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.
Same old arguments, same old missing the points every time. Same old spins and dodges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
Great then, why do you have a problem with regulations on smoking??
I have no problem with regulating smoking in truly public buildings (i.e. tax-payer supported).
I have a problem with some people using the law to tell someone else what they can do in their own business when the same are perfectly free to go elsewhere. If you don't understand it (and apparently you don't since you say yourself you are on a mission to save others from their poor choices), then there really isn't much more to talk about.
Quote:
Its funny you mention assault, because cigarette smoke has been considered assault and battery.
If you deliberately blow smoke in somebody's face, yes, it could be rightfully considered an assault. If you go into a place which you know ahead of time allows it and breathe it? Then there is no assault
Quote:
anyway, that was a side track. I think that if you think there is no conclusive evidence that smoking is harmful then you must be living in a bubble or under a rock or something.
Uhhhh, where did I say it was not harmful? Why do you think I quit quite a few years ago? I said there are differences in opinion on just how harmful second-hand smoke is, and there is. But that is neither here nor there either. If it is, then don't go where you have to breathe it. Very simple for most people to figure out.
Quote:
as for your number four, how is it an assault on property rights? I am amused an anxious to find out why you think it is.
Because the business belongs to the owner. S/he pays the bills, takes the risks, etc, etc. Who the do you think it belongs to? You? The government? A customer is free to enter and not, and the ower should be free to run it they way they see fit so long as no laws are being broken.
Quote:
1. yes, but good luck making it apply. I don't think government should regulate things done in the privacy of our homes that does not harm ourselves or others
2. See one.
What if you smoke in your home and you have small children present? What if you serve them salt or fatty foods and Nanny State decides that is a no-no? But anyway, at least you admit (by default), that there is literally no area in a private business that Nanny and Big Brother cannot concievably ban because they decide it is bad for you! Most of those on your side of the question will dodge that one (that is, why should it stop with smoking?). At least you make no bones about your own personal lack of concerns about the potential for abuse and loss of freedoms.
Quote:
3. Yes, but the law does not concern itself with whether or not you need a job so bad you will still work in a bar even with your emphysema. It regulates across the board knowing that sometimes we make bad decisions. they are looking after the health and welfare of the public at large, not solely at Htownlove, or TexasReb or Horselady.
Oh lord. Some of us don't want government to look after our every need. We prefer to make decisions for ourselves because we are grown up and can do it for ourselves. Yes, in an instance where tainted meat is served, or fire code hazards hidden, etc, then that is a public safety issue and government is justified because the average person cannot be expected to know about these things. This is NOT the case when a sign clearly says smoking is permitted.
Why don't you (and others) just skip all this and advocate for a complete prohibition law on tobacco products? This is where it is going eventually anyway, might as well get in on it. Then there will be no need for arguments of this sort.
Quote:
4. because free market system is a commerce issue. When it comes to health of citizens the government cannot leave it to the free market. When poisons were found in jars of tylenol the government could say that the free market will take care of it. People will just stop taking tylenol and they won't die.
You really DON'T get it, do you? Uhhhh, see above. What was said -- and has been presented countless times -- about clear dangers to public health? The tylenol scare of a while back was CLEARLY such. In fact, it was a case of mass murder, so to that extent there was a constitutional application of the commerce clause for investigation, recall of the product, etc. No one could be expected to know if the bottle they bought was laced and no telling where they would end up.
A case of smoking being permitted in privately owned businesses, does NOT (or should not, in a free society and market) fall under that type heading. There is no public safety issue involved because all the facts are known ahead of time and all the parties to the contract do so on a voluntary basis.
Quote:
well that is just pure foolishness. You can't rely on people choosing whether or not to walk into danger. That is the stupidest argument put forth in the thread thus far, and frankly it is the only solution that either of you anti banners have put forth.
To someone too dense to get it, and too contemptuous and dismissive of the average person to make their own choices and be responsible for them? Then I am not surprised it would seem a stupid argument. And to cease the gradual intrusion on freedoms that not all that long ago were simply taken for granted.
I bet you are the type who does not see the larger significance of that, to avoid lawsuits these days, some places are having to warn their customers that the coffee is hot and if they spill it, it could burn them! ROFLMAO And that the whole phenomenon has a relationship to what is being discussed here in terms of general knowledge and personal responsibility?
Quote:
5. Off topic.
I said so earlier on my last work break when I replied. I mistyped. Minimum wage laws are not relevent here.
Sheesh. It's the inevitable "But that's what they do in California" argument. We don't want to be like California. The State of Texas is doing massive budget cuts right now so we don't go bankrupt like California.
Many bars in Austin, like for example Antone's and the Saxon Pub, saw revenue drops of up to 40% in the months following the smoking ban. Business will eventually come back if the business can survive that period. When those facts were presented during the anti-smoking hearings last Legislative session, the anti-smokers had an Economist who claimed that Austin business losses were because people were out Christmas shopping instead of drinking in bars. Oh, right.
It's easy for you to say to business that they should wait one year for business to come back. It's not your income that is at stake.
Well said and exactly right! This is pretty much what I was going to say, but you got there first. In any event, yep, I hear that no customer loss counter-argument quite a bit. Hey, look, they say, usually in a smug tone, after a ban was passed in such and such a place, there was no loss of revenue.
How arrogant and condecending! And completely misses the larger points and principles. It doesn't matter if the business loses, gains, stays even, or whatever. The fact is, unless there is a crime being committed or some hidden danger to public safety, then let the business owner decide how to run his business. It is none of anybody elses business (pun intended).
The real fear would appear to be that if business owners are allowed to make their own decisions about whether smoking or not (or allowing perfume or not, or cooking with trans-fats or salt or not) were allowed, based on the choices of the adult customers and where they choose to spend their money, that there would be no businesses where the non-smoking, non-trans-fat, non-salt ban proponents could go to eat. Now, why would that fear exist as it so obviously does, because otherwise there would be no reason for seeking legislation?
The only answer is that those advocating these bans fear that thinking adults, left to make their own choices as free adults, would choose in such droves to patronize the establishments that allow smoking, etc., that soon there would be no places for them to go out to eat.
If that is, indeed, the fear (and it's pretty obvious it is or they wouldn't be in such a froth to pass laws against places existing that they don't want to go in, they'd be comfortable letting the market decide), then it becomes even more clear (if HtownLove hadn't made the arrogance so perfectly obvious by stating it outright) that the true goal is to make decisions for everyone else because they disagree with your take on life and that, that, is the thing that is truly unacceptable, people not thinking in lockstep with you.
The real fear would appear to be that if business owners are allowed to make their own decisions about whether smoking or not (or allowing perfume or not, or cooking with trans-fats or salt or not) were allowed, based on the choices of the adult customers and where they choose to spend their money, that there would be no businesses where the non-smoking, non-trans-fat, non-salt ban proponents could go to eat. Now, why would that fear exist as it so obviously does, because otherwise there would be no reason for seeking legislation?
The only answer is that those advocating these bans fear that thinking adults, left to make their own choices as free adults, would choose in such droves to patronize the establishments that allow smoking, etc., that soon there would be no places for them to go out to eat.
If that is, indeed, the fear (and it's pretty obvious it is or they wouldn't be in such a froth to pass laws against places existing that they don't want to go in, they'd be comfortable letting the market decide), then it becomes even more clear (if HtownLove hadn't made the arrogance so perfectly obvious by stating it outright) that the true goal is to make decisions for everyone else because they disagree with your take on life and that, that, is the thing that is truly unacceptable, people not thinking in lockstep with you.
Comrade HorseLady your opinions are subversive.
You have been scheduled for re-education in Siberia.
Your train leaves in the morning!
Lol Lol!!!!........................................... ..............
Why can't they understand that if you ask someone to please please please shoot me in the head and that person does shoot you in the head, then that person will still be going to jail for murder even though the dead person consented to be shot in the head.
What is the world are you saying here? How is murder even remotely applicable to all this?
Quote:
The government has to maintain order and has to protect the health and welfare of its citizens first and foremost.
That whole free market, don't patronize dangerous areas thing is just bullcrap. It is the government's Duty to regulate dangerous places open to the public.
To what extent does "government" have an obligation to protect the "health and welfare" of its citizens? Against any and all dangers, even those anyone alive and with an IQ over 50 and can read simple signs ought to be aware of? To provide a guaranteed income?
I guess when some people grow up they just substitute Big Brother and Nanny State for their mommy and daddy to hold their hands and guide them thru all the potential hazards in life (in some case, it could be the latter told them to grow up or get out! hee hee).
But anyway, backtracking about the protection role, that is why it is illegal to commit dangerous acts involving innocent people even in your own private home. This indicates that since it is obvious you mean that allowing smoking makes a place inherently dangerous, then there is no reason it cannot be restricted in ones private home, correct?
But ok, let's leave that one alone for the moment. Really, the question is, do you consider a private business which permits smoking an inherently dangerous place and, if so, such ought to be common knowledge?
Comrade HorseLady your opinions are subversive.
You have been scheduled for re-education in Siberia.
Your train leaves in the morning!
Lol Lol!!!!........................................... ..............
Right,
She thinks irregardless is proper English.
Sounds like she needs educating before
re-education.
scout2009, did you read the entire Merriam-Webster entry on irregardless?
Here you go
irregardless 946 up, 217 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffx "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude ******* will correct you.
Wife: "Irregardless is not a word, dummy"
Husband: "Kiss my ass *****! I'm still going to the strip club tonight!"
by Dwayne Boyd Aug 12, 2005 share this 2. irregardless 483 up, 100 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
A word used by uneducated people intending to sound intelligent. Often, the defendant will use this word in court in an attempt to impress the judge and jury. Educated people notice and those who use this word instantly identify themselves to educated people as being uneducated. Educated people rarely correct them because it helps educated people more easily identify them if they are well groomed.
Uh... yes your Honor.... Irregardless of the the evidence, I was not the young man in the security video. earregardlessmoronidiotstupidblahblahh
by sanjac1836 Feb 2, 2008 share this 3. irregardless 372 up, 146 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
this is not a ****ing word... Wtf
Irregardless of what u think this is not a word.
irregardless 946 up, 217 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffx "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude ******* will correct you.
Wife: "Irregardless is not a word, dummy"
Husband: "Kiss my ass *****! I'm still going to the strip club tonight!"
by Dwayne Boyd Aug 12, 2005 share this 2. irregardless 483 up, 100 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
A word used by uneducated people intending to sound intelligent. Often, the defendant will use this word in court in an attempt to impress the judge and jury. Educated people notice and those who use this word instantly identify themselves to educated people as being uneducated. Educated people rarely correct them because it helps educated people more easily identify them if they are well groomed.
Uh... yes your Honor.... Irregardless of the the evidence, I was not the young man in the security video. earregardlessmoronidiotstupidblahblahh
by sanjac1836 Feb 2, 2008 share this 3. irregardless 372 up, 146 downbuy irregardless mugs, tshirts and magnets
this is not a ****ing word... Wtf
Irregardless of what u think this is not a word.
I guess you didn't, then, even though it was linked to earlier. (Not the Wikipedia entry, the Merriam-Webster entry, you know, the dictionary.)
So, since you chose to answer the question with what is, in essence, a non sequitor, and since getmeoutofhere chose to post a selection of the entry while ignoring the part that was most pertinent. I'll post the entire Merriam-Webster entry for you. I do find it amusing that you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, though. Seems a bit desperate to me, as if you have no valid argument to put forth on the topic and so are reduced to this.
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
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.
Uhhhh, see above. What was said -- and has been presented countless times -- about clear dangers to public health? The tylenol scare of a while back was CLEARLY such. In fact, it was a case of mass murder, so to that extent there was a constitutional application of the commerce clause for investigation, recall of the product, etc. No one could be expected to know if the bottle they bought was laced and no telling where they would end up. 
