Party of free choice???

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So I'm sitting with my family in a restaurant. CAD comes in and decides to fire one up and blow smoke at my son who has asthma. I'm now supposed to get up and leave.

Instead I think that perhaps I should defend my son and throw a bucket of water on him. It's my right.

Son, you do that to my kid you are going to be in soooooooooo much trouble.

Kind of like Bush did with Iraq? CAD has WMD's!!!

Seriously, that is why they have smoking sections in resturants, isn't it? Your also not addressing the bar issue, or do you take your son there as well?

Smoking sections!!! But but you are discriminating! Smokers should have the right to make other's breathe their smoke, and certainly restaurant owners should too :roll:

Democracy is based on the ability to choose. The owners of the resturants and bars, the smokers, and the non smokers should all have the right to make whatever choice they deem fit.

It is you who are attempting to ram YOUR choice down everybody else's throats.

Wrong. We (Floridians) had the ability to choose and we did - overwhelmingly in favor of 'The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act'...

Amendment 6 was passed by 71 percent of the voters in the Nov. 5 election and won a majority in all of Florida's 67 counties.

Are you done now?

Fuck Florida, they screwed the whole country up in '00. They obviously don't know jackshit down there. Apparently they're all senile.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: teiresias
Yeah, but if I'm the DD of my group I'm not going to get accidentally intoxicated via second-hand liquor.

True, but the drunk driver that kills you on the street ...your not thinking things thru.

(sigh) Driving drunk is ILLEGAL and there are severe penalties.

Any amount of alcohol impairs your reflexes so to be true to your purported ideals you should be in favor of prohabition. Hypocrite much?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Non Smokers afraid of the effects of second hand smoke going into a business that allows smoking = stupid, ...

why?

That answer is obvious. Any restrictions on the right of when/where/how smokers are allowed to feed their addiction is right out of 'FASCIST FREAKING GERMANY'. You pretty much know someone has a weak argument when they go to the 'Hitler' card'.

Hows about you grow some of dem dere brain cells there botard. The argument has nothing to freaking do with a smokers "right to smoke," it's about the business owner choosing whether or not it's allowed in THEIR place of business. However, a bunch of fascist pigs who refuse to leave people to exercise their legal rights are going to screw that up by passing infringing fascist laws to prohibit a legal activity in a private business. It's not a weak argument whatsoever. You who would take away a business owners rights to protect your perceived right to go into that individuals place of business and have it run the way YOU say are in fact a fascist. Not because you want it done your way, but because you think the government has a right to dictate how that business owner runs his business. The Hitler card applies quite nicely here.

I was just wondering why you were calling people who were afraid of the effects of second-hand smoke stupid.

Gee... let me think... If you are so concerned about second-hand smoke and then turn around and INTENTIONALLY expose yourself it, all the while pointing your finger at other people and calling for a ban... Yeah that's pretty fucking stupid.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Non Smokers afraid of the effects of second hand smoke going into a business that allows smoking = stupid, ...

why?

That answer is obvious. Any restrictions on the right of when/where/how smokers are allowed to feed their addiction is right out of 'FASCIST FREAKING GERMANY'. You pretty much know someone has a weak argument when they go to the 'Hitler' card'.

Hows about you grow some of dem dere brain cells there botard. The argument has nothing to freaking do with a smokers "right to smoke," it's about the business owner choosing whether or not it's allowed in THEIR place of business. However, a bunch of fascist pigs who refuse to leave people to exercise their legal rights are going to screw that up by passing infringing fascist laws to prohibit a legal activity in a private business. It's not a weak argument whatsoever. You who would take away a business owners rights to protect your perceived right to go into that individuals place of business and have it run the way YOU say are in fact a fascist. Not because you want it done your way, but because you think the government has a right to dictate how that business owner runs his business. The Hitler card applies quite nicely here.

I was just wondering why you were calling people who were afraid of the effects of second-hand smoke stupid.

I'm not saying someone who is afraid of second hand smoke is stupid, merely that if they do fear second hand smoke they are stupid for entering an establishment that allows smoking. Rather than take personal responsibility for their decision, they insist the government force their fears on business owners.

 

[PokerGuy]

Very good law, it should be put in effect for the entire country. Do in your house whatever you please, but if you go out you'll have to abide by society's rules of public behavior.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Very good law, it should be put in effect for the entire country. Do in your house whatever you please, but if you go out you'll have to abide by society's rules of public behavior.

What if a smoker does business out of their house?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Vic
What if a smoker does business out of their house?

Interesting question.... I feel the government should not intrude on what people do inside their own home. I guess as long as there's no other employees involved, I have no problem with people doing whatever they want in their home.

 

[OutHouse]

i remember as a kid in the 70's people smoking in grocery stores and seeing snuffed out butts on the floor in the isles. i also remember the barber my dad took me to used to have a cigarette burning all the time in the ash try while he cut hair.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So I'm sitting with my family in a restaurant. CAD comes in and decides to fire one up and blow smoke at my son who has asthma. I'm now supposed to get up and leave.

Instead I think that perhaps I should defend my son and throw a bucket of water on him. It's my right.

Son, you do that to my kid you are going to be in soooooooooo much trouble.

You take your asthmatic son to bars/restaruants that allow smoking?

Do you drive him around in the city?


I'm sorry, but if my child had a condition like that, I sure as hell wouldn't take him into an establishment that allowed smoking. Sheesh.

No, but if I am sitting in a restaurant and you decide to light one up to express your right, then you are getting wet if you don't get it. I won't come and sit down next to you if you are smoking, but the pro smoking nazis often love to do shit like that. I've seen it happen, but fortunately for them it was before kids.

This is a public health issue. Like yelling "fire" and swinging your fist, you can do it, but not where it would cause demonstrated harm. I'm for the govt staying out of some things, however while I support the right to do things like own a gun, I don't support setting up paper targets in a city street.

You've said that if it's an issue, it should be banned. What if you are an idiot? A person should have the legal right to make a fool out of themselves, but once that crosses the line and harms someone else, then that's the end of that. Want to smoke? OK, but if you haven't the sense that God, the Universe or Bill the Cat (depending on your preference) gave you against harming someone else then you become target for government regulation or a pitcher of water, whichever comes first.

Now if someone wants to start a PRIVATE restaurant where smokers only are allowed, and the employees consent to it, then fine. Be idiots together. Yes, I would be perfectly fine with being excluded from it.

Pssttt - A bar is a privately owned business(in many cases) so they should be able to make the decision - correct? These aren't gov't establishments - they're private businesses that shouldn't be forced by the gov't to disallow smoking.

No. Meat packing businesses are private, and as you know they are regulated. Why? Because it's a health issue.

Private meant (as you know) that there would be legal grounds for refusal to admit the general non smoking public. All that would be required would be a signature indicating that the individual consents to smoking before hand, not get inside and find out that someone is going to light up. The written part would be to protect the restaurant from shark lawyers.

Put up "Smokers only allowed on premises" if you like. As far as that goes, make a BotuBurger joint and eat up, but only those who EXPRESSLY consent to eating it can come in and do so.

another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Citrix
another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

So you are saying that if something is important enough the government CAN in fact regulate legal activity in a private business?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So I'm sitting with my family in a restaurant. CAD comes in and decides to fire one up and blow smoke at my son who has asthma. I'm now supposed to get up and leave.

Instead I think that perhaps I should defend my son and throw a bucket of water on him. It's my right.

Son, you do that to my kid you are going to be in soooooooooo much trouble.

You take your asthmatic son to bars/restaruants that allow smoking?

Do you drive him around in the city?


I'm sorry, but if my child had a condition like that, I sure as hell wouldn't take him into an establishment that allowed smoking. Sheesh.

You actually think that if smoking was allowed at restaruants that any of them would disallow it? Sure they'd have non smoking sections but that really doesn't work.

Yes, there is no "ban" yet in Iowa but there are MANY places that have gone smoke-free by choice(which is the way it should be). Many clubs downtown have gone smoke free too.

:thumbsup:

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix
another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

So you are saying that if something is important enough the government CAN in fact regulate legal activity in a private business?

they can and do but that doesn't mean that they should.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i remember as a kid in the 70's people smoking in grocery stores and seeing snuffed out butts on the floor in the isles. i also remember the barber my dad took me to used to have a cigarette burning all the time in the ash try while he cut hair.

Yep. I remember that too. It's a miracle we're not all dead from 2nd-hand smoke.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix
another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

So you are saying that if something is important enough the government CAN in fact regulate legal activity in a private business?

Considering that bad meat actually does kill, while 2nd-hand smoke actually doesn't (or at least, doesn't kill any faster than the alcoholic drink in the bar patron's hand), I think this is an important distinction.

Look, everyone knows what this is about. Cigarette smoke stinks. I dislike it just as much as anyone else. But pretending that this is some kind of health issue on par with food safety is intellectual dishonesty at best.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix
another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

So you are saying that if something is important enough the government CAN in fact regulate legal activity in a private business?

Considering that bad meat actually does kill, while 2nd-hand smoke actually doesn't (or at least, doesn't kill any faster than the alcoholic drink in the bar patron's hand), I think this is an important distinction.

Look, everyone knows what this is about. Cigarette smoke stinks. I dislike it just as much as anyone else. But pretending that this is some kind of health issue on par with food safety is intellectual dishonesty at best.

I never said that cigarette smoke was as damaging to people as bad meat. I was noting the argument that the government cannot regulate a legal activity in a private business is not accurate.

Now that we are past that, we can discuss the relative merits of a prohibition, and in what cases it would be justified.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Vic
What if a smoker does business out of their house?

Interesting question.... I feel the government should not intrude on what people do inside their own home. I guess as long as there's no other employees involved, I have no problem with people doing whatever they want in their home.

What if it's a husband and wife business? Does that make for an employee and thus reason to forbid smoking in the house?

More importantly, what is the difference between a house and a place of business? If you work out of the house, but have an employee or invite customers over, does the house become a place of business? If you own a restaurant, but sleep in the back, does the business become your house?

The problem here, I think, goes beyond confusing personal and business, but in the assumption that a person has some kind of right to patronize a business according to their own terms. No such right exists. You have a right to patronize a business under fair, voluntary, and disclosed terms, and to make the decision to patronize based on that disclosure, but not under your own terms. For example, no one would buy diseased meat if they knew beforehand that it was diseased, thus food safety is not only reasonable but important.
If you walk into a smoky bar though, you can decide for yourself to leave if you don't like it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix
another dumb argument. we all have to eat and its the government responsibility to make sure our food supply is safe.

we do not have to go to bars or restruants we can eat at home or choose a place that does not allow smoking.

So you are saying that if something is important enough the government CAN in fact regulate legal activity in a private business?

Considering that bad meat actually does kill, while 2nd-hand smoke actually doesn't (or at least, doesn't kill any faster than the alcoholic drink in the bar patron's hand), I think this is an important distinction.

Look, everyone knows what this is about. Cigarette smoke stinks. I dislike it just as much as anyone else. But pretending that this is some kind of health issue on par with food safety is intellectual dishonesty at best.

I never said that cigarette smoke was as damaging to people as bad meat. I was noting the argument that the government cannot regulate a legal activity in a private business is not accurate.

Now that we are past that, we can discuss the relative merits of a prohibition, and in what cases it would be justified.

Your argument is apples and oranges. Food safety is regulated because consumers have a reasonable expectation to healthy food, and would not purchase unhealthy food if they knew it to be so beforehand. In other words, food safety regulation is a form of consumer protection against fraud. 2nd-hand smoke comes with its own disclosure (which is the problem).

There are no relative merits to any prohibition, nor are they ever justified. All cases of prohibition are based of the idea that because one person has some moral position, therefore everyone should share that moral position, whether they like it or not. This is IMO the most immoral position of all.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic
Your argument is apples and oranges. Food safety is regulated because consumers have a reasonable expectation to healthy food, and would not purchase unhealthy food if they knew it to be so beforehand. In other words, food safety regulation is a form of consumer protection against fraud. 2nd-hand smoke comes with its own disclosure (which is the problem).

There are no relative merits to any prohibition, nor are they ever justified. All cases of prohibition are based of the idea that because one person has some moral position, therefore everyone should share that moral position, whether they like it or not. This is IMO the most immoral position of all.

So you believe that the government should be able to regulate otherwise legal behavior on private property as it pertains to fraud, but not as it pertains to public health due to the difficulty a customer would have in determining how the meat was handled. (if I'm reading you right) So again, it is permissable in certain circumstances. Maybe smoking in restaurants isn't one of those circumstances, but the concept is certainly valid and can certainly apply to ideas outside of fraud.

I also don't think your argument about the consumption of alcohol has merit here. You are in effect arguing that because people are doing one unhealthy thing that they have no right to stop other unhealthy things from happening to them, and of course that's not true.

I don't feel like I really need to address your statement about prohibitions never being justified or ever having any merit as that is obviously false.

 

[palehorse]

I had my last cigarette on December 2nd, 2007, after smoking for 16 years.

YAY for me.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Well, I'm going to go ahead and say you folks that agree with this no longer have a right to drive your car. It's been proven that vehicles put out harmful gases that are not only a health hazard to people, but to the environment as well. I'm sorry you can no longer get to work, but the environmental impact on my health is too great to allow this to continue. You will have to find a bicycle to get to work as burning fuel is no longer allowed. You also cannot heat your home or air condition it either. Again, the health hazards are just too great. Your argument depends completely upon the "dangers" of second hand smoke and you refuse to acknowledge an individual's right to run their business the way they choose. So, now you must live your life based on my need to have a healthy environment as well. Since you cannot help but go into an establishment that allows smoking as your overwhelming need to enjoy that business owners space under your conditions compels you to enter beyond your own better judgment, now we'll insure that all air is clean regardless of the economic impact this may have. You, the "majority" have spoken and your words have been heard loud and clear. Nothing that can impact your health is allowed any more. No driving, no playing sports, no etc..... Life is full of risks people. If you do not want to expose yourself to that risk, then don't. But don't expect the government to regulate everything that may effect your life as the list is endless. Sorry, no more having sex without getting a permit from the government stating you're healthy enough to participate. No more trips to the amusement parks without a doctors note stating you can handle the stress. Where exactly does the need for personal safety at the expense of personal choice and responsibility end?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic
Your argument is apples and oranges. Food safety is regulated because consumers have a reasonable expectation to healthy food, and would not purchase unhealthy food if they knew it to be so beforehand. In other words, food safety regulation is a form of consumer protection against fraud. 2nd-hand smoke comes with its own disclosure (which is the problem).

There are no relative merits to any prohibition, nor are they ever justified. All cases of prohibition are based of the idea that because one person has some moral position, therefore everyone should share that moral position, whether they like it or not. This is IMO the most immoral position of all.

So you believe that the government should be able to regulate otherwise legal behavior on private property as it pertains to fraud, but not as it pertains to public health due to the difficulty a customer would have in determining how the meat was handled. (if I'm reading you right) So again, it is permissable in certain circumstances. Maybe smoking in restaurants isn't one of those circumstances, but the concept is certainly valid and can certainly apply to ideas outside of fraud.

I also don't think your argument about the consumption of alcohol has merit here. You are in effect arguing that because people are doing one unhealthy thing that they have no right to stop other unhealthy things from happening to them, and of course that's not true.

I don't feel like I really need to address your statement about prohibitions never being justified or ever having any merit as that is obviously false.

No, you're not reading me right. Would you purchase unhealthy food if you knew it to be unhealthy? Do you think any other reasonable person would do the same? Obviously not.

And I have found that saying something is "obviously false" is usually just an excuse for saying that you have no argument against it besides personal prejudice. In this case, you're just reserving the right to inflict your moral prejudices on others whenever it suits your fancy.
You see, just because I don't smoke doesn't mean that I feel that no one should smoke. I'm not gay either, and you don't see me arguing against homosexuality, do you?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Well, I'm going to go ahead and say you folks that agree with this no longer have a right to drive your car. It's been proven that vehicles put out harmful gases that are not only a health hazard to people, but to the environment as well. I'm sorry you can no longer get to work, but the environmental impact on my health is too great to allow this to continue. You will have to find a bicycle to get to work as burning fuel is no longer allowed. You also cannot heat your home or air condition it either. Again, the health hazards are just too great. Your argument depends completely upon the "dangers" of second hand smoke and you refuse to acknowledge an individual's right to run their business the way they choose. So, now you must live your life based on my need to have a healthy environment as well. Since you cannot help but go into an establishment that allows smoking as your overwhelming need to enjoy that business owners space under your conditions compels you to enter beyond your own better judgment, now we'll insure that all air is clean regardless of the economic impact this may have. You, the "majority" have spoken and your words have been heard loud and clear. Nothing that can impact your health is allowed any more. No driving, no playing sports, no etc..... Life is full of risks people. If you do not want to expose yourself to that risk, then don't. But don't expect the government to regulate everything that may effect your life as the list is endless. Sorry, no more having sex without getting a permit from the government stating you're healthy enough to participate. No more trips to the amusement parks without a doctors note stating you can handle the stress. Where exactly does the need for personal safety at the expense of personal choice and responsibility end?

Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good. Your extreme example assumes the benefit of outlawing cars outweighs the necessity of personal transportation despite their unfortunate associated environmental sideeffects. Cigarettes do not represent any social or societal benefit nearly as pressing as the need personal transportation does for the majority of the country.

Basically, your balance is broken.

Your slippery slope argument rightfully falls on deaf ears. Oh no, some states passed mandatory seatbelt laws! Next they're going to require everyone get a breathalyzer attached to the car so no one could drive drunk! I mean, it's not like they could possibly just stop at seatbelts and car seats for infants! You watch! ....hm, nothing happened since they passed those seatbelt laws over a decade ago. huh.

Balancing test says you fail.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Well, I'm going to go ahead and say you folks that agree with this no longer have a right to drive your car. It's been proven that vehicles put out harmful gases that are not only a health hazard to people, but to the environment as well. I'm sorry you can no longer get to work, but the environmental impact on my health is too great to allow this to continue. You will have to find a bicycle to get to work as burning fuel is no longer allowed. You also cannot heat your home or air condition it either. Again, the health hazards are just too great. Your argument depends completely upon the "dangers" of second hand smoke and you refuse to acknowledge an individual's right to run their business the way they choose. So, now you must live your life based on my need to have a healthy environment as well. Since you cannot help but go into an establishment that allows smoking as your overwhelming need to enjoy that business owners space under your conditions compels you to enter beyond your own better judgment, now we'll insure that all air is clean regardless of the economic impact this may have. You, the "majority" have spoken and your words have been heard loud and clear. Nothing that can impact your health is allowed any more. No driving, no playing sports, no etc..... Life is full of risks people. If you do not want to expose yourself to that risk, then don't. But don't expect the government to regulate everything that may effect your life as the list is endless. Sorry, no more having sex without getting a permit from the government stating you're healthy enough to participate. No more trips to the amusement parks without a doctors note stating you can handle the stress. Where exactly does the need for personal safety at the expense of personal choice and responsibility end?

Don't forget penguins and seals living in sin.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic
Your argument is apples and oranges. Food safety is regulated because consumers have a reasonable expectation to healthy food, and would not purchase unhealthy food if they knew it to be so beforehand. In other words, food safety regulation is a form of consumer protection against fraud. 2nd-hand smoke comes with its own disclosure (which is the problem).

There are no relative merits to any prohibition, nor are they ever justified. All cases of prohibition are based of the idea that because one person has some moral position, therefore everyone should share that moral position, whether they like it or not. This is IMO the most immoral position of all.

So you believe that the government should be able to regulate otherwise legal behavior on private property as it pertains to fraud, but not as it pertains to public health due to the difficulty a customer would have in determining how the meat was handled. (if I'm reading you right) So again, it is permissable in certain circumstances. Maybe smoking in restaurants isn't one of those circumstances, but the concept is certainly valid and can certainly apply to ideas outside of fraud.

I also don't think your argument about the consumption of alcohol has merit here. You are in effect arguing that because people are doing one unhealthy thing that they have no right to stop other unhealthy things from happening to them, and of course that's not true.

I don't feel like I really need to address your statement about prohibitions never being justified or ever having any merit as that is obviously false.

No, you're not reading me right. Would you purchase unhealthy food if you knew it to be unhealthy? Do you think any other reasonable person would do the same? Obviously not.

And I have found that saying something is "obviously false" is usually just an excuse for saying that you have no argument against it besides personal prejudice. In this case, you're just reserving the right to inflict your moral prejudices on others whenever it suits your fancy.
You see, just because I don't smoke doesn't mean that I feel that no one should smoke. I'm not gay either, and you don't see me arguing against homosexuality, do you?

So when the guy lights up and blows smoke in my family's face that's his right, eh?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good. Your extreme example assumes the benefit of outlawing cars outweighs the necessity of personal transportation despite their unfortunate associated environmental sideeffects. Cigarettes do not represent any social or societal benefit nearly as pressing as the need personal transportation does for the majority of the country.

Basically, your balance is broken.

Really? What individual liberty do laws against murder, theft, etc. compromise for the sake of the common good?

Answer: none. Those laws benefit both individual liberty and the common good.