U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 09-02-2011, 02:08 AM
ino
 
Location: Way beyond the black stump.
684 posts, read 1,166,424 times
Reputation: 931
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take from you everything you have"...{Gerald R Ford}.

A quote well worth remembering by the people of all Nations. And I'm sure there are numerous rights and/or privileges which have been ticked off or rubbed out over the years, one by one, and involving people from all Nations as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 09-03-2011, 10:46 AM
 
1,232 posts, read 787,575 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
There is NO proof that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, and even less that "2nd or 3rd hand smoke" causes cancer or other health risks.

Forcing private business owners to regulate who can and can't smoke in their businesses is absurd anf too big brother for me.

We have a TON of uber militant anti-smokers in this area (that are against smoking pollution), and I try and make a deal with them. I will smoke as many cigarettes as I can in a 30 min time frame in an enclosed room with as little ventilation as possible, and they can be in a similar room with car exhaust for the same amount of time, asn after, we will see who fares better. No one has taken me up on it yet. So obviously, if you are complaining about air pollution concerning smokers, you have more important things to rally your cause around that a cigarette.

I know smoking is bad for you, it is MY choice to smoke, I know the risks. But to say that the health hazards of air pollution caused by smoking, and NOT say anything about automobile exhaust is quite frankly ignorant.
There's a difference. People drive because they HAVE to. Why else would gas prices be flirting with $4.00 a gallon, almost constantly? We all gripe about it but do we put our cars away? No! Why? Because we HAVE to drive!

Nobody HAS to smoke. Everyone could live a perfectly good, happy, healthy life without smoking. If a smoker quits smoking, his/her quality of life doesn't decrease at all... if anything, it gets better because he/she is able to breathe better and will likely live longer.

So the argument against smoking is that it is absolutely unnecessary and that's why regulating it shouldn't make a difference. Someone doesn't like the regulations? Quit smoking, and not only will you not have to deal with them but your life will be BETTER as a result!

If anyone would argue that vehicular transportation is unnecessary, let's see them give it up completely. And that means no public buses, trains, etc. either. You walk, or ride in/on some vehicle that is powered by a human or by some other beast of burden.

Yeah. I didn't think that'd fly either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-03-2011, 10:56 AM
 
1,232 posts, read 787,575 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Our Constitution affords us certain inalienable rights and privileges when we’re born, so we’re born with them. Nobody gives them to us. It was made so that the government and or the majority of the people could not oppress the minority. Moreover, since the government didn’t give us these rights, they could not take them away. This is how our Constitution differs from those in other countries. In other countries, I believe their government gives them the rights, so…

Hence, nobody has to understand why anybody would smoke. If you don’t like people smoking, avoid them. It is possible, trust me, I lived for several decades before Moderator cut: Avoid hyperbole and charged language laws banned smoking in nearly every public and private place.

As a boy, I was frequently given cigarette money, and told to go to the store for the old ladies in the neighborhood. As a reward, I was permitted to keep the change. I never had any interest in smoking. I thought that it stank. By the time I was ten, I knew that cigarette smoking was bad for one’s health. I didn’t need graphic adverts to show me. I knew.

This entire debate really depresses me because of how our Constitution is being treated like a piece of paper. I truly wish that our forefathers would have included, these are your rights, and anybody speaking out against them may be summarily executed.

Second hand smoke is fabricated by those that stood to gain, the propaganda machine duped the public into believing it, and poof! We’re now a country full of prudes, zealots, and selfish people. Whenever I see some sort of debate, proposed law, and the like with charts, graphs, and Ph.Ds begging the public to support a bill/law, I always ask myself, who stands to gain, this is probably unconstitutional, and it’s most likely lies and propaganda.

Short of real crime the likes of murder, rape, and robbery, I can think of a lot of things I don’t like in this country, but I do not support a law that bans them. This country has far too much government, and it really sickens me. The only thing that’s worse are people that have no clue how we’re supposed to be a free constitutional republic and those that cannot deal with other people exercising their liberties simply because they don’t agree with them…

With the person that I've quoted, I cannot get over the proposals. If I had a belief system like this, I’d want to ban swimming with sharks, swimming in the ocean because of dangerous things that live there, and nobody would be permitted to go where there are dangerous wild animals. Nobody would be able to drive cars due to their inherent dangers. People that live in Hurricane Alley, the west coast, and all along our Gulf and East coast would have to move because they’re putting themselves, their families, and emergency responders in danger due to hurricanes, nor’easters, and mud slides as well as expansive forest fires, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Moreover, these same people are drain on our economy because they’re living in dangerous locations, and the entire nation has to bail them out with each new natural disaster. Kids under the age of ten wouldn’t be able to swim because swimming/water/accidental drowning is the number one killer of people 10/12 and under.

“Hey! Don’t do that! It could be hazardous to your health, those around you, and those that come to rescue you! Exercise some common sense man!”
Secondhand smoke DOES have negative health consequences. If you don't believe that, I can gather up an army of people who start coughing and get headaches when they're around secondhand smoke for a certain amount of time. (I will be their commanding general, as I suffer those maladies when in an enclosed area with smoke.)

All of the stuff you mentioned is largely ridiculous because someone who lives in Hurricane Alley is only endangering himself... not others. Nobody else is subjected to something hazardous to their health (or even just aromatically unpleasant) as a result of someone choosing to live in Hurricane Alley... unless that person is a slob, in which case his choice to live in Hurricane Alley is irrelevant to this argument.

Someone who swims with sharks is only endangering himself. Someone who lives in a disaster-prone area is only endangering himself. And the only reason why our government bails out people who suffer from natural disasters is because that's what the American people wanted... a socialist "safety net" government that will take care of them. Nanny state, for sure. (Did you know that President Grover Cleveland, a DEMOCRAT, spoke out very adamantly AGAINST nanny-state government interference even after natural disasters? His view was that people will help each other and he was right. When his federal government refused to give aid to disaster-stricken areas, Americans came through and gave even more than what was needed.)

I don't support laws banning most things either but I sure do support laws banning things that step on my rights or my quiet enjoyment of life. Nobody complains about (for example) noise regulations in nice residential neighborhoods... after all, who wants to hear a heavy metal band practicing outdoors at midnight? But really, are they harming anyone? Maybe by interrupting their sleep... ultimately it's just a serious nuisance, and that's why there are noise regulations. Cigarette smoke is a nuisance, and that's why it should be regulated. If you want to smoke, smoke in the privacy of your own home. When your smoke gets into my breathing air, I have a right to complain.

(By the way, I really don't want smoking to be regulated, personally. I would prefer to be able to beat the ever-loving tar out of anyone who dares to smoke such that I can smell it. But since permitting that type of activity is likely to cause our society to degrade into anarchy, regulation seems the more pleasant way of ensuring that people who don't want to smell cigarette smoke don't have to.)

And by the way, to all of you who say that secondhand smoke is a myth: Do you really believe that all of the carcinogens and toxic chemicals are absorbed by the FIRST smoker's lungs, and everything that is expelled from that person is merely stinky and not toxic?

Last edited by RomaniGypsy; 09-03-2011 at 10:59 AM.. Reason: add
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-03-2011, 02:20 PM
 
878 posts, read 382,496 times
Reputation: 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Secondhand smoke DOES have negative health consequences. If you don't believe that, I can gather up an army of people who start coughing and get headaches when they're around secondhand smoke for a certain amount of time. (I will be their commanding general, as I suffer those maladies when in an enclosed area with smoke.)

All of the stuff you mentioned is largely ridiculous because someone who lives in Hurricane Alley is only endangering himself... not others. Nobody else is subjected to something hazardous to their health (or even just aromatically unpleasant) as a result of someone choosing to live in Hurricane Alley... unless that person is a slob, in which case his choice to live in Hurricane Alley is irrelevant to this argument.

Someone who swims with sharks is only endangering himself. Someone who lives in a disaster-prone area is only endangering himself. And the only reason why our government bails out people who suffer from natural disasters is because that's what the American people wanted... a socialist "safety net" government that will take care of them. Nanny state, for sure. (Did you know that President Grover Cleveland, a DEMOCRAT, spoke out very adamantly AGAINST nanny-state government interference even after natural disasters? His view was that people will help each other and he was right. When his federal government refused to give aid to disaster-stricken areas, Americans came through and gave even more than what was needed.)

I don't support laws banning most things either but I sure do support laws banning things that step on my rights or my quiet enjoyment of life. Nobody complains about (for example) noise regulations in nice residential neighborhoods... after all, who wants to hear a heavy metal band practicing outdoors at midnight? But really, are they harming anyone? Maybe by interrupting their sleep... ultimately it's just a serious nuisance, and that's why there are noise regulations. Cigarette smoke is a nuisance, and that's why it should be regulated. If you want to smoke, smoke in the privacy of your own home. When your smoke gets into my breathing air, I have a right to complain.

(By the way, I really don't want smoking to be regulated, personally. I would prefer to be able to beat the ever-loving tar out of anyone who dares to smoke such that I can smell it. But since permitting that type of activity is likely to cause our society to degrade into anarchy, regulation seems the more pleasant way of ensuring that people who don't want to smell cigarette smoke don't have to.)

And by the way, to all of you who say that secondhand smoke is a myth: Do you really believe that all of the carcinogens and toxic chemicals are absorbed by the FIRST smoker's lungs, and everything that is expelled from that person is merely stinky and not toxic?
They are doing just that since second hand smoking hasn't been enough, now there is THIRD HAND SMOKING. If you breathe the smell of smoke on somebody's clothes, you will get CANCER. You want to talk about FEAR mongling? Give it up guys. That is about as credible as short people are at increased risk of heart attacks because their mothers didn't eat right and that is why there are SHORT. When doctors, and pill manufacturingers, are hawing their services on TV like used car salesmen, their creditability goes down to ZERO. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-03-2011, 04:40 PM
 
643 posts, read 443,377 times
Reputation: 1687
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
There's a difference. People drive because they HAVE to. Why else would gas prices be flirting with $4.00 a gallon, almost constantly? We all gripe about it but do we put our cars away? No! Why? Because we HAVE to drive!

Nobody HAS to smoke. Everyone could live a perfectly good, happy, healthy life without smoking. If a smoker quits smoking, his/her quality of life doesn't decrease at all... if anything, it gets better because he/she is able to breathe better and will likely live longer.

So the argument against smoking is that it is absolutely unnecessary and that's why regulating it shouldn't make a difference. Someone doesn't like the regulations? Quit smoking, and not only will you not have to deal with them but your life will be BETTER as a result!

If anyone would argue that vehicular transportation is unnecessary, let's see them give it up completely. And that means no public buses, trains, etc. either. You walk, or ride in/on some vehicle that is powered by a human or by some other beast of burden.

Yeah. I didn't think that'd fly either.
First and off topic, nobody has to drive. Your driving license is a privilege not a right. Additionally, if everybody would quit driving, we could move to mass transit. Mass transit is not only safer, it’s much faster in heavily populated area, and it’s exponentially friendlier to the environment and our economy. It would remove all sorts of irresponsible drivers off of the road as well.

Second, People that are against smoking neither have to support nor understand it. The Constitution is clear, a person’s body is their own property, and they’re free to do with it what they want. People engage in all types of dangerous and unhealthy behavior. Nobody is twisting people’s arms to eat unhealthy, smoke, and drink. Additionally, nobody forces people to live in areas prone to frequent natural disasters. If one doesn’t like smoking, don’t smoke. Second hand smoke is a myth. I’ve lived with smokers most of my life. It’s a rather annoying and filthy habit as well as having possible negative side effects for the smoker in years to come, but it never caused me to wake up and cough up phlegm, develop a smoker’s cough, and all that’s associated with smokers.

Third, nobody’s forcing anybody to smoke. In fact, it’s the other way around. Non-smoking want to be some fascist dictator are forcing their beliefs onto others. People that smoke know it’s not good for them, so why bother waging a war against those that smoke? All it does is breed contention and resentment. The worst offenders of this are ex-smokers. The aforementioned people remind me of born again Christians. Nobody wants to have needless laws imposed upon them that take away their basic rights.

Back to your public transportation premise and going further off topic: Prior to the auto, America had the best mass transit system in the world. Other countries that are as developed or more developed than us use it, so it is possible to do away with cars.

The entire argument about this nanny state belief system that people are proposing against smokers is that since we’ve begun banning things because they have negative health affects, what’s next? I’ve seen this over and over during my 46 years on the planet. I was raised by old people from the 1800s. At a very young age and throughout my life, I've had anti-government sentiment shoved down my throat. I was made aware of how the government was becoming over reaching and with the passage of one harmless law, there’s always more intrusive legislation passed. Smoking is nearly banned along with many other things in this country. Once the door's opened for this type of legislation, it’s going to lead to more.

If you’re not in tiptop physical health, able to run 6-minute miles indefinitely, have a sculpted muscular build, and only eat health foods, you’re next on the hit list after smokers.

People have the right to smoke. Is it annoying? Yes, it is. However, I find religion, fat people, and those with ghetto vernacular equally or more bothersome, as well as those that bang on about their lives and many other things. Most of all, I find those that buy foreign products so annoying that I often catch myself wishing for a summary execution order, so I could dispatch those that do not buy domestic products. Should there be a law against unhealthy lifestyles, and the other ridiculous things I've brought up? Absolutely not, and The Constitution of the United States of America affords each and everyone of us these inalienable rights to do with our bodies as we choose. If one finds themselves bothered by other people exercising their liberties, I say, “Put a skirt on or bloke up!” America really needs to harden Moderator cut: language up!

Unfortunately, we’ve gone from a free constitutional republic to an indirect democracy. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

I am absolutely against all warning labels on products. If one doesn’t take the time to learn how to use something safely or chooses to engage in unhealthy lifestyles, so be it. It’s called personal responsibility, and we as a nation do not need prudes, zealots, and draconian laws, as well as the litigious society it’s spawned because there wasn’t a warning lable/law to impose strict belief systems on a supposed free people.

Last edited by TheViking85; 09-03-2011 at 07:57 PM.. Reason: Misspells and general grammatical errors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-03-2011, 08:10 PM
 
1,232 posts, read 787,575 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
First and off topic, nobody has to drive. Your driving license is a privilege not a right. Additionally, if everybody would quit driving, we could move to mass transit. Mass transit is not only safer, it’s much faster in heavily populated area, and it’s exponentially friendlier to the environment and our economy. It would remove all sorts of irresponsible drivers off of the road as well.
If you think people don't have to drive, let's take away every American's car/truck/motorized vehicle for just one little month. Tell me that wouldn't wreak havoc on our way of life. Did people live before driving? Sure. But now that we do drive, there's no way to get around that quickly. We could go back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, but not overnight. If people were suddenly not permitted to drive, my business would die and I would go bankrupt. Most people live more than 5 miles from where they work... I'd like to see them all ride bikes to work.

Mass transit is motorized... again, not very helpful to your argument. We need to use vehicles that emit pollution, or consume electricity which is generated by pollution-creating generators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Second, People that are against smoking neither have to support nor understand it. The Constitution is clear, a person’s body is their own property, and they’re free to do with it what they want. People engage in all types of dangerous and unhealthy behavior. Nobody is twisting people’s arms to eat unhealthy, smoke, and drink. Additionally, nobody forces people to live in areas prone to frequent natural disasters. If one doesn’t like smoking, don’t smoke.
I agree with you, but I've been talking about public smoking bans and the like. If people did what they wished with their own bodies, and it never affected anyone else's body (such as my body, which is MY property), I wouldn't say anything. But when I have to smell someone else's smoke, and my possessions are destroyed and my loved ones killed by irresponsible people who choose to drink or use drugs, I am going to speak out against the vices even if it infringes upon someone else's freedom. My freedom is infringed upon when I have to suffer any consequences based upon someone else's "freedom of choice".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Second hand smoke is a myth. I’ve lived with smokers most of my life. It’s a rather annoying and filthy habit as well as having possible negative side effects for the smoker in years to come, but it never caused me to wake up and cough up phlegm, develop a smoker’s cough, and all that’s associated with smokers.
You may have become immune to it over the years. Heaven knows, smokers can do two packs per day and never cough up a lung when they puff... but I guarantee you, if I were to take one puff on a cigarette right now, I would cough so badly I'd be gasping for air and I'd probably puke up all of the food I ate today. (Makes me wonder why anyone would want to start smoking, for sure.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Third, nobody’s forcing anybody to smoke.
If I smell smoke, I am inhaling smoke. All that smokers do is inhale smoke... then exhale it. So, I am actually smoking at those times. It is said that one hour in a smoky bar is akin to smoking two full cigarettes. I should know this because I used to DJ in a bar and the only way I avoided destroying my respiratory system was by sitting in the draft of a powerful air purifier that I brought with me to every gig. Even at that, I and my equipment would stink to high heaven at the end of the night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
In fact, it’s the other way around. Non-smoking want to be some fascist dictator are forcing their beliefs onto others. People that smoke know it’s not good for them, so why bother waging a war against those that smoke? All it does is breed contention and resentment. The worst offenders of this are ex-smokers. The aforementioned people remind me of born again Christians. Nobody wants to have needless laws imposed upon them that take away their basic rights.
I agree with you in principle. But my basic rights include the aforementioned right to do with my body as I wish, since it is my property. That includes breathing clean air all the time. When I smell cigarette smoke, it infringes upon my basic rights... so I favor regulation of smoking because of what you just said... the protection of my basic rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Back to your public transportation premise and going further off topic: Prior to the auto, America had the best mass transit system in the world. Other countries that are as developed or more developed than us use it, so it is possible to do away with cars.
If you're talking about trains, they existed for maybe 70 years prior to the car. And they belched huge clouds of black smoke & soot into the air in the process. Again, I agree with you. But what you're saying does not do anything to rebut the point I made, about how we NEED to use polluting forms of transportation to maintain our lifestyle. (Even horses would poop all over the place... you can't get away from it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
The entire argument about this nanny state belief system that people are proposing against smokers is that since we’ve begun banning things because they have negative health affects, what’s next? I’ve seen this over and over during my 46 years on the planet. I was raised by old people from the 1800s. At a very young age and throughout my life, I've had anti-government sentiment shoved down my throat. I was made aware of how the government was becoming over reaching and with the passage of one harmless law, there’s always more intrusive legislation passed. Smoking is nearly banned along with many other things in this country. Once the door's opened for this type of legislation, it’s going to lead to more.
Agreed. However, if something infringes upon your personal rights, wouldn't you get mad about it? Laws should be designed to protect our basic rights as long as we have not committed a heinous crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
If you’re not in tiptop physical health, able to run 6-minute miles indefinitely, have a sculpted muscular build, and only eat health foods, you’re next on the hit list after smokers.
I doubt it. You looked at our Congresspeople lately?

When was the last time any Congressperson legislated anything that would adversely affect HIM or HER?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
People have the right to smoke.
Agreed. And they have the right NOT to smoke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Is it annoying? Yes, it is. However, I find religion, fat people, and those with ghetto vernacular equally or more bothersome, as well as those that bang on about their lives and many other things. Most of all, I find those that buy foreign products so annoying that I often catch myself wishing for a summary execution order, so I could dispatch those that do not buy domestic products. Should there be a law against unhealthy lifestyles, and the other ridiculous things I've brought up? Absolutely not, and The Constitution of the United States of America affords each and everyone of us these inalienable rights to do with our bodies as we choose. If one finds themselves bothered by other people exercising their liberties, I say, “Put a skirt on or bloke up!” America really needs to harden the **** up!
Agreed. However, religion is easy to avoid. People who go to church won't be in your face about religion unless you attack them in some way. Fat people? Please. When was the last time a fat person ever did anything to you which infringed upon your basic rights in any way? Ghetto vernacular? I don't like it either, but by itself, it doesn't infringe upon your rights unless obscenities you find offensive are used. Statistics point very heavily toward how its users are more likely to infringe upon the basic rights of the innocent than are people who do not speak in ghetto vernacular, but even that probably has very little to do with the vernacular itself. As for foreign products... yeah, I'm with you... but when was the last time you could purchase an American-made consumer electronic product, for example?

I do believe that I have the inalienable right to do with my body as I choose. That includes breathing air that is free from nasally observable quantities of chemicals indicative of cigarette-smoke-borne carcinogens. (The most stinky chemical itself, acrolein, is not carcinogenic, to my knowledge.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
Unfortunately, we’ve gone from a free constitutional republic to an indirect democrazy. A democrazy is nothing more than mob rule.
Sad, isn't it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolillo_loco View Post
I am absolutely against all warning labels on products. If one doesn’t take the time to learn how to use something safely or chooses to engage in unhealthy lifestyles, so be it. It’s called personal responsibility, and we as a nation do not need prudes, zealots, and draconian laws, as well as the litigious society it’s spawned because there wasn’t a warning lable/law to impose strict belief systems on a supposed free people.
Again, I agree. I think warning labels are stupid, and I think that judge who heard the case of the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee burned her when she clumsily spilled it on herself should've told her "You brain-dead idiot, EVERYONE knows that coffee is hot... and if you didn't know, then you're not smart enough to be able to do anything worthwhile with the money you're asking for. CASE DISMISSED."

However, the problem about cigarette warning labels is a government problem... and it's called Medicare / Medicaid. If American taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill for some moron who smoked himself/herself into a situation where he needs five tanks of oxygen every day just to avoid self-suffocation, I'd say we don't need warning labels. We'd still have to stay away from advertising though... because everyone can agree that there's nothing fair about advertising a product that is unquestionably detrimental to your health as being good for you. (At least there is no such thing as a totally unhealthy food. Think of the unhealthiest food you can imagine... I can promise you that that food can be included in a balanced diet. Even the ills everyone mentions, like fat and sodium, are necessary to the human body in certain quantities. When I was in college, I ate 8,000-10,000 calories every day... and most of them were "unhealthy" calories. Even still, I maintained a healthy weight, could run a sub-7-minute mile despite being asthmatic, and could bench-press 150% of my body weight. Food is not categorically bad.)

Last edited by RomaniGypsy; 09-03-2011 at 08:16 PM.. Reason: add
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top