Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... that would apply to you as well.

It does? I can marry my SO just like everyone else in the US?

That's news to me, when did that happen.

And why is marrying my SO a public health issue like smoking?

I can see what you're trying to do, Ming, but you're ignoring the fundamental basis here: public health issue. This is not an issue of the majority of people saying they don't like something and it shouldn't happen when it has absolutely nothing to do with them, it's an issue of a minority of people making a decision in public that affects the health of everyone around them.

It is not an issue comparable to gay rights, no matter how desperately you want to force the comparison.

[Cort Haus]

Aeson, I see you are a man of few vices. However, the health lobby in my country have set their sights on fizzy drinks (like orangesoda) as a serious health-risk to be stamped out. Parents who allow their children to drink these things are now subject to moral opprobrium. I don't drink them myself, but I oppose the campaign against them as an assault on liberty.

I drink alcohol, but I never get nasty. Some claim that as long as there is the possibility of some people getting nasty or ill from drink, it is a public health risk and should be banned. I play in a band and I love going to see bands. Some might want to ban bands for being noisy. I'd feel like I was living in Iran if restrictions were placed on that. I love motor-racing. Extremely dangerous, obviously, and perhaps more so for the marshalls than for the drivers. Spectators can theoretically get killed, too. I'm sure some would like to ban it. I love walking over the Fells of Cumbria. Perhaps as dangerous as motor-racing. One mistake and you could die, or get seriously injured. No-one needs to do this, perhaps it should be banned for safety reasons.

I'm not trying to make excuses for smoking specifically, but to put it into a context of human activity that involves risk. For me the debate about total smoking bans is about more than smoking, it about the concept of liberty and the concept of freedom to make mistakes. How much of a sanitised society do we want to live in? Maybe the Jihadists have got a point about the evils of decadent western freedom?

Computer gaming and posting on internet forums are not risk-free activities. They might even be as dangerous as illegal drugs for some people. Should this be regulated by the state?

Where does it end? You made the following argument :

The implication you have made that an easily eliminated health risk shouldn't be addressed because other health risks exist and cannot be easily eliminated is flawed. That logic leads to the conclusion that no health/safety concerns should ever be addressed

Well, we can just as easily argue that if health risk A is eliminated, we should continue with eliminating risk B, and C and so on. This process will inevitably mean more and more government interference and regulation, until before we know it, there are more restrictions then in the USSR.

Ban teh evil computer games and fizzy drinks! ???

First they came for the smokers, but I did not complain ...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
And why is marrying my SO a public health issue like smoking?

Some might argue that it's unnatural, and destroys the fabric of society... granted, people like me don't, but if the majority feels that way, it is indeed a public health issue based on your majority argument

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Since when do cars call all air pollution?

Save yourself the time and drop it. Link to a scientific study linking the pollution caused by cars to deaths in North America.

Then compare this to the death rate caused by smoking.

Then debate how cars/trucks are essential to modern life and smoking is nothing but an addiction for weak-willed people.

Then we can come to a conclusion.

You're the... scientist... who doesn't have the simplest grasp of the facts on the topics you choose to argue.

So I think I'll leave you to find your own material or simply continue to make a fool of yourself.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

asher you have been here bitiching bout ur rights as a non smoker if not then why are u complaining? i merely stated i have the same rights you have as a smoker

[MRT144]

mrs tubes harps on rights because she doesnt understand what rights are and how we have them. shes ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

Purely observation.

Strange, I don't see anyone else making that same observation. Why don't you get off your high horse and admit that you insulted someone because you were angry and frusterated and couldn't deal with their argument?

That would be much more honest.

Why are private businesses subject to laws at all? Another stellar argument from your camp.

They are regulated in their opening times and not serving peoples' drinks once they have had enough. I fail to see how allowing smoking within a pub is a public health hazard, since if you don't go in the pub you aren't going to be affected by it.

Now you can argue that smoking harms smokers, but then you would be just like the religious right in wanting to ban things because people hurt themselves doing them.

Ming is just trying to be clever. It's not working, of course, to anyone but the radical righties who go "RIGHT ON" when he says something facetious with a wink...

I'm not the one claiming the majority has the right to outlaw the practices of the minority. You are.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Some might argue that it's unnatural, and destroys the fabric of society... granted, people like me don't, but if the majority feels that way, it is indeed a public health issue based on your majority argument

Huh???

This makes no sense, Ming.

You are comparing the right to people to harm the health of everyone around them in a public place to two people marrying eachother.

That is not a valid argument, and I'd hope you'd know that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
asher you have been here bitiching bout ur rights as a non smoker if not then why are u complaining? i merely stated i have the same rights you have as a smoker

And I've said that about a million times too, and no one has said otherwise. But you keep rambling on about it.

Have you read this thread at all?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Strange, I don't see anyone else making that same observation. Why don't you get off your high horse and admit that you insulted someone because you were angry and frusterated and couldn't deal with their argument?

That would be much more honest.

WHAT argument? That she has the "same rights as everybody else?" An argument that has never even existed because everyone agrees?

I find her incredibly annoying, which is why the observation was made in hopes she'd tone it down. YOU ONLY NEED ONE EXCLAMATION MARK!!!!!!!!!

They are regulated in their opening times and not serving peoples' drinks. I fail to see how allowing smoking within a pub is a public health hazard

Maybe you should read up on some literature. Apparently, the "smoke" emitted from "cigarettes" causes what is known as "cancer", which is also known to be "fatal".

I'm not the one claiming the majority has the right to outlaw the practices of the minority. You are.

Of course they have that right -- that's how democracy works.

There are complications, of course, such as the constitution.

If you want to make an argument in favour of smoking in public being in the constitution somehow, go right ahead, but that's not what you're saying. All you're doing now is being wildly inconsistent.

[Ben Kenobi]

mrs tubes harps on rights because she doesnt understand what rights are and how we have them. shes ignorant

I believe one of the rights is that of liberty, is it not?

Everyone is free to smoke if he wishes. Those who smoke are free to go to pubs that allow smoking if they wish to do so.

Why do adults need a nanny to tell them that smoking is bad for them? All the smokers I have seen are willing to abide by the laws set out. They respect non-smokers by not smoking in non-smoking areas. Non smokers should show the same respect by permitting smokers to exercise their rights as free citizens of America.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

gay marraige and smoking again?? how often does one come across a sign posted in a bar, in a bus or subway thats says no gay interaction?? I think the odds are, ull find a no smoking sign faster so lets get over tht real quick!! The point is i have as much right to smoke in designeated areas and if ya dont like it leave

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
I can see what you're trying to do, Ming, but you're ignoring the fundamental basis here: public health issue. This is not an issue of the majority of people saying they don't like something and it shouldn't happen when it has absolutely nothing to do with them, it's an issue of a minority of people making a decision in public that affects the health of everyone around them.

I have never advocated that smoking should be allowed everywhere. And I have no problem with smoking bans in most places. I follow them, and do resprect the rights of others.

And I have no problems if owners want to make their bars non smoking establishments. I do have a problem with the government mandating it. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking, he should be able to. Non smokers aren't FORCED to go into the establishment.

This whole... but my friends wanted to go in... or people have no choice but to work there stuff is all crap. It is your choice on whether you want to enter or not.
You don't have to be exposed to second hand smoke if yo don't want to.

Smoking is not illegal in this country. Someday it may, but now it isn't. If a bar owner wants to allow it, I say fine. Let the market decide... not the majority. Because if we let the majority always dictate to others, minorities in all areas will stay screwed...

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're the... scientist... who doesn't have the simplest grasp of the facts on the topics you choose to argue.

So I think I'll leave you to find your own material or simply continue to make a fool of yourself.

I recognize that cars contribute to smog and smog has health implications.

I also recognize how useless such an argument is, because cars, trucks, and busses are essential to modern life right now and smoking is not.

I also recognize that the vast majority of smog that kills people is not emitted by cars.

But it all comes down to "it doesn't matter" because it's not a valid comparison.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
asher you have been here bitiching bout ur rights as a non smoker if not then why are u complaining? i merely stated i have the same rights you have as a smoker

right to smoke outside vs the right to patronize establishments that dissallow smoking? which is easier to impliment? which affects more people? and which one has a positive impact on health?