Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Actually, I do apologize and take that previous clown comment back. I was just saying in another thread how I hate it when people attack other posters rather than their arguments, and here I was doing just that.
OK, I take back my IV drip comment in the spirit of fair play.
Actually, I do apologize and take that previous clown comment back. I was just saying in another thread how I hate it when people attack other posters rather than their arguments, and here I was doing just that.
You completely miss the point. It is like it is flew over your head at 50,000 ft and you don't even knew if flew by.
The purspose of the law isn't to control people's behaviour, but to protect an "innocent" class from a "violative" class, i.e. innocent non-addicts, and effluent-spewing addicts. Addicts are free to use their drug, but in places and in manners where it doesn't violate the rights of the "non-filthy innocents".
That's semantics. You just define anywhere you happen to be as somewhere that needs protection, and effectively control peoples' behavior. There is no place or manner where it doesn't violate the rights of the innocents by your reasoning. If your next door neighbor is smoking and you smell it your posts indicate you want the right to ban him from smoking in his own house. You're taking the sort of reasoning used to stop people from disturbing the peace to ridiculously exaggerated levels.
To be fair it is probably best to leave liberal and conservative out of this since the poster you are quoting, Rossi, is a die hard right winger and I am a liberal and I am on your side for this one.
Nobody is threatening anyones's rights, other than the smokers assaults upon the non-addicts. The world is the exclusive property of the smokers. Other's have rights too. The right not to be assaulted by tobacco filth.
We also is individual rights in the US. something smokers think ONLY applies to THEM. They are a pathetic lot
Yes, you are threatening smokers rights. Smokers have rights even if you don't like it.
Yes, you are threatening smokers rights. Smokers have rights even if you don't like it.
And they can exercise that right up to, but not beyond, the point where such exercise violaties the rights of others. It's a simple concept, really, but completely lost to the addict-class.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
