Can someone explain to me why people argue about this stuff? There is no right or wrong, there is just what is reality. The law exists because enough people voted for it. No amount of argument will change or determine anything (as if there is an objective right or wrong anwser anyway).
Sheesh!
Sheesh!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
1. There is objective right and wrong. If I hurt you without your consent, that is objectively wrong. Objectivity is as real as life and death, which BTW, are also the absolute proof of objectivity.
2. Just because enough people vote for a law does not make it right. Would it be right if we voted to execute all the smokers? I bet such a law could be passed given the irrational public sentiment at this time. Would it be right? Would that be a proper reality for you?
Tyranny of the majority is an excuse for nothing.
Hey I'm all for letting people reap the consequences of their own actions but there is always someone who will sue be it the self-victimised or a family member, or some outraged public interest group. And there is always someone that will argue that simply by having the desire to harm yourself you are mentally deranged and incompetent to make decisions for yourself. If I chose not to treat a heroin overdose and let him die what would say of me, not to mention the malpractice suit that someone would file.
Nice try.
Cancer is not the only disease attributed to smoking.
You can look it up on Wikipedia. In the DUH section.
As a matter of fact I'd be fine with that. If you wanna risk your neck, go for it. But I don't think I should pay for your adrenaline addiction. Well, at least for the first few in your list.
Accidents happen. If everyone is obeying laws and acting reasonably then no one should be considered 'at fault' and everyone should just take care of their own problems. Hell, I don't even support the concept of insurance...at least not when it's made mandatory.
#1 I'm rephrasing this one, because it wasn't exactly what I meant to say. There 'may' be some objective rights and wrongs, however I believe most things are subjective (or at least dependent upon circumstances).
#2 Agree completely.
I too agree with 2 but thats where seperation of judiciary from the legislature is supposed to come into play. I say supposed to because I am not so convinced with the way our supreme court seems to be meddled with lately. But the judiciary is supposed to protect the individual from the group but this can be seen the otherway too. IE protecting the non-smoker from the majority of bar patrons who smoke.
Because it's a serious issue. People are selfish and want to force private property owners into doing things that will cater to their selfish wishes without thinking twice about anyone elses rights'.
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
Im a smoker (less than a pack a day) I love smoking in bars and clubs when i drink away. But I somehow still agree that this is a good thing.
As long as they can have designated smoking lounges where everyone agrees upon the whole lung factor thing. maybe its a new business venue. lose a job gain another. I would put up "No Smoking" signs up for a living as long as I was legally allowed to come home and smoke my lungs black.
so yeh... I agree with it. Now if they could only start enforcing laws they have on the internet...
As long as they can have designated smoking lounges where everyone agrees upon the whole lung factor thing. maybe its a new business venue. lose a job gain another. I would put up "No Smoking" signs up for a living as long as I was legally allowed to come home and smoke my lungs black.
so yeh... I agree with it. Now if they could only start enforcing laws they have on the internet...
*Sigh* I'm a non-smoker (I find smoking disgusting) that disagrees with these laws. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a patron and nobody is forcing anyone to work in these places.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
This argument of protecting the workers is old and tired. Are bars that are owned by sole proprietors who have no employees exempt from these laws? If not, then the argument that these laws exist to protect the employees are false.
If there were a bar or restaurant with one owner and no employees that allowed smoking and a large sign was on the front door that said WE ALLOW SMOKING, then everybody who enters that building is there by choice, and knows the consequences upon entering. However even that business is not safe from these laws.
So what it comes down to is busy bodies that can't stand other people doing things which they themselves disapprove of.
If there were a bar or restaurant with one owner and no employees that allowed smoking and a large sign was on the front door that said WE ALLOW SMOKING, then everybody who enters that building is there by choice, and knows the consequences upon entering. However even that business is not safe from these laws.
So what it comes down to is busy bodies that can't stand other people doing things which they themselves disapprove of.
You don't want people losing their rights? How do you think government works? There are always going to be winners and losers. That's just the way it is. In this case, We have business owners (people) who don't give a rats a$$ who they hurt so long as they see the money rolling in. What about their employees who have to deal with 8 hours of smoke, day in and day out 365 days out of the year for years and years? Put yourself in the shoes of that employee, the employee who goes to the doctor because they have a cough, get x rayed and find they have a malignant tumor in their lungs and have 6 months to live. That's what this argument is about. It's on a more personal level that you are capable of bringing yourself to at this moment. The business owner will continue to thrive because he can bring another employee in (probably cheaper then his former employee) and just have his worker's compensation insurance pay out (maybe considering how hard insurance companies try to NOT pay) the family for the death of an employee. You say that business owners are people and have a right, this is true, but who is more in the right? I and many others including the government (who are people just like you and me) say the employee is more in the right than the business owners. As in life, there are always going to be winners and losers. In this case the business owners lost. I'll tell you what though, I'm pretty sure that most businesses are probably capable of handling this loss of right since they have opened themselves up to the majority of the US population by heeding to the non smoking ban. The only ones complaining are those smokers who lost thier ability to smoke in public places. But at least we have a healthier environment for both employees and patrons alike.
If you get robbed because the police have to waste their time arresting smokers instead of real criminals, don't complain to me.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Did you even bother to read the thread? It doesn't look like it.
Winners and losers? So it's okay to abuse the power of government as a means to an end?
Who is more in the right? Who owns the property?
Exactly how do the business owners not give a rats "a$$" when thousands and thousands of businesses all across the country are switching voluntarily to non-smoking and using that as a marketing pitch?
On a more of a personal level? You mean your personal terror and anxiety over a danger so remote that you'd be more likely to die of AIDS as a straight male?
The MYTH is that this is an employee rights issue. This is a property issue, and an obvious move forward by the moral authoritarians to expand the drug prohibition to include tobacco (in addition to to a blow by the teetotalers against the saloons again).
Tyranny of the majority is never justification for everything. Contrary to popular misconception, one of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of individuals (the smallest minority) from abuse of power by the majority.
And funny, I'm not a smoker and yet I am complaining. Lots of people who don't smoke are complaining about this, as well as lots of people who do smoke are in favor. Why just a quick read of this thread would have shown several examples of that. Amazing! I guess you had to throw in that worthless implied insult in order to prop up your weak knee-jerk arguments.
You want a healthier environment? Instead of knee-jerk fighting for a draconian law, try being truly progressive and enlightened, and work in and patronize establishments that don't allow smoking. Wow! OMG! That couldn't work, could it? Businesses wouldn't go after that money, now would they? Oh no! They just want to screw people! Where's my tinfoil hat?
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
You can't smoke anywhere here unless it's your own property. Smoking indoors is banned.
< Windsor, Ontario (and surrounding areas).
Chicks can walk down the street topless though, so it's all good.
< Windsor, Ontario (and surrounding areas).
Chicks can walk down the street topless though, so it's all good.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,528
- 908
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter