RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much?

RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 1:27:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei It’s legal to drink, but then you can’t drive, because you can hurt someone… drink yourself silly at home. Noise ordinances protect the disruption of others. It’s a give and take society, or it’s no society at all. Do as you please, so long as others can do as they please at the same time. While we want to keep our rights to do as we please (in this lifestyle and beyond), we can't forget that if everyone did as they please, none of us would have any freedom at all. Don't we all lose if all of us are selfish, and is being considerate to the fellow human beings who share the same space so difficult? I guess so. Nail on the head. You do realise NG that this is a load of bollocks in regard to people smoking in bars.

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 1:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei It’s legal to drink, but then you can’t drive, because you can hurt someone… drink yourself silly at home. Noise ordinances protect the disruption of others. It’s a give and take society, or it’s no society at all. Do as you please, so long as others can do as they please at the same time. While we want to keep our rights to do as we please (in this lifestyle and beyond), we can't forget that if everyone did as they please, none of us would have any freedom at all. Don't we all lose if all of us are selfish, and is being considerate to the fellow human beings who share the same space so difficult? I guess so. Nail on the head. You do realise NG that this is a load of bollocks in regard to people smoking in bars. MC, we had about 20 pages of this last time (plus 4 here) and we've pretty much made the same points to each other every other post. Time to knock this one on the head. Nothing more to see here.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 1:55:25 PM)
quote: I don’t think smoking in one’s home should be outlawed, though where children who can’t just walk outside are present, I feel differently. Parents can go outside and smoke, but choose not to because they have the right to smoke, but don’t care about their kids’ rights to breath smoke-free air. Hypocrites I tell you… hypocrites! Would you remove the children from the home of the "hypocrites" who don't go outside, supporting a law making it illegal to smoke in a home where children are present? Because that's the distinction between saying it is not "good" or "right" and putting your opinion a child is put in danger in a smoking household. There is nothing wrong or right in that opinion by the way. But it will take a very big government and associated enforcement authorities to put everyone's opinion of what a "safe childhood" environment into effect. These enforcement authorities can be added to those policing homes for TV watching, video game violence, alcohol, drug usage, food intake, and pornography. Going around the room I would expect that each one of this issues, and more, can be rationalized into law under the guise of "protecting children". Put them all in place and the Orwellian society becomes reality. This is no longer a "slippery slope" argument it is the result and logical conclusion of a population that decides it is a government's responsibly to dictate behavior in a home.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Let me think real hard about this. In a city like Amsterdam (and this could apply to any western city) the public transport is so good no one needs to drive a car in the city. As for people who live more than a mile or two from work, well how about er......walking or riding a bike? I thought you anti-smokers were into looking after you health? Well is all leisure pollution is to be banned let's get rid of all that useless driving or barbecues or whatever because it only makes people fat and obesity is a bigger health risk than smoking in western society. Perhaps Amsterdam has great and safe public transportation, but many places do not. The fact is that many, many people still need to drive cars to make a living. How many need to smoke to make a living? I would understand if leisure driving became limited, and would hope that people ( as many are doing now) instead of pretending it's not a problem and fighting for the right to continue to pollute, would explore alternate methods to preserve our environment. I am sure you realize that many, many people are not able to walk or ride a bike 10 miles each direction to work. Also, it's cold, rainy, and unsafe in many places, and very unpractical/impossible for those in many professions to even consider such a thing. However, to not smoke in public? Just light up outside after (or during) your meal to save lives. It's that simple. Regarding your last statement, obesity is a problem almost world-wide, but the size of a person, nor how much food he consumes causes no physical harm to anyone but himself. The right to maintiain a healthy/safe body is the most important right anyone of us has. Helmet laws, smoking/obesity-related increases in all of our insurance costs can be annoying, but it does not kill or injure us. Second hand smoke, drivers who speed or DUI, rape, etc. does. That's why these laws should exist. No one has the right to inflict bodily harm on another non-consenting person.... with the exception of parents who can legally beat their small children daily... but that's another topic.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:03:51 PM)
Who cares about NEED? Free People, by definition may do whatever they wish with THEIR OWN BODIES. If someone's actions cause YOU DAMAGES, then there is a long established history of using Civil Courts to decide if damages are due, and how much.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I don’t think smoking in one’s home should be outlawed, though where children who can’t just walk outside are present, I feel differently. Parents can go outside and smoke, but choose not to because they have the right to smoke, but don’t care about their kids’ rights to breath smoke-free air. Hypocrites I tell you… hypocrites! Would you remove the children from the home of the "hypocrites" who don't go outside, supporting a law making it illegal to smoke in a home where children are present? Because that's the distinction between saying it is not "good" or "right" and putting your opinion a child is put in danger in a smoking household. There is nothing wrong or right in that opinion by the way. But it will take a very big government and associated enforcement authorities to put everyone's opinion of what a "safe childhood" environment into effect. These enforcement authorities can be added to those policing homes for TV watching, video game violence, alcohol, drug usage, food intake, and pornography. Going around the room I would expect that each one of this issues, and more, can be rationalized into law under the guise of "protecting children". Put them all in place and the Orwellian society becomes reality. This is no longer a "slippery slope" argument it is the result and logical conclusion of a population that decides it is a government's responsibly to dictate behavior in a home. Kids are people too. If it isn't legal to smoke in public indoors, then it shouldn't be legal to smoke at home with minors who are not aware of the dangers and who cannot remove themselves from such a danger if they are aware. It is not legal to allow kids to smoke or do drugs, but to smoke second handedly is ok. You are correct however, that policing this issue would cause far more problems and damage for innocent children than smoking all over them would cause. Foster homes, parental separation, jailed parents, rides in police cars.... not good solutions, but perhaps more awareness and more encouragement of children's rights, and in a perfect world a healthy helping of consideration for the small people we chose to bring into the world . Mom says that toy/tv is too noisy, kid must stop. Kid says, Mom that cigarette smoke in here makes it hard for me to breath..... oh well.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 2:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Who cares about NEED? Free People, by definition may do whatever they wish with THEIR OWN BODIES. If someone's actions cause YOU DAMAGES, then there is a long established history of using Civil Courts to decide if damages are due, and how much. Free people? Where? lol. I am not sure I get your point. No one is free to do whatever they wish with their own body... publicly. I need not prove damage to send the naked person beside me on the park bench to jail for the night. Certainly, no one is free to do as they please to my body. Public smoking causes damages and the courts in many places have decided to protect the public from the smokers who think it's okay harm others against their will.

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As Merc pointed out, passive smoking is a theory that has not been proved, especially when passive smokers appear to drop dead quicker than actual smokers. If you rape and murder somebody you have actually raped and murdered them and is pretty irrelevent to the debate. What about the issue of non-consensually involving somebody else in your kink? I did not ask to have the dinner I will be paying lots and lots of money for, or the beer I am trying to enjoy, taste like an ashtray. Figure out a way to not involve me in your addiction, and do whatever you smokers want to do. Please dont restate the tired refrain that I could go somewhere else if your cigarette bothers me; the same logic applies to you, and I am not doing anything you find objectionable. Sinergy p.s. I have a friend who was head of Oncology at a local hospital. He is a 2 pack a day smoker. I asked him once about secondhand smoke killing, the dangers of firsthand smoking, etc., and why he would keep smoking. His response is that it is almost 100% genetics whether cigarettes are going to kill you or not. I figure a cancer doctor would know.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:05:09 PM)
quote: Free people? Where? lol. I am not sure I get your point. No one is free to do whatever they wish with their own body... publicly. Frankly, Bullshit. If you're NOT free to do whatever you wish with your body, you are a Slave. If you must obey The State, then you are The States Slave. Slaves have rules they must obey from their master. Free People don't really give a shit about them, or their problems. IF I do something which causes you injury, then take me to court, otherwise, keep your Socialist attitudes about submission to The State to yourself, OK?

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I did not ask to have the dinner I will be paying lots and lots of money for, or the beer I am trying to enjoy, taste like an ashtray. p.s. I have a friend who was head of Oncology at a local hospital. He is a 2 pack a day smoker. I asked him once about secondhand smoke killing, the dangers of firsthand smoking, etc., and why he would keep smoking. His response is that it is almost 100% genetics whether cigarettes are going to kill you or not. I figure a cancer doctor would know. No one puts a gun to your head and makes you eat or drink in an establishment that allows smoking. If you are a none smoker and go into such an establishment by choice, its like wanting to eat French and going into a Chinese restuarant. Why would you do it? To complain about the food not being French enough? My doctor said more or less the same thing about lung cancer being genetic though he wasn't so concise about it. My grandfather smoked from the day he joined the army at 14 to the day he died at 99, my other grandfather smoked a similar length of time. My grandmothers never smoked or at least only passively but lived to similar old ages. I just hope there isn't a dorment killer unexpectedly waiting in my genes.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:38:26 PM)
WOW! First this: quote: demetermother smoking on the beach? and where do the butts go? in the water. pollution, destruction. just stupid people who don't give a crap about anything. their addiction is more important to them than anything. and then this: quote: MistressLorelei would make me physically ill to be confined for hours in a closed up home with smoking going on, yet parents do it all day long to their small children. Parents can go outside and smoke, but choose not to because they have the right to smoke, but don’t care about their kids’ rights to breath smoke-free air. Hypocrites I tell you… hypocrites! Those no good hypocrital destructive stupid polluting confining in cloesed up homes dont give a crap about anything not even their own children s right to breathe smoke free air.. smokers. They should all be jailed O K ...... we all good now?

adaddysgirl -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 3:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masternslave07 Quite a bit of common sense in your post. But when people have an agenda, silly things like common sense and freedom go out the door quite easily. Amazing isn't it? Yes, it is amazing. i go into peoples' houses almost every day on my job. Sometimes i will see cigarettes sitting on the table. Yet these people do not smoke in front of me and if i am there for a long time, they will often ask if i mind if they light up. And this is in their own home! i think most smokers are conscientious when smoking around others. i think most of them will go outside and just accept that is what they have to do. i really don't hear anyone saying 'i want to blow smoke in other peoples' faces'. But i don't see the anti-smokers budging an inch. i suggested allowing some smoking bars. No anti-smokers say that sounds like a viable compromise. Because they don't want to hear about compromise....they want to lay down the iron fist. When the motorcycle helmet laws were first passed, i was much younger, did not own a motorcycle and had not thought of owning one. But i recall the protesters to the law.....and i agreed. You want to get on a motorcycle and take the risk of smashing your head open? Hey....that should be your right. You are terminally ill and in a lot of pain and want to end your life....it's your call. Make it legal to do so....so people at least have that choice. Order psychiatric reports first...get several doctors opinions...whatever....but if the result is live in pain or die peacefully, then leave that decision up to the individual. And the worst offenders....DWI drivers. Sure, there are dwi laws everywhere....but people still do it. Then ban alcohol altogether! Alcohol consumption has to be one of the leading causes of death either to one's body or to others (dwi & some murders for example).....more than second hand smoke (unless someone can prove to me otherwise). But people are still allowed to drink. (Oh, that's right...they tried that once and the people basically said 'F-U...we're drinking'. Heh. The government should also decide what foods are unhealthy for us. They should close down all unhealthy restaurants so there is no chance we can eat any....nor abusively feed our children any as well. They should wipe out all the shelves and freezers of grocery stores and allow them to sell only what they deem as healthy food. All unhealthy foods banned! So where does it stop? Where do we take control of what we do...how we protect ourselves, what we eat, what we drink, etc? And who decides what's right for our kids? To all you anti-smokers....take an activity that you enjoy but might be a little risqué. The gov suddenly says 'sorry, we're banning that because we feel it poses a health risk'. Sounds like it will never happen, doesn't it? But every time we accept a law that takes the decision making about ourselves out of our hands, we take one step closer to any law becoming a possibility. How about this (as quoted from sodomy. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. from Dictionary.com website): Note: Many governments have laws against sodomy. These laws are difficult to enforce, however, and many people believe they violate personal privacy. And sodomy could include: 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. Well no shit Sherlock! Violation of personal privacy? Too bad though....all you orals, anals and gays better check your local laws. You just might be committing a crime every day....hehe. What's next? And Masternslave07, perhaps you should change your sig line to: You can lead a horse to water, but not a mule (or jackass, as the case may be).....because some will just never get it [sm=banghead.gif] DG

MistressLorelei -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 4:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Free people? Where? lol. I am not sure I get your point. No one is free to do whatever they wish with their own body... publicly. Frankly, Bullshit. If you're NOT free to do whatever you wish with your body, you are a Slave. If you must obey The State, then you are The States Slave. Slaves have rules they must obey from their master. Free People don't really give a shit about them, or their problems. IF I do something which causes you injury, then take me to court, otherwise, keep your Socialist attitudes about submission to The State to yourself, OK? What a lovely "society" you wish to live in. Free to do as you please causing harm to anyone, and IF someone else doesn't like the harm you have caused them, they can take you to court. Does that work with rape, and breaking and entering too... free to do as you please with your anatomy and your physical bodily presence until someone takes you to court? Some laws are necessary to make society function, to preserve the rights of others and to keep people safe. We are all responsible for adhering to some regulations whether we like it or not. If you want to be free to do anything you please, whenever you please, have no laws, regulations or wish to lack the ability to socialize with others in a reasoanble manner.... then find a society that allows for this. Most of the human beings in civilized nations, expect you to conduct your body in a way that will not interfere with the way they conduct their body. This is not slavery, it's human decency and common sense. And ironically you think I should not be able to post an opinion on a message board.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 4:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei Does that work with rape, and breaking and entering too... free to do as you please with your anatomy and your physical bodily presence until someone takes you to court? Some laws are necessary to make society function, to preserve the rights of others and to keep people safe. Jeez! Not the rape argument again. A man can't search his pocket for a cigarette lighter now without being compared to a rapist! Do you really know how stupid that sounds? Banning smoking in a bar is not necessary, especially if there are other bars that don't allow smoking. Now I understand all the best company are in the smoking bar but that is their choice. I have two smoking bars within a minute's walk of my home but if I want to talk to myself I'll stay at home. Now one thing I'd like to know is why all the none smoking tourists (some Americans) come into the bar I frequent and complain about the smoke? Well I suspect sitting alone in a none smoking bar sucks, especially if you have spent a lot of money to go on holiday to another country. Actually, there are two American regulars in my local bar and they say going out in Amsterdam is like heaven compared to home.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 4:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei Does that work with rape, and breaking and entering too... free to do as you please with your anatomy and your physical bodily presence until someone takes you to court? Some laws are necessary to make society function, to preserve the rights of others and to keep people safe. Jeez! Not the rape argument again. A man can't search his pocket for a cigarette lighter now without being compared to a rapist! Do you really know how stupid that sounds? Banning smoking in a bar is not necessary, especially if there are other bars that don't allow smoking. Now I understand all the best company are in the smoking bar but that is their choice. I have two smoking bars within a minute's walk of my home but if I want to talk to myself I'll stay at home. Now one thing I'd like to know is why all the none smoking tourists (some Americans) come into the bar I frequent and complain about the smoke? Well I suspect sitting alone in a none smoking bar sucks, especially if you have spent a lot of money to go on holiday to another country. Actually, there are two American regulars in my local bar and they say going out in Amsterdam is like heaven compared to home. My post was in response to the 'do anything you please or you are a slave to government' comments made by farglebargle. I am not comparing smokers to rapists, but rather was making a point that we are not free to do anything we please, and if we were free to do so, imagine what a world we would live in. I recall why I stopped frequenting this board. I am very straightforward in my comments, yet some people seem to knowingly twist what is said. Argue, disagree, debate, question all you like... but when others twist what is siad, it is a waste of time.

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 5:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver No one puts a gun to your head and makes you eat or drink in an establishment that allows smoking. If you are a none smoker and go into such an establishment by choice, its like wanting to eat French and going into a Chinese restuarant. Why would you do it? To complain about the food not being French enough? I believe the issue at hand is smokers complaining about not being able to light up in restaurants. But then, I live in California. The voters in this state passed laws stating that people cannot smoke in the workplace. People work in restaurants, erego... I say "deal with it" or... Welcome to California, now go home. Sinergy

ScooterTrash -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 5:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressYlwa I think I would try to insulate my home better, before I would let someone take another freedom away. How true. After reading the posts up to this point, it seems fruitless to try and offer any opinion, as it's quite clear that the lines have been drawn and no one is budging, but what the hell. I for one, smoke, and will do so in my own home no matter what sort of law the bureaucrats come up with. If I owned a business, I would likely be just as adamant about it as well, until they start paying the bills and the taxes, it's mine, not theirs. Call it a right, call it a freedom, call it whatever you want, but it is something that has gone on for many, many, years and hasn't been an issue until just recently. It's a symptom of the current society.. it's the "if it doesn't affect me, I don't care, they can ban it" attitude. Those in favor of banning this and that, better watch what you wish for. Sure, now it's smoking...but at some point, probably in the not so far future, you will wonder what happened when something you do is outlawed or restricted...just remember then, who opened Pandora's box.

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 5:40:38 PM)
quote: If it isn't legal to smoke in public indoors, then it shouldn't be legal to smoke at home with minors who are not aware of the dangers and who cannot remove themselves from such a danger if they are aware. Have any links to support as fact that second hand smoke has been proven a danger to anyone as of yet? Or are we still in the "maybe, might, hypothetical" stage? Your kids walking in on you in your bedroom while having sex "might" be traumatizing to your children. You now going to stop having sex in the privacy of your bedroom until all your kids are gone? Maybe just compromise a tad like the home smoker, and you can step outside..maybe put up a pup tent for moments when the mood strikes you to have sex. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

adaddysgirl -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 5:40:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I believe the issue at hand is smokers complaining about not being able to light up in restaurants. That's not how it started out Sinergy. It was about smoking in your own home but by the 3rd post, it turned to smokers smoking in bars, etc. You can argue with mc all you want but most of the 'pro smokers' on here are saying people should be allowed to smoke in their own homes, places they work hard to purchase, and perhaps be allowed a few smoking bars/ restaurants that they can freely frequent as well....and leave the anti-smokers to all the rest of the non-smoking establishments. This way i can go to Bar A that is smoking and enjoy myself and others like me...and you can go to Bar B and enjoy yourself and others like you. Or do you see this as somehow inequitable....or unfeasible? DG

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/17/2007 5:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I believe the issue at hand is smokers complaining about not being able to light up in restaurants. That's not how it started out Sinergy. It was about smoking in your own home but by the 3rd post, it turned to smokers smoking in bars, etc. You can argue with mc all you want but most of the 'pro smokers' on here are saying people should be allowed to smoke in their own homes, places they work hard to purchase, and perhaps be allowed a few smoking bars/ restaurants that they can freely frequent as well....and leave the anti-smokers to all the rest of the non-smoking establishments. This way i can go to Bar A that is smoking and enjoy myself and others like me...and you can go to Bar B and enjoy yourself and others like you. Or do you see this as somehow inequitable....or unfeasible? DG My bad. I believe I have stated previously several times that I really dont care where people smoke as long as they dont force me to deal with it when I dont feel like dealing with it. For example, I have friends who smoke. The come to my house, I ask them to smoke outside. I go out on the patio with them, close the door, and talk to them while they light up. Sinergy p.s. people who work in restaurants and bars have no choice. I do, but I have always been somebody who supports the underdog.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875