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.
Ok. I understand where you are coming from. Therefore, I will attempt to keep my reply on this somewhat brief. For one thing, you have pretty well explained where you stand in terms of admitting you have an agenda and what that agenda is. The afore can be generally summed up as one who supports the establishment of a Nanny State; and an intrinsic part of this desire/outlook in your instance is that you put little stock in other people being able to make "proper" choices.
To wit: That most people really don't know what is best for them and incapable of making adult decisions and accepting responsibility for their choices. Therefore, you believe the role of government is to do it for them by gradually enroaching on private property/business rights and decisions.
Naturally, to be activated, directed, and mandated -- of course -- by those like you who posssess superior knowledge and insights into what would really be best for all concerned.
The "scientific evidence" for all you say on "environmental smoke" has been challenged and either questioned or outright disputed as to methodology used. Other posters have provided it.
Of course you do. See opening paragraph as to what motivates it...at least IMHO.
First of all, Suzy, to start from the bottom, I am sorry if I do not see "action movies" as a good argument in either direction. LOL
The real point is that there is a common sense (operative term here) difference between public safety and public health. The former can generally be defined as regulating certain things that are abosolutely obvious and common-sensical (such as lighting a cigarette at a gas pump)...and controlling certain things the average patron to a business cannot be expected to discern for themselves. Examples are using tainted meat, or violating reasonable fire codes with faulty wiring and such. These things, at the spectrum, are what most would consider reasonable restrictions because they are either an obvious outright danger to everyone around them, or potentially deadly when the patron had no way of knowing aforehand.
This is not in the least comparable with a private business owner permitting smoking on his/her own premises and it be known ahead of time and the customer enter of their own choice. But of course, we know where you stand on classical notion of freedom and people being able to make their own decisions, right?
That last part (bolded) was a great emotional sound-byte, but that is all it is. A non-smoker (for the purposes of this thread) has a choice whether or not to enter a bar, motel, restaurant that permits smoking.
[If legislatures can establish fire codes that prevent smoking near gas pumps, they can establish codes that prevent indoor smoking.
This general concept has been repeatedly addressed...but some still don't seem to grasp the Big Picture. But hey? I will say at least I respect you on many levels for frankly stating you have an agenda and view the government as a tool for bringing about a Nanny State. So in that regard, at least, I can debate you on a different plane.
At the same time though, a shared feature with the "useful idiot types" is the advancement of the argument that just because "The Law" allows something, and has been backed up by a court, must automatically translate into that it is good, desirable, and compatible, with traditional concepts of freedom and private property rights.
I have brought this up several times, but I still am fond of "Mr. Bumble" of Oliver Twist when he said along the lines of "If the law says this, sir, then the law is an ass."
Hell, I don't blame you a bit on that one. And I doubt many others would either. However, don't you see this is much different than private businesses allowing smoking and there is no "public" usage in the sense the individuals have a choice to patronize it or not.
Sorry, but your analogy is a poor one. If a convience store gas pump had a sign that said [CIGARETTE SMOKING ALLOWED AT OUR PUMPS]? Uhhh, would any person in their right mind patronize them? This is not even counting the obvious fact that it couldn't be done anyway because of the possibility of blowing up half the block.
To backtrack again? By your own admission, you have no personal experience whatsoever in the service industry, correct? (or did I misunderstand something?). But yet you presume a superior knowledge than those who actually run one? To boot, it makes no difference with how government mandates affect the outcome of a business profit. That is not your decision to make. It is up to the owner. Or should be in a free society.
But obviously, you have no respect nor appreciation for that concept....
No, that is just YOUR interpretation of "facts"...and the so-called "facts" are questionable anyway. But you are right on one thing. Let people do it if they want to. Also, let others allow or disallow it on their own property.
Well, here is where we really go back to square one (see opening paragraph).
Not withstanding that the " hidden poison" issue has been addressed, there really isn't much more to say as we obviously proceed from different visions and premises.
Mine is -- in a nutshell -- that the role of government should be limited to protecting certain unalienable rights inherent in the existence of a free people, as well as their right to make their own social and business arrangements.
Yours -- being one of what Thomas Sowell calls the "Annointed" bunch -- is that government's role is to be the all wise and all knowing sheppard and provider. Ever protecting them, fighting their fights, and teaching they have no responsibility beyond their self-esteem concerns and immediate demands....
Sure, I have an agenda. I appears you do, too, do you not?
Your agenda is the promotion of smoking in public places.
My agenda is the protection of us all from contamination of the air we all breathe with poisonous substances.
You may decide you do not believe the science. The fact is that when smoking bans are enacted, rates of smoking related diseases go down. I will take that as strong evidence that breathing environmental tobacco smoke is indeed unsafe.
"In an attempt to reduce the incidence of heart attacks and other smoking-related illnesses, Pueblo introduced a ban 1 July 2003 on smoking in all indoor public areas within the city limits. Eighteen months later the Pueblo Public Health Department instigated an observational study to determine whether the ban had had any effect on the incidence of coronary events.
“We recorded the number of heart attacks that occurred in the city for the eighteen months before and after the introduction of the ban,” explains Mori Krantz, director of the Prevention Department of the Colorado Prevention Center in Denver, “and found a post-introduction fall of around twenty-seven percent. This was significantly greater than the small reduction we saw among the population living outside the city limits, and much greater than the virtually unchanged rate among residents of [adjacent] El Paso County, which does not have such an ordinance.”
"A reduction in admission rates for smoking-related diseases was achieved in Bowling Green compared to the control city. The largest reduction was for coronary heart disease, where rates were decreased significantly by 39% after 1 year and by 47% after 3 years following the implementation of the ordinance. ARIMA models revealed a statistically significant downward trend in monthly admission rates for coronary heart disease (Bowling Green, omega=-1.69, p=0.036 vs. Kent, omega=-1.14, p=0.183) and support the hypothesis that the ordinance had a significant impact on admission rates for coronary heart disease."
"As of January 2007, over half the U.S. population was covered by smokefree laws (American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation 2007), and such laws were spreading around the world. Besides immediately improving indoor air quality and reducing long-term risk of cardiovascular (and cancer and other diseases) (California Environmental Protection Agency 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2006), these laws immediately and substantially (27%) reduce the risk of acute myocardial infarction and other cardiovascular events. The large, consistent, and immediate effect of these laws on health further strengthens the case for passing, fully implementing and enforcing them."
Your attempt to separate public "health" and public "safety" is ludicrous. According to your theory, serving "tainted meat" is a public safety issue, but allowing cigarette smoke to pollute the air in a restaurant is not.
Despite your rhetoric, you have not presented a single argument, apart from "it's common sense" and references to "freedom" and "private property rights" to support your position.
The "right" of a minority to smoke in public does not trump the right of us all to breathe safe air. Environmental tobacco smoke is "an obvious outright danger to everyone."
By the way, I did work in a service oriented business. DH still does.
Smokers are still free to smoke. There is nothing to prevent a smoker from inviting his smoker friends into his private home to socialize and smoke together.
C'mon Suzy. You have been -- at least lately -- honest and admitting about your vision that government has a legitimate role in protecting people from their own bad choices.
I at least respect that you are upfront with it all....even if it not only means a complete rejection of traditional concepts of private property rights...but that you don't think adult Americans know what is best for them in terms of their own health choices. Nope, rather, it must be carefully controlled by those with superior morals and insights...using goverment as the sledge hammer!
As it is, really, the other poster you mention "pointed out" nothing but a superficial legal truism that is very dangerous in all its particulars. It only indicates what many of us who subsribe to Founding Father notions of true freedom are no longer of any priority nor concern. That person might not know any better in the tunnel vision and singular outlook on it all, but I know you really should/do.
So? Point is? Welllllll, let me put it this way in the form of an honest question:
Would you really object if "private homes" eventually became to fall under the auspices of "public accomodations."? Would you? And -- if not -- at what point would you draw the line?
Be honest, fer gosh sakes, as it is already happening in some locales. The initial stalking horse is almost alway in the name of protecting "our childrens health". Or, "neighbor smoke" in duplex houses. In fact, some of the Health Gestapo types are already exploring avenues (no pun intended) how to apply it to regulating smoking in private homes because pizza delivery people, home repair workers, mail carriers, etc might be "exposed" to "dangerous second-hand smoke". There is no stopping it....
Heck, just be right up front and spell it out in plain English and all and brass tacks. Which side would you take? Would you defend my right to allow smoking in my own house (keeping in mind I am not a smoker), or support the power of the government to eventually eliminate it completely in the name of a utilitarian greater good for all society?
I would support your wish to smoke in your own home, as long as you confined your smoke to your own residence.
In the setting of communal living, such as apartment complexes, if it is impossible to avoid poisoning the air someone else breathes, I would support a ban.
If a smoking parent is making his child sick, such as causing a child with asthma to be repeatedly hospitalized, I would support removing the child from the home until the smoker quit or switched to some other form of nicotine. I cannot fathom smoking around a child, anyway.
Note that the ban is only necessary if the smoker cannot alter his behavior to avoid harming other people.
The smoker does not have the right to harm another person with his smoke.
I believe government should do all it can to encourage and help smokers quit. But, you know, these days people who cannot quit do have other options when they are in public. Lghting up a cigarette is not necessary.
I saw some info about a condo complex...where some entire buildings within the complex were smoke-free...whether you owned or rented a unit.
Smoke-free units are popular for obvious reasons, and is a common policy. But there is a difference between a unit you own or rent, and a public accommodation.
So for the right-winger/freedom-lovers on here...Do you agree or disagree that smoking is bad? Do you agree or disagree that the gov't has taken steps to reduce/discourage smoking?
So for the right-winger/freedom-lovers on here...Do you agree or disagree that smoking is bad? Do you agree or disagree that the gov't has taken steps to reduce/discourage smoking?
Yes, smoking is bad. But, second hand smoke is not nearly so dangerous as it's been hyped to be. The science is flawed and tailored to fit the anti-smoking agenda. But, don't take my word for it. Be an informed citizen and dig out the research protocol's yourself. You might be surprised.
Yes, government has taken steps to reduce/discourage smoking. Of course it has.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think government has gone too far? Why, or why not?
Yes, smoking is bad. But, second hand smoke is not nearly so dangerous as it's been hyped to be. The science is flawed and tailored to fit the anti-smoking agenda. But, don't take my word for it. Be an informed citizen and dig out the research protocol's yourself. You might be surprised.
Yes, government has taken steps to reduce/discourage smoking. Of course it has.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think government has gone too far? Why, or why not?
How do you know that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous. And to me dangerous is dangerous. The degree of it wouldn't matter. And yes, science is flawed. I don't think they really know anything for sure since they keep changing their minds about things. What's bad for you 1 minute may actually be good for you or so they say There is so much scientific info out there...pro and con. Who's to say which one is the right one.
I think government efforts to reduce smoking are appropriate.
I do not think government has gone too far.
Could you provide a link to the best study you feel supports your position that second hand smoke is not harmful?
I didn't say it's not harmful. I said it's not nearly so dangerous as it's made out to be. No more dangerous that a lot of other carcinogen's you're exposed to on a daily basis and not AS dangerous as some.
I've already given one example right here in this discussion. Post #403, on page 41. There are plenty of others and it only takes a little effort and Google skills to find them.
How do you know that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous. And to me dangerous is dangerous. The degree of it wouldn't matter. And yes, science is flawed. I don't think they really know anything for sure since they keep changing their minds about things. What's bad for you 1 minute may actually be good for you or so they say There is so much scientific info out there...pro and con. Who's to say which one is the right one.
If the science is flawed and/or questionable, should we be making public policy based upon it?
And, if dangerous is dangerous at any degree, where is the outrage for every other little thing which might harm you and where is the demand for government action to protect you? Why just smoking?
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.
