Party of free choice???

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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?

It's amazing how literally no one knows what a "right" is anymore. :roll:

Anyway, no, it's not his "right." Anymore than it would be his "right" to fart in your family's face. Quick! Pass a law!


edit: oops, I forgot the all-important emotional argument of "your family's face" (as opposed to just your face), as though the fact that you chose to breed has sh!t to do with this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't get to kill you when you piss me off. That infringes on my individual liberty/choice for the sake of the common good.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

 

[fskimospy]

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?

You are still saying that you are okay with regulating otherwise legal behavior if the behavior you are attempting to stop could be fraudulent. I am saying if you can regulate it for one cause, you can regulate it for others.

As far as prohibitions always being bad I didn't think that it really needed to be discussed. Of course there are tons of prohibitions that have been stupid and wrong. There are also tons that are totally justified and fine. There's a prohibition on people owning an M1 Abrams. (or if there isn't there should be.. haha) I don't think that by not wanting to have someone drive a tank down my street I am enforcing my morality on them, I'm just trying to make sure my pavement isn't crushed. As sirjonk mentioned, it's all about relative burden/benefit analysis. Simply put, a blanket statement such as the one you made cannot be reasonably supported.

I imagine you weren't thinking of prohibitions in this manner and were more trying to relate it to social behaviors, but if you think about it there are social behaviors that are also going to go over the line and be reasonably prohibited. That's why we have laws to begin with.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

It's amazing how literally no one knows what a "right" is anymore. :roll:

Anyway, no, it's not his "right." Anymore than it would be his "right" to fart in your family's face. Quick! Pass a law!


edit: oops, I forgot the all-important emotional argument of "your family's face" (as opposed to just your face), as though the fact that you chose to breed has sh!t to do with this.

My answer to you is don't breed if you don't understand the point. You would make a lousy parent anyway.

So your sense is that he hasn't a "right" but there is no way to prevent his behavior, short of a good dunking. Gotcha.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

your hero Obama would be supportive of a federal ban aimed at workplace smoking if local and state laws are not enough.

?If we can?t provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law,? Obama said.

link

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't get to kill you when you piss me off. That infringes on my individual liberty/choice for the sake of the common good.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

And you're an idiot. Unbelievable.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: 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?

No, it's the right of the owner of the property to allow (or disallow) him to smoke. If you are upset that he's smoking and you are close enough to him in which he can 'blow smoke in your family's face', you deserve to be miserable.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 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.

Dude, don't get me started about the 2000 elections. I'm still pissed about that. I just hope we get the 2008 election right! FWIW, it was those EAST COAST Floridians who screwed it up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: 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?

No, it's the right of the owner of the property to allow (or disallow) him to smoke. If you are upset that he's smoking and you are close enough to him in which he can 'blow smoke in your family's face', you deserve to be miserable.

Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

It's amazing how literally no one knows what a "right" is anymore. :roll:

Anyway, no, it's not his "right." Anymore than it would be his "right" to fart in your family's face. Quick! Pass a law!


edit: oops, I forgot the all-important emotional argument of "your family's face" (as opposed to just your face), as though the fact that you chose to breed has sh!t to do with this.

My answer to you is don't breed if you don't understand the point. You would make a lousy parent anyway.

So your sense is that he hasn't a "right" but there is no way to prevent his behavior, short of a good dunking. Gotcha.

And I see you have no argument left.

If you're such a good parent, why are you taking your children to a smoky bar?

You're on to something though. Rights are inherent. They are never given or granted. They exist until taken away. For example, the right to free speech is not granted, it exists inherently. No one can ever stop you from saying what you want, they can only punish you for doing so. That's what a right is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Uhh.... you're talking about eating out. Given that eating at home is always the least expensive alternative, it's kind of silly to bring up affordability, don't you think?
Plus, I can't think of any cheap food chain that still allows smoking.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 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?

I'm aware that alcohol affects reflexes. You are aware there have been studies to determine the point of impairment, right? I know it's .08% here in FL. My point is it driving while impared is already illegal so I don't see any validity of using DUI to condone second hand smoke. Nice try going to the prohibition card though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Uhh.... you're talking about eating out. Given that eating at home is always the least expensive alternative, it's kind of silly to bring up affordability, don't you think?
Plus, I can't think of any cheap food chain that still allows smoking.

Two dunks so far.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Uhh.... you're talking about eating out. Given that eating at home is always the least expensive alternative, it's kind of silly to bring up affordability, don't you think?
Plus, I can't think of any cheap food chain that still allows smoking.

Two dunks so far.

Why haven't you joined the crusade against 2nd-hand farting? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: 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?

No, it's the right of the owner of the property to allow (or disallow) him to smoke. If you are upset that he's smoking and you are close enough to him in which he can 'blow smoke in your family's face', you deserve to be miserable.

Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Actually, I go out to bars and restaurants where there's smoking all the time. I hate the smell of smoke; I hate that my clothes smell like smoke when I leave. Guess what? I CHOOSE to expose myself to that.

When I am married and have a family, I will CHOOSE not to expose them to second-hand smoke also.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FTW!

By the way, Hayabusa, we're going to have to ban motorcycles, sorry. You breathe in far more toxins from exhaust (whether you can smell it or not) than from the cig smoke at dinner, for your Hayabusa to be legal. Besides motorcycles are far too loud too; it's quite a bit of a nuisance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Uhh.... you're talking about eating out. Given that eating at home is always the least expensive alternative, it's kind of silly to bring up affordability, don't you think?
Plus, I can't think of any cheap food chain that still allows smoking.

Two dunks so far.

Why haven't you joined the crusade against 2nd-hand farting? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

How does that work?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: 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?

No, it's the right of the owner of the property to allow (or disallow) him to smoke. If you are upset that he's smoking and you are close enough to him in which he can 'blow smoke in your family's face', you deserve to be miserable.

Well genius I suppose you live in the stratospheric financial bracket that affords you a private table. Evidently you don't slum in places where people might be in fairly close quarters. No, not you. :roll:


Ok, Donny voted for dunking.

Actually, I go out to bars and restaurants where there's smoking all the time. I hate the smell of smoke; I hate that my clothes smell like smoke when I leave. Guess what? I CHOOSE to expose myself to that.

When I am married and have a family, I will CHOOSE not to expose them to second-hand smoke also.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FTW!

By the way, Hayabusa, we're going to have to ban motorcycles, sorry. You breathe in far more toxins from exhaust (whether you can smell it or not) than from the cig smoke at dinner, for your Hayabusa to be legal. Besides motorcycles are far too loud too; it's quite a bit of a nuisance.

If I decide to ride it like a maniac in traffic, please feel free to take it from me. If I decide to pull up to your table and gun it in your direction, please feel free to dunk me. Fair is fair.

 

[spittledip]

I dont quite understand why smokers think it is ok for non-smokers to be choked by their habit...? Even if it wasn't dangerous, it is still unpleasant to smell and breathe.

 

[glutenberg]

I wonder if there'll ever be a non-smoking casino in Vegas one day.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't get to kill you when you piss me off. That infringes on my individual liberty/choice for the sake of the common good.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

And you're an idiot. Unbelievable.

Hey, it's not my fault, my mom smoked while pregnant. Apparently your's drank. I hear that's worse.

 

[Robor]

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?

That horse was beat to death long ago and it doesn't hold water. People are aware that many things impact the environment causing health hazards and things are being done about it. That's why there's ozone friendly refrigerants, lead-free gas, catalytic converters, a push for more fuel efficient cars, more efficient appliances, etc.

This entire issue comes down to the smokers and hard-core personal freedom advocates against the majority of the people who don't smoke and don't want to smell someone else's smoke.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

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.

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.

And can you really not tell the difference between criminal laws and regulatory statutes? Why can't you people draw any lines? Is everything a slippery slope? Are you all anarchists?

I'm just as vehemently against seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, and every other law passed in the name of limiting personal choice. They DO NOT protect the "common good," they are merely a tool for the government to impose their/your morals on those who would choose to live differently. If I want to get in my car without a seat belt on, it's none of your business and it's none of the government's business.

As for the "slippery slope," do you remember when seat belts became mandatory but the law was written so you couldn't be pulled over for it? Well, you can now so I do think it's a valid point.

Then, you go on to state that some of us cannot draw lines yet believing in individual rights = being an anarchist? Please.

What is so freaking difficult in making a personal decision to avoid establishments which choose to allow smoking? Why can you people not think about the consequences of YOUR actions in entering an establishment rather than expecting that establishment to cater to you. Personal choice and freedom is dying a rapid death in this country and you folks are to blame. You actually believe it's your right to tell me how to live. You want to say you live in a free country yet you insist on labeling it free on condition of your acceptance. You disgust me and you have no right to call yourself American.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Robor

This entire issue comes down to the smokers and hard-core personal freedom advocates against the majority of the people who aren't smart enough to avoid situations they feel put them at risk.

Fixed!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I wonder if there'll ever be a non-smoking casino in Vegas one day.

If there were enough people that desired to go to such a thing, they would open one.

Same thing with restaurants and bars. If enough people would spend there money only at a non-smoking establishment, they would exist more often.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I dont quite understand why smokers think it is ok for non-smokers to be choked by their habit...? Even if it wasn't dangerous, it is still unpleasant to smell and breathe.

You will understand when you realize you DON'T have the right to eat at a restaurant.