Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should I go along with my scheme?
Yes, do it, dude. 17 43.59%
No, don't do it, dude. 22 56.41%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-20-2008, 01:30 PM
 
10,239 posts, read 19,597,707 times
Reputation: 5943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by djf863000 View Post
We all breath the same air. The Cleaner the better.A smoke free environment is better for all of us.
I agree. In your own home and place of business, do all you can to keep it so! And do it according to the dictates of your own standards and concience. Meanwhile, let others do it according to theirs!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2008, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Manitoba
793 posts, read 2,212,841 times
Reputation: 277
ok then send all the smokers to mars. They could smoke all they want there without polluting our air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,685,448 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
I agree. In your own home and place of business, do all you can to keep it so! And do it according to the dictates of your own standards and concience. Meanwhile, let others do it according to theirs!
In their own homes, yes. And if they own a business and have no employees, that's OK too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 02:12 PM
 
10,239 posts, read 19,597,707 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
In their own homes, yes.
The truth is though, even if I were to concede that point (which I absolutely DON'T LOL) is that it would never stop with that because it never does. There are zealots out there (and if the shoe fits, wear it) who would and will cheerfully pass laws (in the name of the public good,,,or FOR "our" own good, of course) to ban smoking in private homes. That is why I just say, be honest and get it over with. To wit...get a movement going to ban smoking completely. Pass a federal law. Then we can all have a fair fight...

But back to the main point, Katiana? You have yet to answer as to why you believe that government regulations banning smoking in private businses will stop with such. What if I want to get a bunch of self-interested people together to lobby government to ban too much perfume? Is there any precedent that will stop me? No matter how LUDICROUS it might seem...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,637,581 times
Reputation: 11084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Who said George Burns died of lung cancer? Not me! I have no idea what he died of.
You said smoking causes lung cancer. George Burns smoked. So George Burns should have died of lung cancer. Unless your premise is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,637,581 times
Reputation: 11084
Quote:
Originally Posted by djf863000 View Post
Restaurant are already smoke free in Canada and France. Maybe it is time for the US to do the same.
Carabba's isn't. Neither is Whiskey Creek, a steak house. Lots of BBQ places aren't.

That smoke comes from the fuel they burn to cook the food though. Maybe they should only be permitted to use electric heat to cook the meat?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,637,581 times
Reputation: 11084
Quote:
Originally Posted by djf863000 View Post
We all breath the same air. The Cleaner the better.A smoke free environment is better for all of us.
Let's cut out driving. Let's stop burning fuel to generate electricity or heat. No coal plants, no oil refineries. Use nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, or wind power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,685,448 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
The truth is though, even if I were to concede that point (which I absolutely DON'T LOL) is that it would never stop with that because it never does. There are zealots out there (and if the shoe fits, wear it) who would and will cheerfully pass laws (in the name of the public good,,,or FOR "our" own good, of course) to ban smoking in private homes. That is why I just say, be honest and get it over with. To wit...get a movement going to ban smoking completely. Pass a federal law. Then we can all have a fair fight...

But back to the main point, Katiana? You have yet to answer as to why you believe that government regulations banning smoking in private businses will stop with such. What if I want to get a bunch of self-interested people together to lobby government to ban too much perfume? Is there any precedent that will stop me? No matter how LUDICROUS it might seem...?
I guess my answer is that I don't agree with the logic. You could say that about virtually any law that is passed. "If we outlaw murder, what will be next?", etc. I think we need to stick to the subject at hand, which is cigarette smoke, not purfume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
You said smoking causes lung cancer. George Burns smoked. So George Burns should have died of lung cancer. Unless your premise is wrong.
Here is your answer to that. Of course, not all smokers die of lung cancer. Some die of other causes related to smoking, e.g. stroke, heart attack and other cancers of the mouth, larynx, bladder, etc. Some die of non-smoking related causes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
. I never claimed that cigarette smoking isn't unhealthy. Smokers face an 8% chance of getting lung cancer (of which over 90% of patients diagnosed die within 5 years) in their lifetime, which is about 26 times greater than a non-smoker.

Firsthand smoking not only has statistical studies to back up the dangers (which show much larger increases and have far fewer ambiguous conflicting studies), but also plenty of toxicology evidence and animal studies that accurately replicated the effects of long-term smoking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 03:46 PM
 
10,239 posts, read 19,597,707 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I guess my answer is that I don't agree with the logic. You could say that about virtually any law that is passed. "If we outlaw murder, what will be next?", etc. I think we need to stick to the subject at hand, which is cigarette smoke, not purfume.
I could...but I dont...because the analogy doesn't apply. Murder, rape, violations of person and property (on some level) have been, consistently, thru the ages -- regardless of who, what, and where -- acts which outraged normal standards of human behavior and have been thus punished.

Smoking doesn't fit in the same class. Not even remotely! In fact, the very remote suggestion is itself...welll, insane! It isn't illegal, and although it may be a nasty habit (as I say, I am an ex-smoker) there is nothing inherently immoral about it.

Yes, I agree, let's stick to the subject at hand. Which comes down to smoking being banned in privately owned business concerns and places. SO? Address the point about perfume. You don't WANT to...so you shift to suit. I don't blame you a bit. If my back were to the wall, so would I do the same...perhaps!

Last edited by TexasReb; 04-20-2008 at 04:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2008, 04:17 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,689,828 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The discussion seems to be about property rights at this point. No one wants to discuss health. And I might remind you that you called me about 10 names (in another thread about smoking) and that thread was then shut down.

It IS my opinion and the opinion of most scientists that smoking, including second hand smoke, causes cancer. It seems the hard-core smokers have latched on to this property rights thing and have picked up a bunch of libertarian non-smokers along the way.
There's no "picking up" required. True libertarians have always advocated the rights of property owners, whether we smoke or not. Everyone agrees that smoking is bad for one's health, but this is not what's being debated. The debate is about using the government to force a property owner to modify the legal activities inside his/her property to cater to the desires of those he/she invites into the property.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top