) has any legitimate or moral right to force people to stop.

 

[chess9]

Vic:

I don't want anyone to be forced to stop. I want them to be responsible citizens and not push their dangerous habits off on others. I'm not emotionally attached to some outdated dogma, catma or karma.

-Robert

 

[alchemize]

None of your analogies are even close to real life.

They absolutely are. Every single one of them is (likely depending on your location) illegal. Every single one of them is very equivalent to smoking. Spit? It's just fluid instead of gas. The stink of a stink bomb? Just tiny airborne molecules. Mace just causes minor irritation to the eyes and throat.

This issue never has been about smoker's "rights" and never will be. It's about property rights and the rights of individuals.

If a property owner wants people to smoke on his property, then it is his decision, not yours, not the government's. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, and you don't like it, then leave. If you decide to stay of your own free will, then shut the fsck up. After all, what kind of idiot hates smoking but sits in the smoking section?

Once a property owner decides to open his property to the public for commerce, then it is subject to regulations of the government. That's even in the constitution, I believe. As evidenced by the ADA, building codes, building permits, alcohol licenses, capacities, I could go on...

And who the hell said I smoked? Way to go with that asssumption. I'm against your anti-smoking bullsh!t for the same reasons I'm against the idiotic "War on Drugs", of which this anti-smoking issue is only an escalation. But I guess that makes me a druggie too, right?

Don't really care if you smoke or not. My "you" was a general conclusion. But DO you smoke? I don't. It is important, it would state bias one way or the other. I admit mine. I even smoked in my teen years.

Here's some advice: take some responsibility in your life. You don't like smokers and smoking? Great! Don't be around them.

I avoid them as much as I can. There are times when I go into public, and private commerical enterprises where I cannot.

In the meantime, you should ponder on why you have an overwhelming urge to force people into living the way you want them to live.

I have an overwhelming desire to not have my health and my senses assualted every time I go out into the public. I have a desire to be able to take my allergic daughter and heart patient son to a smoke free public environment and engage in commerce.

My guess would be is that you hate people, and your desire to make what other people do illegal is your way of using the government for your personal spite. Which is why I always oppose people like you.

Who are you, Moonbeam? I don't hate people, I hate the filthy disgusting unhealthy chemicals and toxic gasses that certain irresponsible people FORCE ONTO ME and MY FAMILY when I go into public. If that isn't infringing on individual rights, then I don't know what is.

You aren't about protecting any individuals rights, you've just chosen sides. You have no logic. You've ignored any of the logic posted.


Oh, and by the way, on your insult-laced post? Shows your absolute lack of class. No wonder why you identify with that crowd. Big talking man on the internet, sniveling little worm in real life, is my assumption.

 

[Orsorum]

Prompt, regarding an article concerning the property rights of smoking: "Since we live in a society where people can choose what to decide by majorities and what by private actions, you, and Mr. Williams may want to ask: Why is the smoking issue shifted to the public arena whereas others are left out of it?"

My response so far:

"A restaurant cannot completely control the air quality within its restaurant, although it takes reasonable efforts to keep a controlled, comfortable environment, for the sake of its patrons. Air can be considered a public good (within limits) and thus subject to majority opinions and use; certain property rights are similarly curtailed in public parks (witness the prevalence of ?scoop and leash? laws). While both categories of actions are not necessarily harmful to most people, they are a nuisance that affect every person?s enjoyment (i.e. access to clean air, to enjoy public lawns and sidewalks without incident), and that have a negative impact on the surrounding environment after the smoker/dog owner leave. The offending patrons do not incur any additional cost by their actions, whereas other patrons may well have a negatively affected experience; this imposes extra costs, in the form of lost business and attendance, and stains or litter, on the restaurant owners and park owners. So in order to curtail these extra costs they curtail smoking and impose ?scoop and leash? laws at the civic level."

I've actually been planning on writing more for this, I just haven't taken the time to sit down and further develop my thoughts.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

I don't want anyone to be forced to stop. I want them to be responsible citizens and not push their dangerous habits off on others. I'm not emotionally attached to some outdated dogma, catma or karma.

-Robert

Then I fail to see our disagreement. 🙂

The only change I would like to see in tobacco laws is that a sign be prominently displayed at the entrance to every smoking area and/or establishment that allows smoking. That way non-smokers could know not to enter. Same with any establishment that does not allow smoking, for the same reason vice-versa.

As for "responsible citizens", we're back to manners again. Where they push their dangerous habit, I don't know, but I assume you're talking about telling people how to raise their own children again.

 

[Vic]

alchemize:

Your rant is just about amusing. 😀

No, such a thing is nowhere in the Constitution, although it could be interpreted as a right given to the states. The federal government has no such legitimate power vested to it by the Constitution, but they got the war on drugs and OHSA through the courts, so I have no doubt that such corruption could lead to a "war on tobacco".
No, I don't. However, I don't believe that issue is important to this argument either. I suppose you might think it is, as a weapon of ad hominem.
No, I don't believe you. Smokers smoke for decades, you think a whiff is gonna kill you? Why don't you go hop in your car that spews more carcinogens into the atmosphere in one minute than a chain smoker could in a whole day of constant puffing?
No, I'm not Moonbeam. I bring the wording in my posts down to a high school level for the benefit of others here while Moonie does not.
No, smokers no more force you with their poisons than you force others with your car's exhaust.
So yes, I am all about individual rights, from smokers to car drivers and more. I try to keep my hypocracy to a minimum lest it bite me in the ass.

Your final assumption would be incorrect. When you can't actually win the argument, you turn to insults, eh? Very intelligent. Btw, what you thought were insults in my post was just evidence of how the truth hurts.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Vic
alchemize:

Your rant is just about amusing. 😀

No, such a thing is nowhere in the Constitution, although it could be interpreted as a right given to the states. The federal government has no such legitimate power vested to it by the Constitution, but they got the war on drugs and OHSA through the courts, so I have no doubt that such corruption could lead to a "war on tobacco".
No, I don't. However, I don't believe that issue is important to this argument either. I suppose you might think it is, as a weapon of ad hominem.
No, I don't believe you. Smokers smoke for decades, you think a whiff is gonna kill you? Why don't you go hop in your car that spews more carcinogens into the atmosphere in one minute than a chain smoker could in a whole day of constant puffing?
No, I'm not Moonbeam. I bring the wording in my posts down to a high school level for the benefit of others here while Moonie does not.
No, smokers no more force you with their poisons than you force others with your car's exhaust.
So yes, I am all about individual rights, from smokers to car drivers and more. I try to keep my hypocracy to a minimum lest it bite me in the ass.

Your final assumption would be incorrect. When you can't actually win the argument, you turn to insults, eh? Very intelligent. Btw, what you thought were insults in my post was just evidence of how the truth hurts.

Section 8

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Try again?

OH, and upheld by the supreme court to mean "within the states" also:
''Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states. . . . The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states.'' Gibbons v. Ogden

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Section 8

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Try again?

Worked hard on that didn't you?

The key word there is "among", meaning that it applies to interstate commerce only. Whether or not a restaurant allows such a thing as smoking would be considered an intrastate or local issue and, as such, the Constitution gives the federal government no powers over it. This is why you see cities and states passing such laws (along with health code laws, etc.), but not the federal government.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize
Section 8

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Try again?

Worked hard on that didn't you?

The key word there is "among", meaning that it applies to interstate commerce only. Whether or not a restaurant allows such a thing as smoking would generally be considered an intrastate or local issue and, as such, the Constitution gives the federal government no powers over it. This is why you see cities and states passing such laws (along with health code laws, etc.), but not the federal government.

Try again?
Upheld by the Supreme Court:
''Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states. . . . The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states.'' Gibbons v. Ogden

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Try again?
Upheld by the Supreme Court:
''Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states. . . . The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states.'' Gibbons v. Ogden

More google than brains (if you'll pardon me but this is getting old)...

From the same Supreme Court decision (which was over New York state trying to prevent US-flagged ships [from other states] from navigating up the Hudson to get to the newly-built Erie canal):
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize
Try again?
Upheld by the Supreme Court:
''Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states. . . . The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states.'' Gibbons v. Ogden

More google than brains (if you'll pardon me but this is getting old)...

From the same Supreme Court decision (which was over New York state trying to prevent US-flagged ships [from other states] from navigating up the Hudson to get to the newly-built Erie canal):
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

Oops. Owned 🙁 Findlaw actually.

Act II.
States certainly have the full constitutional power to regulate internal commerce. So my original statement should have been:

Once a property owner decides to open his property to the public for commerce, then it is subject to regulations of the STATE government. That's even in the constitution, I believe. And Upheld by the supreme court 🙂

I'll work on the rest of your fallacies later about "car exhaust" vs. "smoking". I'm pretty sure there's gonna be some solid evidence about the levels of noxious chemicals in second hand smoke vs. cars somewhere. And we all know that Cars are regulated.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't think the ALA is liberal. I just think that they have too much of a vested financial interest in order to be considered unbiased.

*sigh*

And I suppose the EPA does as well? So what do you propose? Certainly not lobbying tobacco companies to do research about the effects of SHS; they have a vested financial interest in the other side. So what then? Should we make NASA do it? They don't care about the results. Or what about if we pump some R&D $$ into Microsoft and have them research the subject.

It seems awfully obstinate of you to suggest that merely because the ALA may have a vested financial interest, their findings are automatically considered biased. Why else would any organization, anywhere, research anything if not for a vested financial interest?

I'd be more interested in hearing you prove (or provide proof to the point) that what I presented from the ALA/EPA is, in fact, false or dubious.

 

[chess9]

Konichiwa:

I asked for the same thing, but de natha. Of course, it doesn't exist, except perhaps in the dream of a Phillip Morris lawyer who should have been hanged 30 years ago anyway for the crap they got away with.

-Robert

 

[Vic]

I never denied that smoking was unhealthy, and even said as much many posts up. You people need to read before you post.

Whether smoking is unhealthy or not is irrelevant... or should we start outlawing fast food?

Or how about cars?

My point with auto pollution is that many things in our society are unhealthy, and as equally (or possibly more) damaging to people who don't even use them. IMO, life itself is unhealthy and death is an inevitable fact of it. You may want to ask yourself why you care whether you'll live to be 85 or to be 90, when you know that those last 5 years will be spent miserably in a sickbed waiting for that final moment.

<- thinks many AT'ers need to get a life and/or wake up to reality

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.

Ooooookay, take off the tinfoil hat:

American Lung Association says...

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

Now, given, those "estimates" might be dubious, but the claim that there is NO LINK between SHS and illness in non-smokers and that it's all a liberal propogandizing lie is absolutely rediculous.

The ALA's study was biased from the beginning.

Fist off the set out to prove the link between SHS and Cancer. Not if there was a link but to prove that the link they needed to remove rights from property and bussiness owners.

Now in any study we know you need a control group.

They looked to thoose that worked in smoking enviorments, namely the picked bartenders and wait staff of resturuants.

Now in looking at the numbers it is very easy to see that if you happen to pick one of these occupations then your chance for lung cancer is in fact higher than the general population.

If you choose to work in a smokefilled workplace you have a higher risk of contracting a "smoking related" disease.

The ALA and the ACS and even the EPA ran out and declared their findings. Now one would be totally STUPID to think that you could mearly take the per capitia LC rate and compare4 it to the LC rate among thoose in "high risk" jobs and come to a truely factual conclusion. There are other factor that must be considered, namely family history, diet, and other health factors. In fact one of the biggest things that the conclusion makes no mention of is DID THEY SMOKE

They didn't publish that UNTIL they were taken to court. The FACT is that it could be the reason you are more likely to get a SRI (smoking related Illness) if you work in a smoking work place is that you are more likely to smoke. The europeans threw out the study because after looking at the DATA they discovered something that was truely alarming. Smokers in a smoking workplace seem to contract LESS SRI than smokers in general.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Vic
I never denied that smoking was unhealthy, and even said as much many posts up. You people need to read before you post.

Whether smoking is unhealthy or not is irrelevant... or should we start outlawing fast food?

Or how about cars?

My point with auto pollution is that many things in our society are unhealthy, and as equally (or possibly more) damaging to people who don't even use them. IMO, life itself is unhealthy and death is an inevitable fact of it. You may want to ask yourself why you care whether you'll live to be 85 or to be 90, when you know that those last 5 years will be spent miserably in a sickbed waiting for that final moment.

<- thinks many AT'ers need to get a life and/or wake up to reality

So after all this personal rights talk you're going to tell me my argument is flawed because I SHOULDN'T WANT to live to 90?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
So after all this personal rights talk you're going to tell me my argument is flawed because I SHOULDN'T WANT to live to 90?

Damn, I thought you had more philosopical understanding than that.

Hint: the use of 85 and 90 was purely for example, and not to reflect any particular age except being extremely elderly.