Well, they banned smoking in all pubs & clubs at the start of this month in WA...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Ah, but the government is not legislating that you cannot smoke just where you can smoke. And since any public establishment should be held public for all, any practice that limits the freedom of some brings in the government. The government after decades of discussion on the second hand smoke issue has opted to protect the health of those who choose not to engage in smoking by limiting where you can smoke, just like in public buildings. Now at least in NJ private member only clubs are exempt from the ban.

If it weren't for the big money in tobacco sales worldwide, you would probably see tobacco sales and farming made illegal in the US, because it would save the US economy billions of dollars in health care costs in the first decade alone. This would probably be the smartest move because by 2030 you will probably see 3rd world countries filing suit against the US for exporting a known addictive carcinogen to the rest of the world.

I don't understand you people. Your 2nd paragraph contradicts your 1st and (subsequently) supports my entire argument, and you don't even notice that amidst all your rhetorical talking points. Yes, smoking is not now illegal. But, on the basis of your own words, a slippery slope argument in that direction is completely valid. As such, so would be a comparison to the failed prohibition and drug war.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'M full of ******? Damn, YOU sound like one of the tobacco company lawyers. "Tobacco does no harm to anyone who smokes it or inhales 2nd hand smoke"...
(no you didn't say exactly that, but it's how you sound)
Again, by your reasoning, people don't need to be protected against silica dust inhalation, (silicosis takes a long time to develop) nor asbestos, (again, asbestositits, mesothelioma take a LONG time to manifest themselves) nor many other common workplace health hazards. Paint fumes, many hazardour materials and other toxins in the workplace are not IMMEDIATE, (and short term effects MAY go away if you quit the job and exposure) but why should a person have to choose between having a safe work place, and a job? I've been a crane & heavy equipment operator most of my life. There are LOTS of dangers in what I do, but most can be eliminated or at least minimized by following the appropriate safety laws/regs. Does that mean there are no hazards that MIGHT come up? Of course not...sh*t happens daily in every job that COULD become a hazard. I don't want to get maimed nor die, trying to make my boss more money. Does that mean I should quit my job? Hell no, but it DOES mean I should do my job safely and efficiently. I worked at Hanford back in the late 70's. We built the Fast Flux Test Facility. (AKA breeder reactor.) many times, we'd get exposed to enough radiation to get sent home for a week. Did that mean I should have quit the job? Nope. The hazard was controlled, and we were never exposed to enough radiation over a long enough period to become a serious problem. (I guess time will tell if they were right or not)

Nope, an employee has the RIGHT to work in a safe environment, and if that means eliminating 2nd hand smoke from the workplace, so be it. I've supported this for many years, and will continue to do so...AND, I am a smoker myself...

Are you always this irrational?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
And yet you NEVER actually prove anything. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that shows that there are not business exploitations and endangering. I have listed several that show that there ARE exploitations and endangering done by businesses. Therefore I can support my argument that businesses require control, while you can NOT support your argument that businesses should not be controlled (or at least, you offer no valid alternatives to government controls as of yet).

Because what I already have proven is that that argument is irrelevant to this discussion. Nor did I ever (or have I ever) argued that business should not be controlled. You basically make these straw men up as you go along. Such is typical of the whoever-disagrees-with-me-must-be-my-enemy mentality. Like every other idiot in P&N, if I disagree with you on a minor point, you take that to a wildly opposite extreme and make it the major basis of your argument. You probably think it works because it makes people walk away and ignore you, leaving you free to intellectually masturbate at will, but it really just makes people think you're a nutcase.

No, I find it CENTRAL to the argument at hand. You don't want businesses losing their rights. I claim that businesses must be controlled by somone that isn't a business. I say that the smoking issue is just another safety control, you say it's something else. Again, that seems to be central to the discussion.

So you believe that businesses DO require control? Ok, who gets to have that control? Just come out and actually answer something...anything.

 

[mattpegher]

To top it off I personnally diagnose about 20 cases of newly diagnosed tobacco related lung cancer a year. Not to mention the increase mortality and morbitity of cardiac disease, emphysema, COPD, Stroke, Bronchitis, Pneumonia. Smokers are no better than any other addict you just can't face the fact that your a burden on the rest of society. I suggest that when you get sick, not if, when you be allowed to sit on an ice raft and float of toward the northpole like an aged inuit, so that you no longer burden us with your I wish I had quit when I was young. The number of aged smokers is grossly over exaggerated due to anecdotal stories.

 

[BoomerD]

Nothing irrrational about believing people have the right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. They should not have to choose between having a job, and their health. If someone wants to work around a bunch of drunks in a bar, (and I don't personally understand why they would) then they should have the right to do so without damaging their health...



You still sound like a typical republican apologist lawyer for one of the tobacco companies.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I feel bad that it leaves smokers no place to go, but I certainly love it. I hadn't been able to go to a bar in a long time.

Of anybody on here, I thought you would be up in arms over this gross, infringment on private property rights.

What gives?

Watching my mother wither and die while I was a kid, coupled with severe asthma and allergies to all types of smoke, kind of warped me. I do want people to able to do what they want to themselves, but I have as much right to be free from it as others have to be a part of it. Before the law there wasn't a single smoke-free bowling alley, bar, etc in my county...and many other businesses also catered to the smokers. In a huge city it works out, because there are enough non-smokers to allow for smoke-free establishments...but in a small town that isn't the case...they have to allow everyone or they go under. This basically forced me to choose between my right to live in a small town, and my right to go to a business for anything and not be assaulted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, I find it CENTRAL to the argument at hand. You don't want businesses losing their rights. I claim that businesses must be controlled by somone that isn't a business. I say that the smoking issue is just another safety control, you say it's something else. Again, that seems to be central to the discussion.

So you believe that businesses DO require control? Ok, who gets to have that control? Just come out and actually answer something...anything.

No, I don't care about businesses. That is just an argument you made up. It is NOT central to the argument at hand. As I have proven repeatedly, that is just the straw man you keep beating up on.

I don't want people losing their rights.

No matter who those people are. Smokers or non-smokers, business owners or employees. We all have the absolute right to equal protection under the law. Not one set of rights for one group and another set for another group, according to your prejudices.

How fsckin' hard is that for you to understand? Businesses are people. Government is people. We are all people. Your fantastic mysticism separating people from business and government is ridiculous and delusional.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Nothing irrrational about believing people have the right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. They should not have to choose between having a job, and their health. If someone wants to work around a bunch of drunks in a bar, (and I don't personally understand why they would) then they should have the right to do so without damaging their health...



You still sound like a typical republican apologist lawyer for one of the tobacco companies.

And you sound like a troll without an argument. I didn't know McOwen had so many accounts.

 

[mattpegher]

Private property rights have never been absolute. I own about 5 acres of wetlands, in which I have more regulations than you could believe, about 150 pages worth, limiting everything from clearing of brush to making paths. If I want a pool it must have a fence. No structures within 20 feet of the septic field. As you can see the list goes on and on.
Open any business that accepts the public and you are no longer "private property" and must abide by all the rules of a public accomidation, ie wheel chair ramps, handicap stalls etc. Especially OSHA which is arguably the most powerful and arbatrary governing body in the US

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
To top it off I personnally diagnose about 20 cases of newly diagnosed tobacco related lung cancer a year. Not to mention the increase mortality and morbitity of cardiac disease, emphysema, COPD, Stroke, Bronchitis, Pneumonia. Smokers are no better than any other addict you just can't face the fact that your a burden on the rest of society. I suggest that when you get sick, not if, when you be allowed to sit on an ice raft and float of toward the northpole like an aged inuit, so that you no longer burden us with your I wish I had quit when I was young. The number of aged smokers is grossly over exaggerated due to anecdotal stories.

Yes, and we all know how helpful draconian laws have been for all those other addicts....

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That has NOTHING to do with what we're disucssing. Sit at home and shoot up all you want, it won't give me cancer. When you start a home meth lab that radiates the area, THEN we have a problem. Same thing applies to smoking. Cripple yourself, it's your right. But do NOT endanger others.

Textbook paranoia and media-instilled mob-driven fear here. I suggest you read up on the studies of ETS. Incidence of cancer is less than 25% in long-term smokers. For ETS, incidence is less than 1%. In fact, the initial EPA studies were shot down in federal courts because the findings were within the margin of error. WHO studies were similar.

I am glad, at least, that we cleared away the smoke of your phony altruism and fake concern for the workers and got to the real heart of the matter, which is your selfish irrational fear.

*BUZZER*

No, it is definitely about worker rights. A business has a responsibility to provide a safe work environment. Smoke is NOT safe. That's pretty simple to me. If someone was smoking near me at work and it was allowed I'd bring it up and see if a solution could be found. If not then I'd choose to endanger that co-worker in a similar fashion to make a point. If I was punished for those actions while they weren't then I'd sue for the discrimination. If that did nothing I'd quit and move on - IF and only IF, there was reason to believe that I could find employment in a safe environment. That seems to be essential where we're at now.

Mayo Clinic article on second-hand smoke.
#2
#3
#4

For every study you bring up that talks about smoke not being dangerous, i'll post two that show that it is. Obviously that can go on forever. Therefore we are at this poing: Either possible dangers give rights to workers, or not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That has NOTHING to do with what we're disucssing. Sit at home and shoot up all you want, it won't give me cancer. When you start a home meth lab that radiates the area, THEN we have a problem. Same thing applies to smoking. Cripple yourself, it's your right. But do NOT endanger others.

Textbook paranoia and media-instilled mob-driven fear here. I suggest you read up on the studies of ETS. Incidence of cancer is less than 25% in long-term smokers. For ETS, incidence is less than 1%. In fact, the initial EPA studies were shot down in federal courts because the findings were within the margin of error. WHO studies were similar.

I am glad, at least, that we cleared away the smoke of your phony altruism and fake concern for the workers and got to the real heart of the matter, which is your selfish irrational fear.

*BUZZER*

No, it is definitely about worker rights. A business has a responsibility to provide a safe work environment. Smoke is NOT safe. That's pretty simple to me. If someone was smoking near me at work and it was allowed I'd bring it up and see if a solution could be found. If not then I'd choose to endanger that co-worker in a similar fashion to make a point. If I was punished for those actions while they weren't then I'd sue for the discrimination. If that did nothing I'd quit and move on - IF and only IF, there was reason to believe that I could find employment in a safe environment. #4That seems to be essential where we're at now.

Mayo Clinic article on second-hand smoke.
#2
#3


For every study you bring up that talks about smoke not being dangerous, i'll post two that show that it is. Obviously that can go on forever. Therefore we are at this poing: Either possible dangers give rights to workers, or not.

You spent all that time digging up articles that only reinforced what I said?

Oh, and where did I say -- just once -- that smoking was not dangerous? Straw man again, dumbass. It's getting tiring watching you jack off your e-penis.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kami333
I like Utah. Bars can be "private clubs", then they can decide if they want smoking or not.

That sounds like a most equitable and enlightened solution.

I have always liked mine, which is that the owners get to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking, and then they have to put large boldly-printed signs at all entrances regarding that choice, along with the dangers if smoking is allowed. In addition, all prospective employees of smoking establishments would be required to sign strongly-worded notices warning them of the dangers of smoking and ETS prior to employment.

Completely agreeable, as long as there is ALSO some form of protections against businesses monopolizing or forming groups to force an issue (ie getting a league of businesses to agree that EVERY such establishment must allow it and banding together to put competition out of business). I would also add that I would want that employee agreement to be iron-clad so that they could NEVER win a later lawsuit, nor could they obtain healthcare at taxpayer expense.

And obviously truly public areas should remain smoke free whenever possible, as must required services (for instance you can't REQUIRE people to go somewhere where their health could be in jeapordy, rather that place is private or not).

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Nothing irrrational about believing people have the right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. They should not have to choose between having a job, and their health. If someone wants to work around a bunch of drunks in a bar, (and I don't personally understand why they would) then they should have the right to do so without damaging their health...



You still sound like a typical republican apologist lawyer for one of the tobacco companies.

And you sound like a troll without an argument. I didn't know McOwen had so many accounts.

Sorry dipsh*t...not dave. YOU appear to be trolling with the argument of RIGHTS. What about the rights of those who don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace? Should they have to quit and find a different job, just so you can smoke while you drink a beer?
You seem to be ignoring all the valid arguments, just so you can sit on your high-horse and rant about "rights", while ignoring the rights of others...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kami333
I like Utah. Bars can be "private clubs", then they can decide if they want smoking or not.

That sounds like a most equitable and enlightened solution.

I have always liked mine, which is that the owners get to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking, and then they have to put large boldly-printed signs at all entrances regarding that choice, along with the dangers if smoking is allowed. In addition, all prospective employees of smoking establishments would be required to sign strongly-worded notices warning them of the dangers of smoking and ETS prior to employment.

Completely agreeable, as long as there is ALSO some form of protections against businesses monopolizing or forming groups to force an issue (ie getting a league of businesses to agree that EVERY such establishment must allow it and banding together to put competition out of business). I would also add that I would want that employee agreement to be iron-clad so that they could NEVER win a later lawsuit, nor could they obtain healthcare at taxpayer expense.

And obviously truly public areas should remain smoke free whenever possible, as must required services (for instance you can't REQUIRE people to go somewhere where their health could be in jeapordy, rather that place is private or not).

You really weaken your own argument about pretending to care for employee rights.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Nothing irrrational about believing people have the right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. They should not have to choose between having a job, and their health. If someone wants to work around a bunch of drunks in a bar, (and I don't personally understand why they would) then they should have the right to do so without damaging their health...



You still sound like a typical republican apologist lawyer for one of the tobacco companies.

And you sound like a troll without an argument. I didn't know McOwen had so many accounts.

Sorry dipsh*t...not dave. YOU appear to be trolling with the argument of RIGHTS. What about the rights of those who don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace? Should they have to quit and find a different job, just so you can smoke while you drink a beer?
You seem to be ignoring all the valid arguments, just so you can sit on your high-horse and rant about "rights", while ignoring the rights of others...

Text <- you

And those who don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have the right to seek employment elsewhere. They don't have to quit, because they don't even have to apply there to begin with. Or don't feed us this bullsh!t about me smoking and drinking a beer... you're the fsckin' dirty smoker here!

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mattpegher
To top it off I personnally diagnose about 20 cases of newly diagnosed tobacco related lung cancer a year. Not to mention the increase mortality and morbitity of cardiac disease, emphysema, COPD, Stroke, Bronchitis, Pneumonia. Smokers are no better than any other addict you just can't face the fact that your a burden on the rest of society. I suggest that when you get sick, not if, when you be allowed to sit on an ice raft and float of toward the northpole like an aged inuit, so that you no longer burden us with your I wish I had quit when I was young. The number of aged smokers is grossly over exaggerated due to anecdotal stories.

Yes, and we all know how helpful draconian laws have been for all those other addicts....

Vic, you obviously enjoy a heated argument but I am afraid your too engrossed in your own points to listen to any of the valid points made. Society, especially in the US cannot allow the individual to harm himself or others. I often have to physically and medically restrain people who show a possible danger to themselves or others, and in a better by-gone era we could let the opium-addict die in the gutter, but our litigenous society requires the government to step in and save people from themselves.

Multiple legal precidents and OSHA policy have been established that state that an employer cannot as requirement of employment establish a dangerous work environment. I could have chosen not to do asbestos abatement while in undergraduate but my employer could not have as a condition of employment required me to do so without proper protective measures.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, I find it CENTRAL to the argument at hand. You don't want businesses losing their rights. I claim that businesses must be controlled by somone that isn't a business. I say that the smoking issue is just another safety control, you say it's something else. Again, that seems to be central to the discussion.

So you believe that businesses DO require control? Ok, who gets to have that control? Just come out and actually answer something...anything.

No, I don't care about businesses. That is just an argument you made up. It is NOT central to the argument at hand. As I have proven repeatedly, that is just the straw man you keep beating up on.

I don't want people losing their rights.

No matter who those people are. Smokers or non-smokers, business owners or employees. We all have the absolute right to equal protection under the law. Not one set of rights for one group and another set for another group, according to your prejudices.

How fsckin' hard is that for you to understand? Businesses are people. Government is people. We are all people. Your fantastic mysticism separating people from business and government is ridiculous and delusional.

You haven't proven anything as far as I've seen. Prove to me that it isn't central. I don't want people losing their rights either. I'm a person. I have the right to not be poisoned. Cody's Bar and Grill is not a person. It's a building. While Cody has PERSONAL rights, his business has social responsibilities, as covered under the law. Cody has the right to not be poisoned as well. He can surrender that right, but he can not force others to surrender that right. Yes, people have the right to not enter Cody's Bar and Grill, but what happens when people are required to go to, say, a vehicle licensing agency which allows smoking? Now we're forced to poison ourselves. What about when Cody and all his smoking angry buddies get together and force other businesses out to increase their own profits? Or when Cody gives money to a politician to pass legislation making it hard for new Bars to start in the area?

Those are the issues at hand, and the answer is that there must be non-business oversight of businesses.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mattpegher
To top it off I personnally diagnose about 20 cases of newly diagnosed tobacco related lung cancer a year. Not to mention the increase mortality and morbitity of cardiac disease, emphysema, COPD, Stroke, Bronchitis, Pneumonia. Smokers are no better than any other addict you just can't face the fact that your a burden on the rest of society. I suggest that when you get sick, not if, when you be allowed to sit on an ice raft and float of toward the northpole like an aged inuit, so that you no longer burden us with your I wish I had quit when I was young. The number of aged smokers is grossly over exaggerated due to anecdotal stories.

Yes, and we all know how helpful draconian laws have been for all those other addicts....

Vic, you obviously enjoy a heated argument but I am afraid your too engrossed in your own points to listen to any of the valid points made. Society, especially in the US cannot allow the individual to harm himself or others. I often have to physically and medically restrain people who show a possible danger to themselves or others, and in a better by-gone era we could let the opium-addict die in the gutter, but our litigenous society requires the government to step in and save people from themselves.

Multiple legal precidents and OSHA policy have been established that state that an employer cannot as requirement of employment establish a dangerous work environment. I could have chosen not to do asbestos abatement while in undergraduate but my employer could not have as a condition of employment required me to do so without proper protective measures.

I completely reject your unsubstatiated premise that society cannot allow an individual to do harm to himself (but of course I agree completely that individuals shoud not be allow to harm non-consenting others). Simply because government has grossly expanded its powers at the loss of civil rights and lawyers have profited obscenely from frivilous litigiousness does not substantiate your premise. Your own anecdotal stories don't mean anything BTW. They are simply your own personal piece of the fear-driven inductive-thinking fodder that put us in this mess.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That has NOTHING to do with what we're disucssing. Sit at home and shoot up all you want, it won't give me cancer. When you start a home meth lab that radiates the area, THEN we have a problem. Same thing applies to smoking. Cripple yourself, it's your right. But do NOT endanger others.

Textbook paranoia and media-instilled mob-driven fear here. I suggest you read up on the studies of ETS. Incidence of cancer is less than 25% in long-term smokers. For ETS, incidence is less than 1%. In fact, the initial EPA studies were shot down in federal courts because the findings were within the margin of error. WHO studies were similar.

I am glad, at least, that we cleared away the smoke of your phony altruism and fake concern for the workers and got to the real heart of the matter, which is your selfish irrational fear.

*BUZZER*

No, it is definitely about worker rights. A business has a responsibility to provide a safe work environment. Smoke is NOT safe. That's pretty simple to me. If someone was smoking near me at work and it was allowed I'd bring it up and see if a solution could be found. If not then I'd choose to endanger that co-worker in a similar fashion to make a point. If I was punished for those actions while they weren't then I'd sue for the discrimination. If that did nothing I'd quit and move on - IF and only IF, there was reason to believe that I could find employment in a safe environment. #4That seems to be essential where we're at now.

Mayo Clinic article on second-hand smoke.
#2
#3


For every study you bring up that talks about smoke not being dangerous, i'll post two that show that it is. Obviously that can go on forever. Therefore we are at this poing: Either possible dangers give rights to workers, or not.

You spent all that time digging up articles that only reinforced what I said?

Oh, and where did I say -- just once -- that smoking was not dangerous? Straw man again, dumbass. It's getting tiring watching you jack off your e-penis.

Ummm, you tried to downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke. While not stating - "smoking isn't dangerous", you ABSOLUTELY tried to infer that it wasn't a big deal. I posted links stating that it is definitely a big deal.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kami333
I like Utah. Bars can be "private clubs", then they can decide if they want smoking or not.

That sounds like a most equitable and enlightened solution.

I have always liked mine, which is that the owners get to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking, and then they have to put large boldly-printed signs at all entrances regarding that choice, along with the dangers if smoking is allowed. In addition, all prospective employees of smoking establishments would be required to sign strongly-worded notices warning them of the dangers of smoking and ETS prior to employment.

Completely agreeable, as long as there is ALSO some form of protections against businesses monopolizing or forming groups to force an issue (ie getting a league of businesses to agree that EVERY such establishment must allow it and banding together to put competition out of business). I would also add that I would want that employee agreement to be iron-clad so that they could NEVER win a later lawsuit, nor could they obtain healthcare at taxpayer expense.

And obviously truly public areas should remain smoke free whenever possible, as must required services (for instance you can't REQUIRE people to go somewhere where their health could be in jeapordy, rather that place is private or not).

You really weaken your own argument about pretending to care for employee rights.

No, actually I don't. YOU weaken your own by saying that though. It was your idea to have them sign an agreement to work in a smoking establishment. I just reinforced saying that if they surrender their rights to be safe that they can't expect later government support for their decision. I fully support the right to waive ones rights...just not at the expense of those smart enough not to waive their own.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Ummm, you tried to downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke. While not stating - "smoking isn't dangerous", you ABSOLUTELY tried to infer that it wasn't a big deal. I posted links stating that it is definitely a big deal.

ONCE AGAIN, I make a mild disagreement with you with facts, you retaliate by claiming I implied the polar extreme, even when that was obviously NOT what I said or could even have implied.

Let me repeat:

You basically make these straw men up as you go along. Such is typical of the whoever-disagrees-with-me-must-be-my-enemy mentality. Like every other idiot in P&N, if I disagree with you on a minor point, you take that to a wildly opposite extreme and make it the major basis of your argument. You probably think it works because it makes people walk away and ignore you, leaving you free to intellectually masturbate at will, but it really just makes people think you're a nutcase.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Nothing irrrational about believing people have the right to work in an environment that is not hazardous to their health. They should not have to choose between having a job, and their health. If someone wants to work around a bunch of drunks in a bar, (and I don't personally understand why they would) then they should have the right to do so without damaging their health...



You still sound like a typical republican apologist lawyer for one of the tobacco companies.

And you sound like a troll without an argument. I didn't know McOwen had so many accounts.

Sorry dipsh*t...not dave. YOU appear to be trolling with the argument of RIGHTS. What about the rights of those who don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace? Should they have to quit and find a different job, just so you can smoke while you drink a beer?

If you don't want to be exposed to it, you have every RIGHT to go elsewhere. The owner of the private property should decide if they want smoking or not. What RIGHT do you have to come on to someone's private property and demand they abide by your wishes for your convenience?

You seem to be ignoring all the valid arguments, just so you can sit on your high-horse and rant about "rights", while ignoring the rights of others...

Name one right, just one, that is being ignored. I challenge you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Ummm, you tried to downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke. While not stating - "smoking isn't dangerous", you ABSOLUTELY tried to infer that it wasn't a big deal. I posted links stating that it is definitely a big deal.

ONCE AGAIN, I make a mild disagreement with you with facts, you retaliate by claiming I implied the polar extreme, even when that was obviously NOT what I said or could even have implied.

Let me repeat:

You basically make these straw men up as you go along. Such is typical of the whoever-disagrees-with-me-must-be-my-enemy mentality. Like every other idiot in P&N, if I disagree with you on a minor point, you take that to a wildly opposite extreme and make it the major basis of your argument. You probably think it works because it makes people walk away and ignore you, leaving you free to intellectually masturbate at will, but it really just makes people think you're a nutcase.

What are you, a comedy act??? Find me ANYONE on here that doesn't think you tried to downplay the dangers in your post. Seriously.

You downplayed it, I refuted it. That's about it man. Anything else existed only in your own mind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, actually I don't. YOU weaken your own by saying that though. It was your idea to have them sign an agreement to work in a smoking establishment. I just reinforced saying that if they surrender their rights to be safe that they can't expect later government support for their decision.

Skydiving? Hang gliding? Windsurfing? Surfing? Skateboarding? Swimming? Riding a motorcycle? Riding in a car (4th leading cause of death in the US)? Shall all the people who engage in those dangerous activities (and there are many more, most of them as non-utilitarian as smoking) not expect later government support for their decisions?