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.
WiseG, that is just silly. Our economy and society would easily survive and even be better if the death causing cigarettes were wiped from the earth. While it is true that the exhaust from combustion engines are bad for the health, they are crucial to our survival. Cigarettes are not. Simple as that.
WiseG, that is just silly. Our economy and society would easily survive and even be better if the death causing cigarettes were wiped from the earth. While it is true that the exhaust from combustion engines are bad for the health, they are crucial to our survival. Cigarettes are not. Simple as that.
No, it is not silly at all. What a lot of people seem to be missing (and yeah, I realize this is all a matter of underlying ideology) is that if government can regulate one thing in the name of "public health" it can do so in another. And there is no logical reason why it cannot eventually involve perfume, salt, and exhaust fumes.
But anyway, you cannot "wipe" cigarettes off the face of the earth anymore than one can wipe out beer. Nature provides the ingredients (hops and tobacco) and people take pleasure in consuming them. And that has been the case for thousands of years. Prohibition in either realm is just naive and a fools errand.
To repeat, I quit smoking quite a few years ago because I could tell it was affecting my heath and it is a dangerous and filthy habit. But that is not the point. The point is -- and I realize some don't accept it -- that as concerns the issue at hand -- people can easily avoid second-hand smoke by simply not going into places where it is allowed.
Maybe I am the dense one...but I just cannot understand for the life of me why that concept is so outrageous.
How long have you been a Texan, thenewtexan? Most of the Texans I know are for personal freedom and individual responsibility first. It's sort of a tradition in this state.
I am a native Texan. In fact, I'm a seventh generation Texan. My g,g,g,grandfather's name is etched in stone at San Jacinto. We Texans have a real history of setting ourselves apart. We don't do what others do just to do it. But we also know a good idea when we see it. We protect our own but most importantly we protect our rights!
That is why I am in favor of a smoking ban in public. I don't care what you do in your private homes, but when your actions interfere with my rights then we have a problem. It has been compared a thousand different ways but people still don't get it. Just like I don't have the right (without prosecution) to walk into a bar and hit you in the head with a baseball bat, neither should you have the right to poison the air in which I breath solely for your own pleasure.
No, it is not silly at all. What a lot of people seem to be missing (and yeah, I realize this is all a matter of underlying ideology) is that if government can regulate one thing in the name of "public health" it can do so in another. And there is no logical reason why it cannot eventually involve perfume, salt, and exhaust fumes.
But anyway, you cannot "wipe" cigarettes off the face of the earth anymore than one can wipe out beer. Nature provides the ingredients (hops and tobacco) and people take pleasure in consuming them. And that has been the case for thousands of years. Prohibition in either realm is just naive and a fools errand.
To repeat, I quit smoking quite a few years ago because I could tell it was affecting my heath and it is a dangerous and filthy habit. But that is not the point. The point is -- and I realize some don't accept it -- that as concerns the issue at hand -- people can easily avoid second-hand smoke by simply not going into places where it is allowed.
Maybe I am the dense one...but I just cannot understand for the life of me why that concept is so outrageous.
I'd love to see cigarettes wiped from the face of the Earth, but I know that won't happen and quite frankly, I don't care what you do in your home or personal car.
As you say, I cannot understand for the life of me why this is such a hard concept... smokers can simply go outside or to their private homes or cars if they wish to smoke. It is done just like that all over the world and society has yet to collapse. Nor has salt, perfume, or exhaust been banned.
It appears we might have to re-visit a few things that have been discussed earlier on this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrilllr
I am a native Texan. In fact, I'm a seventh generation Texan. My g,g,g,grandfather's name is etched in stone at San Jacinto. We Texans have a real history of setting ourselves apart. We don't do what others do just to do it. But we also know a good idea when we see it. We protect our own but most importantly we protect our rights!
I tip my my (imaginary) hat and/or extend my hand in mutual recognition of your Texas ancestry. I myself am only 4th generation!
But that has nothing to do with it. You mention protecting "our rights"? Well, to my way of thinking, a Texan respects private property rights. We are not California nor Massacusetts. Our whole history is shot thru (pun intended) with resistance to an over-bearing government. If I own a business, and want to allow smoking, it is none of any body elses business. They can simply stay out of my joint. Likewise, if I don't want to permit smoking? Then smokers can keep out of it as well.
Quote:
That is why I am in favor of a smoking ban in public. I don't care what you do in your private homes, but when your actions interfere with my rights then we have a problem. It has been compared a thousand different ways but people still don't get it. Just like I don't have the right (without prosecution) to walk into a bar and hit you in the head with a baseball bat, neither should you have the right to poison the air in which I breath solely for your own pleasure.
No, YOU don't get it. Nor seem to care to. If you or I hit one another over the head with a baseball bat then it is criminal assault. If, on the other hand, you willingly go into a place which you know ahead of time allows smoking? Then you consented (in a sense) to the assault you might claim was inflicted on you.
What is so dad-gum hard to get about that if you don't want to breathe second-hand smoke? (and I dont either), then just dont go into a place it is allowed.
A truly public place like a library, courthouse, hospitial, etc? I have no problem at all with banning smoking. Not in the least. We agree here.
On a closely related tangent (which has also been brought up before), most private places do not permit smoking anymore, anyway. Public pressure and such has accomplished the task. Government isn't needed to do what the free market permits and has done. But if a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc, wants to allow it? Then go elsewhere. If someone can't take that much responsibility for their own health, then I honestly don't know what to say.
I'd love to see cigarettes wiped from the face of the Earth, but I know that won't happen and quite frankly, I don't care what you do in your home or personal car.
That is nice to know that you don't care what I do in my personal home and car. How magnanimous of you! On the other hand, if I want to allow smoking in a bar I own, what business is it of yours?
Quote:
As you say, I cannot understand for the life of me why this is such a hard concept... smokers can simply go outside or to their private homes or cars if they wish to smoke. It is done just like that all over the world and society has yet to collapse. Nor has salt, perfume, or exhaust been banned.
And non-smokers can just choose not to go into a privately owned place where smoking is allowed. What is so hard to understand about that (as I asked earlier)?
Au contraire about bans on salt, fat, etc. If you don't believe it is not already happening, then you have not read the news. It has and there is no stopping it once the precedent is in place for government (at whatever level) to start banning whatever in the name of public health. Anyone who thinks othewise is, I am sorry and don't mean to give offence, an ostrich.
A truly public place like a library, courthouse, hospitial, etc? I have no problem at all with banning smoking. Not in the least. We agree here.
On a closely related tangent (which has also been brought up before), most private places do not permit smoking anymore, anyway. Public pressure and such has accomplished the task. Government isn't needed to do what the free market permits and has done. But if a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc, wants to allow it? Then go elsewhere. If someone can't take that much responsibility for their own health, then I honestly don't know what to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
On the other hand, if I want to allow smoking in a bar I own, what business is it of yours?
And non-smokers can just choose not to go into a privately owned place where smoking is allowed. What is so hard to understand about that (as I asked earlier)?
Your whole argument rests on the belief that PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMODATION are private, but the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive branch expressly said that they are not. I think I am going to go with the Supreme Court and the two other branches on this. If all the Branches of Government has agreed on this for 200 years, don't you think its time to tackle this from a new angle?
Your whole argument rests on the belief that PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMODATION are private, but the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive branch expressly said that they are not. I think I am going to go with the Supreme Court and the two other branches on this. If all the Branches of Government has agreed on this for 200 years, don't you think its time to tackle this from a new angle?
Geez, HTlove. We have been over this countless times before. We all KNOW what the legalities are and what the rulings have been. That is nothing new at all.
I consider you a good friend and respect your intelligence and viewpoint, but but please stop speaking to me (and others who take the same position) as if we are a bunch of imbeciles who do not understand the nuances between truly public, places of public accomodation, and private homes. And what the courts have ruled on concerning the same. We all know that.
I'd be proud to buy you a beer (in a non-smoking bar, even! LOL) and discuss all this...but it gets annoying as hell that -- it seems to me -- some can't see the forest for the trees, Gosh darnit. LOL
It doesn't make a solitary fiddlers' damn that there is a difference in second-hand smoke and perfume. Nor chicken-fat, salt or soda or snowy white bullsh*t. Once the precedent is set for government to start blurring the lines between what a private business can do in the name of public health, then there is no stopping point.
You can say there is a huge difference in second-hand smoke and salt and perfume, and I would agree. But that don't mean that the "Health Police" and the zealots out there will give it a flying you know what about it.
And hell, HT...and this kinda concerns me about you. You yourself have even said (unless I truly misunderstood you), that you see yourself as a person who has an obligation to protect the health of others for their own good.
If I misunderstood, then I will apologize. But if I didn't? Then, we are just going to have to go after it from our own respective visions and may the best man win!
Geez, HTlove. We have been over this countless times before. We all KNOW what the legalities are and what the rulings have been. That is nothing new at all.
I consider you a good friend and respect your intelligence and viewpoint, but but please stop speaking to me (and others who take the same position) as if we are a bunch of imbeciles who do not understand the nuances between truly public, places of public accomodation, and private homes. And what the courts have ruled on concerning the same. We all know that.
I'd be proud to buy you a beer (in a non-smoking bar, even! LOL) and discuss all this...but it gets annoying as hell that -- it seems to me -- some can't see the forest for the trees, Gosh darnit. LOL
It doesn't make a solitary fiddlers' damn that there is a difference in second-hand smoke and perfume. Nor chicken-fat, salt or soda or snowy white bullsh*t. Once the precedent is set for government to start blurring the lines between what a private business can do in the name of public health, then there is no stopping point.
You can say there is a huge difference in second-hand smoke and salt and perfume, and I would agree. But that don't mean that the "Health Police" and the zealots out there will give it a flying you know what about it.
And hell, HT...and this kinda concerns me about you. You yourself have even said (unless I truly misunderstood you), that you see yourself as a person who has an obligation to protect the health of others for their own good.
If I misunderstood, then I will apologize. But if I didn't? Then, we are just going to have to go after it from our own respective visions and may the best man win!
well for one the entire argument rests on the assertion that bars are private, in legal terms they are not. You can think it is annoying that I repeat it, but I have to it is the fatal flaw in your argument and you cannot get around it.
If a case was to come out that said otherwise I may have to change my stance, but until then you need a new argument
As for my obligation to personally protect my fellow citizens, You miss quoted me. I don't give a damn. My quote was that the GOVERNMENT has a responsibility to protect the health of the citizens
well for one the entire argument rests on the assertion that bars are private, in legal terms they are not. You can think it is annoying that I repeat it, but I have to it is the fatal flaw in your argument and you cannot get around it.
And you keep missing the point that yes, we all know, in terms of SCOTUS and federal court rulings, yes -- in many cases, they are.
You can quote the case law until hell freezes over, but what you keep missing is that we all KNOW what case law says. What we are arguing is that the said case law has been decided wrongly. That it goes against basic considerations and understanding of private property rights, individual responsibility, and common sense and traditional notions of freedom.
Quote:
If a case was to come out that said otherwise I may have to change my stance, but until then you need a new argument
See above. C'mon HT...are you so blinded by the pure cold writings of court opinions that you cant see anything beyond that? I am reminded of that old quote/passage that says, in effect, "If the law says that, then the law is an ass."
Quote:
As for my obligation to personally protect my fellow citizens, You miss quoted me. I don't give a damn. My quote was that the GOVERNMENT has a responsibility to protect the health of the citizens
I didnt quote you at all, but I stand by the general thrust of what I said. That is to say, you indicated you felt you had a personal obligation to protect others from their own bad habits.
I will have to go back and look up what you said, but at this moment, I don't have time. Government? What the hell is government except the sum total of those individuals who work for the government in some form or fashion? And that in taking on that "obligation" they must consistently create new problems to justify their own salaries. That is the nature of the beast.
Did it ever occur to you that some of us out here do not WANT government to be our Big Brother and nanny sugar-tit?
Government has a responsiblity (if so delegated to the power) to protect people against hazards that the individual cannot be reasonably expected to discern for themselves, yes.
For instance, if someone goes into a place to eat, drink, and be merry, and a fire breaks out and the business has intentionally violate fire codes and/or does not provide proper escape routes? Then yes, I can understand for sure they would be liable.
But if a notice is posted on the door than smoking is permitted? And you go into it anyway? Who the hell's fault is if you choke or cough or whatever else results from a hazard you clearly knew ahead of time could be the consequence?
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all. And once again, once we start down that path, believing government is our protector, then there is no logical stopping point.
Last edited by TexasReb; 04-17-2011 at 01:18 PM..
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.
