Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ming


I know quite a few social smokers that only smoke when they are out drinking at bars... walking the streets of Chicago is more of a hazard than the few smokes these people have... so forget the excess argument

A) That's not the argument
B) Are you saying these people would never go out drinking if they couldn't smoke?

More people die each year from drunk drivers than from second hand smoke... I'd say it sure as heck is a different threat

Drunk driving is illegal, and not a necessary (in fact quite infrequent) outcome of drinking alcohol. If I sat next to you while you got plastered, I'd only be in danger if you did something stupid and/or illegal. If I sat next to you while you smoked a pack of cigarettes, there's no way for me to avoid your second hand smoke.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kontiki
If I sat next to you while you smoked a pack of cigarettes, there's no way for me to avoid your second hand smoke.

While I may not be smart for smoking... it's my choice.
If you decided to sit next to me while I smoked a pack of cigs... that would be your choice, and also a stupid one. Yes, there is a way for you to avoid my second hand smoke... go to a smoke free bar. Maybe then, somebody might make a profit and decide it was the smart thing to do. Let the market decide.

I love how people whine about it, but do it anyway. That's what happens when you CHOOSE to visit a smoking establishment

[chequita guevara]

I've never heard of a smoke free bar.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Drunk driving is illegal, and not a necessary (in fact quite infrequent) outcome of drinking alcohol. If I sat next to you while you got plastered, I'd only be in danger if you did something stupid and/or illegal. If I sat next to you while you smoked a pack of cigarettes, there's no way for me to avoid your second hand smoke.

Lung cancer or other health problems from second hand smoke are quite infrequent, with no real proof that it didn't happen from other causes... In Illinois, somebody is arrested for drunken driving every 10 minutes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm honored to be the first against the wall.

Wall? There will be no wall involved. A very interesting assortment of things, yes, but no wall.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never heard of a smoke free bar.

I've been in many... when I ask for an ash tray, and they tell me it's smoke free, I pay for my drink and find some place else to drink.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ming
What's this Public Good stuff... If it was a matter of public good, they would outlaws bars period. Liquor is also one of the leading health hazards... Yeah, restrict the owners right to allow smoking in a bar, but make him pay for a liquor license so he can help people kill themselves with liquor... maybe if there was "allowed smoking inside license" the government would leave it alone

For "bars" in the first sentence, substitute cars, factories, meat, drugs, etc., and you'll get a sense of why it's a strawman argument.

For at least 100 years, the rights of the private businessman and the greater public good have been a balancing act. Do businesses have a right to sell tainted beef? Probably, but we don't let them. Do auto manufacturers have a right to sell cars with bumpers that can't withstand a 5 mph impact? Probably, but we don't let them. Do banks have a right to issue credit cards charging 50% interest? Probably, but...you get the idea.

We regulate business in the name of the public good, and most of us appreciate those efforts at least some of the time (I, for one, enjoy not having to personally subject the medicine I give my daughter to a battery of safety tests every time she gets a cold). And it generally doesn't happen until there's overwhelming support for the measure (as was the case with smoking bans, where municiple governments were asked to defy both local businessmen and Big Tobacco; you don't do that without serious public support). When there's not enough public support, though, all the liberal whining in the world can't interfere with people's "rights" (see here gun control).

In short: it's not an absolute right, and is thus subject to democratic adjudication. And in a democracy, sometimes your side loses and you just have to suck it up. Trust me, I know; I'm a Democrat.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
People who smoke an occasional cigarette are no different than people that walk the streets of Chicago during rush hour.

Given that if those smokers live in Chicago, its unlikely they face any less stress than anyone else living there, the added tar and carcinogens they take in probably means they do have it worst.

Pollution can endanger your life... and the only law against car polution in most states is that cars have to pass an emissions test... the cars still cause pollution... and the buses and trucks just pollute at will. These are FAR WORSE than second hand smoke. But I don't see people saying TAKE MY CAR AWAY so that everybody will be healthier

The difference here is that internal combustion vehicles serve a purpose, and thus people are willing to accept some cost/benefit trade-off. Ther is no purpose, other than personal gratification, for puffing the smoke of burning rolled up tobacoo leaves. I don;t see masturbation in public becoming public anyimte soon, even thought it "hurts" other far less than smoking.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never heard of a smoke free bar.

Go to Vancouver - the laws are in effect there. Amazingly, the bars are every bit as full as they were before.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
The difference here is that internal combustion vehicles serve a purpose, and thus people are willing to accept some cost/benefit trade-off. Ther is no purpose, other than personal gratification, for puffing the smoke of burning rolled up tobacoo leaves.

And there is no "personal gratification" in driving a 12 cylinder sports car... a Bently... SUV's that will never see a minute off road...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


And there is no "personal gratification" in driving a 12 cylinder sports car... a Bently... SUV's that will never see a minute off road...

Yes, there is personal gratification there, ONT TOP OF the ability to get from point A to point B.

When you can ride a cigarette from the supermarket to your home, or you can strap cargo and go from the local port to the neighborhood retailer on a large moving cigar, THEN you can compare cigarettes to cars.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, there is personal gratification there, ONT TOP OF the ability to get from point A to point B.

Yeah... but you are doing FAR MORE damage to the WORLD then the effects of second hand smoke. We have to think about Public Safety... remember

You could be causing the end of life on this planet as we know it... far more dangerous than second hand smoke

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming


While I may not be smart for smoking...

QFT !!



Not all my choices are the smartest either but I seem to have avoided addictions

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never heard of a smoke free bar.

Calgary is half-way-- A good chunk of bars are smoke free including any restaurants that want to be allowed to have children inside (but do also serve alcohol)

There is talk of a complete smoking ban in teh future but I believe thats still a ways off

[GePap]

Its like you think the " " smiley allows you to be clueless about certian points.

We already heavily regulate emmission from combustion engines, but economic collapse would probably be far more injurious to the environment and public safety than the abolition of a vice is.

Let me put this in a way thatMIGHT, JUST MIGHT, get thought that " " defense of yours (sadly, one too commonly applied by you).

All laws are a cost, benefit analysis. The benefits of cigarettes are so minimal and inconsequential to society that banning or regulating their use stringently is easy, and thus there is no reason not to. Combustion engines are curcial to the modern industrial economy, and thus regulation on the use of these must balance the economic needs of society with the safety concerns of the public.

Now, I am sure you will dismiss this simple yet obvious explination with more mindless " ", but that does reach a point of becoming childish.